Tail of the Tigress: Views on the Road to Gender Equality

Turner

INTRODUCTION

Premature girls are almost twice more likely to survive than premature boys. It’s a statistic. Nice and clean and unemotional.

Now let’s put this statistic more graphically: imagine a hospital with a Premature Baby Unit with two identical wards. Each ward has one hundred premature babies in it.

In one ward all the babies are girls; in the other ward all the babies are boys.

In the ward where you have the cohort of one hundred premature baby girls let’s envisage that they miraculously all survive and go home to bring everlasting joy to their parents and their families.

In the ward where you have the cohort of one hundred premature baby boys, only fifty will miraculously survive and go home to bring everlasting joy to their parents and their families.

Fifty baby boys will die; fifty sets of parents and their families will take home a lifeless body, will have to arrange a funeral; fifty sets of families will have everlasting pain and anguish.

That is the reality of a statistic. I use quite a few statistics. Like it or not, we are all a statistic – recorded by someone, somewhere. I will not let you forget that statistics mean people; people with feelings, people whose value is equal to each and every other person. People like you and me and our families and our friends.

As you read this book your views will, at some level, be changed. In all our lives, truths and propaganda have been intertwined; our perspectives are intentionally distorted. I will try to enhance your understanding of the immense and ongoing influence of both our history and everyday acts and facts, ones we have all grown accustomed to and continue to live with, whose potential for social change may either empower you or scare the hell out of you. If my premise is true, then it follows that any conclusions you draw from it must also be true.

Every era, in every civilization, has had its own comprehensive value system; a set of beliefs which that social grouping has relied upon as undeniable facts and which were backed up by what they considered substantial and irrefutable evidential proof. These truths, for each generation, formed the basis of both the legal system and their social mores. For these societies any practical change would be subject to a long, considered and incremental process; any sort of social restructuring was glacially slow. Subsequent generations may gradually learn new ways and eventually readjust values which had once been accepted; these erstwhile ‘truths’ would then become disapproved of, if not actually disproved. This model of slow incremental development had always sustained the needs of traditional societies.

As a consequence of the Second World War our technological ability – and thereby, people’s expectations – has increased. From the 1960s, the pace of development has been progressing at an exponential rate, hurtling us into the 21st century. Most of us stumble along behind – with our new gadget in one hand, an instruction manual in the other and an uncomprehending expression on our face – unable to keep up with anything more than the most basic of technological developments.

A fairly new but now well recognised phenomena that we are going to have to find a way of coping with is the ‘half-life of truth’. Harvard scholar Samuel Arbesman, has postulated that scientifically based theories, facts which were once proven to be true, are, because of rapidly advancing science and technology, quickly becoming obsolete. It is a corollary of the decay of radiation – whose potency halves over a given period. In a recent study only half of the technical information and scientific data from fifty years ago, was found to still be true today. And this does not only apply to all of the ‘hard’ sciences, it applies to the social sciences too. It is not that things are necessarily changing ‘of themselves’; rather, it is our ability to be able to see and understand things which is changing. We have to accept that we are now playing a game where the goal posts are continually moving. Potentially, 50 per cent of the facts we learned when we were at school will no longer be true for our grandchildren.

There is a new class of technocrats able to create and manipulate this technology and engineer solutions to our every need. Now they are using their technological expertise to devise solutions for problems we were not even aware that we had. We are in danger of becoming overwhelmed by the consequences of this potentially uncontrollable technological tidal wave. As the Internet gobbles up snippets of information, automatically cross-references them and then regurgitates the results around the world, it has revealed technology’s potential to evolve into an almost self-perpetuating monster – capable of becoming the master rather than being the servant.

Communications technology, primarily through television, radio and films, has had an interesting and unintentional effect. It has not just reflected differing aspects of society, it has begun recreating ‘norms’. For the millennia before such technology existed, the only ‘norms’ were within one’s own family, village or town. What happened there, in that small and isolated world, was normal. The way people behaved and dressed and lived their lives was how it was, how it should be, the only way it could be; there was no alternative. The only truth was what you saw with your own eyes. Everything else was just stories. Now, with the advent of technology, we can see live pictures and news from every region of our own country, from all over the world. We can see the portrayal of other people’s ideas; often illustrated with the benefits of CGI. We can see wild creatures on the land, in the air and under the sea; we can even look out into space and look back at Earth from space. All this whilst sat in the comfort of our own home. And that has happened in the span of one person’s lifetime.

