Act of “kindness” or simple misogyny?

I recently heard of a female professional, who had been removed from the decision making process on a project without her knowledge. She was removed, without being consulted, because her older, male colleague “knew she was busy with her baby”.

Excuse me, but what could he possibly know about her needs, unless he spoke with her first? I know that for some women, becoming a mum takes up all their time, and all they want to do is taking care of their baby. For others, going back to work is a free choice, something they really want and need, not just for the money, but for their own sake. They want, and need, to continue a life where they are not “mum” all the time. And unless they are asking for a reduced workload, who is to decide what is best for them?

Maybe this male professor thought he was being nice, but the truth is, he wasn’t. He was infantilizing his younger, female colleague, deciding in his own mind what was best for her. This is a very old fashioned way of thinking about professional life and motherhood at best, misogynistic at worst.

I have met men who thinks that women should be the primary caretaker of the children, and of the home. Well, I still haven’t seen any scientific proof that says that women are, by nature, better caretakers than men. It’s all about how we are raised, and the so-called values that society pass on from one generation to the next.

When I ask these men why women should be the primary caretaker regarding children, they don’t manage to present me with a good answer. It’s more like “it’s the way it is”, or “it’s the way it’s always been”.

Well, they might be right in the way that it’s been like this for a long time, but who decided in the first place that this should be the norm? Women have been working since the beginning, in the fields, in the mills, in the guest houses, later in the factories, the schools, the hospitals, and in the offices. In addition, most of them are also the main responsible for the childcare and housework. Yes, it’s a big burden to carry.

But instead of a man making decisions, once again, about what women need or want, they should ask themselves how both parties can have a career and a family life, without one getting burned out, or one having to cut down on work to manage family logistics.

It might come as a surprise to some men, but many women would also like to advance in their career, without sacrificing having a family, or without having to employ someone else to take care of their children and house.

There’s a lot of talk about the importance of the mother’s presence in the early years of a child’s life, but equally important is the presence of the father. Children need several role figures in their lives, they need to see that gender is not what defines a persons ability to take care of them. When we keep reproducing the old fashioned stereotype that women should be home with the children, while the father is working, things will never change.

As different families have different needs at different times in life, I do favour free choice. But what concerns me, is that most of the time, this “free choice” results in women reducing their work time, or quitting all together, while the man continues like nothing has changed. (Having children is a true gamechanger!) Or he might even have to work more to compensate for the increased expenses coming with having children.

Which brings me to another point, the fact that men are systematically better paid than women. If you can’t afford childcare, and one parent has to stay home with the kids, who’s it gonna be? The one that earns less is the obvious choice. You don’t need to go to Harvard or Oxford to get that.

But why is it that women is systematically less paid? Is it another old fashioned thought behind? Stemming from the days pay was related to physical strength? And then continued when women started to work in offices, but only unmarried women were employable? Because they were forced to quit when they married, as from then on their responsibilities would be to care for their husband, their children and their home. Unmarried women back then usually lived with their parents, and like that less expenses, justifying less pay.

Also of importance is the way work-life is organised. You don’t get kids to put them in other peoples care from 7 in the morning till 7-8 in the evening. That means you never really see your kids awake. The less flexible working hours, the less people can make free choices when organising their private life. The Nordic countries have done a lot to accommodate work-life to family life, while most other countries still require that family life is adapted to work-life. Which in reality gives a lot of people little choice on how to manage their family life.

Still, when both parents manage to hold a job, and juggle as best they can, how arrogant is it for a male colleague to decide that his female colleague should be excluded from important aspects of their common project? She didn’t make any mistakes, didn’t complain about her work-load, she didn’t miss any deadlines. In my opinion his decision can’t be explained rationally, or justified. I worry for every woman returning to work after having a baby, because they risk being cut loose simply because “they are busy with a baby”. I have read stories about women coming back to work after giving birth, to find that their job is not really existing any more. Which is a cruel way to exclude them from the work-place.

This “a woman’s true place is in the home”-mentality has to change. Not just for the sake of women, but also for the sake of men. All the things they miss out on, because they have to work, work and work. And so much talent is wasted because women are pushed out of work-life.

