|
COMPETENCE For too many years, too much time, women were thought weaker than men. Inferior because of that weakness. The legacy of history and tradition would still imprint such birthright in our time, for there is no question -- women are, comparatively, weaker. There are, of course, larger women who can do and smaller men who cannot, but an average woman is physically weaker than an average man. To extend this weakness beyond the physical and presume a general inferiority is both insult and error. The records of history bear adequate testimony to accomplishments of women and easily dismiss the illusion of inferiority. It is not surprising that men have nursed this illusion and based it on those female qualities too long linked with weakness. The ability to compromise, for instance ... not a good thing for generals, for to give up any ground is to retreat. Or, compassion ... an obvious weakness, for war is not meant to be kind -- spare an enemy today and he may kill you tomorrow. Such mindset holds equal disregard for other qualities more common to women and, thus, humanity. No one can deny that all wars result from the volatile male ego. Testiness of testosterone. How many kingdoms might have been spared, if only they were queendoms? How many lives, property, collective history and archives ... how much humanity might have survived if women had the rule instead of little boys? 2 In this light, the tribal mentality of the past can be seen as an exclusively male province ... with more allegiance to duty, honor, country than to people, property, peace. Old patterns are difficult to change. Long and sturdy roots go deep and bring forth fruit still shaped by man's misperception of woman as inferior. Policy structures enforced by tradition and male control have remained firmly in place, though some progress has been made. A fortunate few women have fought and won their place at the higher ranks of power and wealth. But the rest remain still imprisoned by the glass ceiling which allows a view of the top, yet prohibits its reach. Despite female qualification often superior to that of a male competitor, it is still too usual for that competitor to advance, and only because he is male. Such philosophy is ultimately deficient because it discriminates unreasonably against an entire class, from within whose ranks may possibly rise the savior of a group or company. "Affirmative action," in this or other instance, must then be seen as self-destructive policy, for it prefers class or type over merit. And business, to be successful, needs to fill positions well, not just to fill them. It also needs to salary those positions indiscriminately such that merit, again, is the only guide. To reward one class above another for the same work is another example of discrimination ultimately vexatious to business. Fairness promotes prosperity not only for workers, but also for business, itself. 3 But scales can be overbalanced in the other direction, too. Instead of policy too discriminate, it is often indiscriminate. The decision that is "politically correct" may be practically foolish. Despite an egalitarian impulse to welcome all applicants, everyone is not right for every job. This becomes quickly apparent when the bar of qualification for all past applicants must suddenly be lowered for those now unable to reach it. For positions in the private sector, business in the main which does not immediately determine welfare of the public, such hiring decisions will be of slight consequence. But to lower the bar of standards for those jobs meant to protect the public is clearly to imperil that public. The fireman sent to quell the inferno of your residence must be fit enough to control a forceful hose, to pull down a wall or carry succumbing comrades to safety. The policeman, only if strong, large or otherwise weighty in authoritative stance, will be equally able in his role. And our national defenders in the military sector must also have the minimal fitness required for proper discharge of their duties. To lower minimal standards in order to accommodate incompetence in these and other positions vital to the public welfare is surely invitation to compromise of that welfare and a violation of the public trust. 4 clear, even if that specific weakness reasonably extends to an entire class. Competence, alone, determines. Those who cannot meet or exceed past standards of qualification for a particular role are clearly inferior to the demands of that role. Proper judgment of candidate, in the end, is not discriminatory ... it is imperative. |