After millennia of technological invention and discovery, at a level of complexity and speed of development capable of comprehension by most men, an elite few technocrats have become adept at creating miracles or mayhem. Traditionally we have, for instance, watched the components of a working steam engine and have had some chance of understanding it; and, more importantly, how to keep it in good working order and how to repair it when it breaks down – which it will. And now, the mobile phone in your pocket…

There is also a very realistic fear of what is being called the Digital Dark Ages; where, as technology advances at an exponential rate, systems become outmoded. There is a potential that we could lose the ability to read archived electronic files which are only a few decades old because they are stored using now obsolete formats which we have lost the ability to interpret. Digital information stored less than a generation ago could become as obscure to us as Sanskrit.

One of the early benefits of technology to emerge – since the Industrial Revolution – is the reduction in the need for so much hard manual labour and with it, the ability for dangerous procedures to be made safer. War has also, as a result, become less dependent on physical prowess, less personal and much more destructive. The strength of men and animals has been substituted by increasingly more powerful and sophisticated machines.

It is these changes in technology which have devalued the traditional strength advantage which men had over women. This has allowed women to advance their cause of equality. It has increased the credence of their rationale; because men’s strength advantage is less frequently a positive attribute, equality should become more achievable. But, it’s not the physical jobs that the feminists have in their sights…

So, through the chapters of this book I will try to look at every facet of humankind in relation to gender differences, how and why such disparities have evolved, their effects on society and society’s effects on them, facts which may be pertinent, some diverse and often overlooked snippets of information, at those ‘curved balls’ and urban myths. We will also look at those gender biased, pointed and often offensive cameos, the caricatures of both males and females which engender ridicule and which we feel both amused by and are uncomfortable with at the same time. Let’s get it all out in the open and decide what is relevant and needs to be taken into account, at both a positive or a negative level, and which are just amusing, or not so amusing, observations, diversions from the serious issue in hand. Become well informed, be amused, be annoyed but do not be dismissive without investigation. All these facts, the anecdotal misinformation, the painful sleights, they all exist; avoiding the ones which do not support your standpoint will not obliterate them, it will only confer unworthy power to them; acknowledging their existence and then dismissing them as an irrelevance is what will deny them credence.

I have begun this book with a wide and far-reaching, yet hopefully concise, historical perspective of male and female roles in traditional society, their juxtaposition and their interdependence. I then look at some of the individuals and groups who have challenged the structure and hierarchy of traditional society, particularly with respect to its gender roles, and the subsequent effects of their dissension. I look at the results of modern medical research, created using the latest technological methods of investigation, in determining the interrelationship between the physical and physiological in explaining some of the differences between males and females. Next, how our parenting, educational and social systems influence the way children grow up and their developing relationship with the society they find themselves part of. How society uses and abuses the strengths and weaknesses of men and women to better its own ends and how individuals and groups thrive or strive within those constraints – sometimes for recognition, sometimes for equality, sometimes for dominance. I provide factual information and the results of varied and various research. I paint cameos and reveal vistas. I suggest what the views might be from different perspectives. Much can be revealed by investigating everyday behaviour, rites of passage, social mores; information readily available from books and other media and, of course, from the Internet.

By linking together widespread and seemingly disjointed pearls of information, which have hitherto lain scattered across our world of information I have, hopefully, and without undue bias, shown these differences between the genders to have traditionally been both unerringly interrelated and totally interdependent.

But now, there is the potential for change. If those who advocate a restructuring of society chose to rally their followers behind their flag, to train them to be technocrats able to manipulate technology for the benefit of their cause, to be social and educational reformers, to be political activists and business magnates – at the same time as disempowering their erstwhile subjugators – society could be virtually unrecognisable within a generation or two. And who are these would-be reformers? Well, just 52 per cent of the population – that’s who!

Approximately 52 per cent of the UK population are female (just under 50 per cent worldwide). They nurtured all of us – as our mothers, grandmothers and school teachers. And now they nurture the will to become equal with men. In the far less egalitarian times of the Second World War they kept things going and produced our armaments, whilst the men were off fighting, and would have done more given the chance. When they first begun this gargantuan effort, many were not sure they would be capable of doing much of their men’s work; they soon adapted, found their strength of will, of character. Since then, technology has replaced almost all of the need for manual strength with machines and women have become educated to levels in excess of their male counterparts. Women now have the skill – but do they have the will?

To get a clear picture yourself I suggest that you will need to try to take a dispassionate, detached view; and, to control the urge to react to or to be swayed or blinkered by, upbringing, class, gender or expectation.

What I will not do is to define one absolute conclusion. It is for each of you to identify your own perspective; to make up your own mind as to where you stand. Might you choose to strive to protect the status quo from external influence and thus any subsequent change? Are you going to passively watch a slowly changing world go by, a passenger, observing in its passing one group’s manipulation by another; or, perhaps, you will decide to actively participate in creating a radical new world?