We need both women and men in the work-place, as well as at home. Male executives, STOP making decisions over our heads, we are totally capable of taking care of ourselves, and we are damned good at logistics. Instead, work with us to change old fashioned mindsets and outdated structures in public policies and work-place policies. Men will benefit from it as much as women. Trust me.

Bombs don’t make peace

We see it again and again, world leaders thinking, for some obscure reason, that bombs can make peace. Well, they don’t!

Did Putin get what he wanted when he launched his “quick invasion” of Ukraine? No! Instead the war is still dragging on, two and a half years later. Do Putin really think that he’s going to enter the history books as the leader who managed to restore the Russian empire? No, he’s going to to be listed as a man abusing his power, a leader crushing down all opposition among his fellow countrymen and -women, one who ignore human rights and who prosecute LGBTQIA+ people and whomever speaks against him. A leader that waged war on a neighbouring country without provocation.

In addition, Putin is every so often threatening to use nuclear weapons. What would happen if he do? It will only escalate the conflict further, and a peace treaty will no longer be possible. The retaliations against Russia would be severe. And again, he will certainly not appear in the history books as a great leader, but the one crazy man that pressed the red button.

Do the Israeli government lead by prime minister Nethanyahu create peace with their invasion of Gaza? And more resent their invasion and bombing of South Lebanon? Do Nethanyahu and his cabinet think that by killing tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon, in their hunt for Hamas, that they will obtain any kind of peace and security for the Israeli people any time soon? NO! All they do is escalating the conflict.

I strongly condemn the Hamas attack on Israel October 7, 2023, their killings and taking of hostages. I also strongly condemn the continuous attack on Gaza by the Israelis.

The only thing they are going to achieve by this war on the Palestinians, is creating more hate, more Palestinians turning against them, willing to sacrifice themselves for a free Palestine.

The Israelis continue to bomb hospitals and schools where people has taken up refuge, because their homes are destroyed, the refuge camps are not safe, in their hunt for Hamas. So far more than 41 500 Palestinians have died, the great majority civilians. In comparison, the Israeli has lost 1 706 people. I don’t like to compare numbers like this, but it shows the efficiency of the Israeli army compared to their opponent.

Now the situation is getting even more dangerous, as Iran is about to be involved as well. We are on the verge of a full scale war in the Middle-East, a war that is only going to create more hatred and conflict, and no peace.

The Israeli government, led by Nethanyahu, has given the green light for more illegal settlements. They are still pushing on Palestinian land, imposing restrictions on their movements, blocking supplies. And this was before the war started. What do they think they will accomplish? That the Palestinians would surrender and say, OK, you win, we move? As long as Israeli politics are formed and carried out in a way that threatens the existence of the Palestinian state, Israel will never be safe either. How hard is that to understand?

With all this said about the Israeli response to the October 7 attacks by Hamas, I don’t understand what the latter thought they would obtain either, except for severe retaliations by the Israelis. Did they think that Israel would “surrender” after the attack? What on earth were they thinking? In one way, we might say that it was Hamas that brought all the destructions on Gaza, on it’s own people. They knew for sure that Israel would react. How could they not? If my neighbour starts shooting at me, am I not forced to protect myself? How come Hamas launched this attack, fully aware of the possible retaliations? Hamas also knew that the population of Gaza has literally nowhere to go, nowhere where it’s safe. It is pure cowardice to use women and children as shields. The Palestinians suffered enough as it was, for Hamas to bring this war on them by their actions. Again, acts of war don’t make peace.

Unfortunately, as long as there are people on either side that has no interest in a peaceful solution, the situation will never be solved. We all thought peace between Palestine and Israel would become a reality after the signing of the Oslo Agreement in 1993 and the Oslo Agreement II in 1995. It was supposed to be a first step towards a peaceful co-existence between Palestine and Israel. There were people on both sides that were not happy with the outlines in these agreements, but negotiations were supposed to carry on. When the Likud party (Israel) won the elections in 1996, the agreement was put aside, and negotiations halted.

Since then the situation has become more severe, until this last devastating escalation. Peace has never been further away. I don’t know how the situation can be solved, neither in the Middle-East or in Ukraine, but one thing is for sure, bombs don’t make peace.

Image by Banksy