CHAPTER 1

A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

Global religions have some degree of unanimity in the belief that God created humans to populate and be masters of the world. The Hindu religion has, apparently, been in existence since the dawn of time, long before the ancestors of humankind could leave any form of record or a traceable imprint; but, there were legends and myths. There is evidence of burial sites from 100,000 years ago and of rituals including sacrifices which tend to support the existence of belief in some form of super-human creator, of gods, and therefore of religions paying homage to these deities. The Aborigines originate from around 50,000 years ago and tell of ‘Dreamtime’ – when the gods created man and everything else on Earth; their records too have been handed down verbally. Indeed the true origin of all of our history has at its source the unwritten stories, songs and poetry of our yesterdays.

Looking back at a very approximate timeline, the first texts seem to be those written in Sumerian of Gilgamesh from Babylon in about 2500 BCE; this was around the same sort of period as the Egyptian hieroglyphs and the early pyramids in Egypt. In around 2000 BCE tales of Abraham begin; he was the patriarch at the root of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The first writings of the Jewish Torah or the Christian Old Testament of the Bible, founded on the words of Moses, originate from 1500 BCE. It was 1,000 years later that Buddhism began in Asia and that the Greeks feted their numerous gods. Two thousand years ago saw the birth of Christianity and 1500 years ago was the origin of Islam.

It is the trio of Abrahamic religions who seem to be the first to have created a history of divergence and dislocation between men and women. This is the focal point where the temptation of mankind, the origins of our undoing, began. Genesis and the Quran tell us of the hierarchy of God who created the first man, Adam, in his image, of Eve, the first woman, being made from man himself for his command, support and pleasure, and of all the animals created for the benefit of mankind. And, of our inherent goodness continually under threat of being subverted by all the myriad incarnations of the Devil. In the Garden of Eden it was the Serpent who was to tempt us away from our innocence; the Quran attributes no blame specifically to Eve but according to Genesis, the Serpent chose the woman as the most easily corruptible of the couple; her duplicity was there to be exploited. And, all women are the daughters of Eve. The further inference being that men were incorruptible then, too strong a foe even for the Devil himself, both physically and morally. The serpent represents all things immoral, malevolent; the Devil incarnate. It was Eve who plucked the apple from the Tree of Knowledge and it was Eve who then tempted Adam to eat from it. It is, perhaps, surprising that the humble apple is still such a popular fruit worldwide.

For all those people who have been, from their earliest childhood, directly or indirectly influenced by any or all of the teachings of these religions, Man has been depicted as the more important figure with Woman merely created from part of him. God told Man that he was to rule over Woman. It was her actions which were the cause of them being sent from heaven to live on Earth. And, she was the one who caused the corruption of all humankind as a result of her avarice and thereby imposing on all humans a life of misery culminating in their death and, on all women, the penalty of pain in childbirth. Like some form of subliminal indoctrination, throughout history, most of our lives have been drip-fed this story of the origin of the difference between men and women. Most persons of influence in most religions are men; cause or effect?

This view of the relationship between Man and Woman has apparently been imposed by the actions of Eve; and humankind must eternally pay the price. These religions have their origins in patriarchy; a system which implicitly values Men whilst, at the same time, deliberately undervaluing Women. Given the enduring global influence of these three major religions it has never been an easy social or religious position to challenge without offending someone, somewhere.

The sponsoring, writing and nature of most forms of literature has, historically, always been dominated by men. Aristotle, from his observations of mankind and of animals thought men to be active whilst women were passive, that it was the man who gave the child its soul. Sophocles told the story of Oedipus, then Shakespeare in Hamlet of Gertrude and later, another Gertrude in D.H. Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers. All stories related to uncomfortable family relationships across genders and generations. The common theme, a woman’s existence being the root of a man’s destruction. Sigmund Freud spoke of boys being lured into a sexual love with their mothers and therefore of being in a bizarre, and potentially lethal, form of competition with their own fathers. Ergo, the Oedipus complex. And, if this perspective is true then so is a reverse-gender perspective also potentially true.

Historically, a man was seen as the authoritative head of the household and all females within that family as his property. A good wife or daughter was to be acknowledged as a reflection of a good man being at the head of the household; a bad woman or a mismanaged household was therefore seen as a poor reflection on his status as the patriarch. Boys are just men in training. In children’s literature, boys were always the heroes (although Hero from Greek mythology was actually a girl!). Males ‘do things’; females service the needs of the males in their lives. Men were able to oppress and dominate women whilst women tried, at best, to control the excesses of their menfolk.

A woman’s status, and therefore her value, had a direct correlation with her sexuality. To be alluring and capable of satisfying a man was the raison d’être of a female from puberty until the onset of the menopause. Girls were taught, by women, how to use their attractiveness and the lure of sex as a currency. Thus, during her lifetime, a woman had a fluctuating value proportionate to the potency of her sexuality. Most began their sexual lives with their value well in credit due to the rarity value of virginity and through canny exploitation of their youthful bodies quickly learned to amass a considerable cache of credits. But, as the years passed by and motherhood beckoned, a woman’s appeal and thus her reserves of sexual credit, became depleted at an ever increasing pace until as middle age approached, sexual poverty grew. With an eroded sexual value in comparison with younger women and girls, sexual bankruptcy became the unavoidable finale. An older woman behaving in a sensual manner was often seen by a younger generation as her making a desperate last bid to try to retain her sexual appeal as it was slipping away, like sand, through her ever tightening fingers. This was graphically depicted in Hamlet’s words to his mother who had swiftly married her late husband’s brother only a few weeks after Hamlet’s father’s death. The whole of his speech is a venomous attack on all women of her age and their right to feel rejuvenated and to enjoy their own sexuality and ends with his words ‘Frailty, thy name is woman’.

Whilst the erect penis and its phallic representations have traditionally denoted absolute male power and domination it is an irony that the weakness of man is that he must seek out a woman to quench his fiery lust. And, in so doing, it is she who devours his manhood as her body sucks out the venom from within him, absorbing and transforming his energies, and in the process bonding with him, calming, yet empowering his very being. From before the onset of puberty, boys train themselves to emulate this rite of passage into manhood. Does, therefore, the female’s lack of a penis infer the lack of power and status? Such an irrational perspective would surely represent a triumph of an impulsive bodily function over intellect.

One perspective of an ideal eternal relationship between men and women has been described thus: just as light is to dark, where neither can exist without the other nor is more important than the other, so women and men should define each other. The interrelationship between them should be one of eternal interdependence, like ying and yang, as interlocking parts which together create the whole.

The vast majority of men are, in truth, absolutely nothing even vaguely like women haters. It cannot be denied that a few men do show overt and abhorrent violence towards women but whether the true root cause of their behaviour can be directly attributed to an actual hatred of women is open to debate. Men, in general, may well under-appreciate women but not as a part of some subversive gender-biased plot. Men are, as a direct result of their upbringing by women, covertly fearful of a woman’s potential, of women’s almost incomprehensible power over men. Men are mystified by women, scared of women, turned on by women, in awe of women, in need of women’s emotional and practical attributes, in need of women’s caring. Male humans can see female humans as mystical, almost mythical creatures, desirable yet illusive beings. Men deprived of female company eventually become hollow, fragile vessels.

Men do not hate women; they are not misogynists. Men do not hate themselves; they are not misandrists. Men really cannot be bothered to be either; why would they? Men happen to have grown up in a world where they are members of the gender which has always been dominant in the majority of socially significant situations. They know no other way.

Many women are exasperated by men and their seemingly incomprehensible ways. A small but vociferous group of media savvy women may well be overt misandrists. There is, however, a large group of misogynists, strong, blatant, almost venomous, haters of women. It is women who appear to hate women most. Women accusing men of being the misogynists deflects the attention away from those who are truly dissatisfied with women. Women hate themselves for what they perceive to be so many of their own personal, physical, emotional and social traits. Most women are brought up to see themselves as not good enough and spend their lives berating themselves for their own perceived inadequacies. For not being pretty enough, slim enough, tall enough; for the size of their bum or their thighs, the shape of their nose or chin; the list is endless. It is just the ranking on the list – of each blemish, of each of their misconceptions, which changes throughout a woman’s life. The ignominy of spots on the chin of an adolescent girl will eventually be replaced by the appearance of hairs on her chin as a more mature woman. There will always be a reason for a woman to feel that she is flawed, inadequate, unlovable.

And, the nearer any woman is thought to be to perfection by her peers the more she is both admired and hated by them. That small voice inside the mind of a jealous onlooker asking why she too cannot be as beautiful. Dr Dale Archer, in his article ‘The Psychology of Beauty’ for Psychology Today, outlines the various lines of research which map the advantages of being beautiful. In women’s magazines, indeed, in all forms of female-centred media, there are articles which, unintentionally, reinforce these negative thoughts; they even print surveys which confirm the female tendency to undervalue themselves. In a wholesale betrayal of their gender, women spend much money on clothes and beauty products, they endure painful treatments and even surgery just to make them feel better about themselves. All in the name of self-esteem, to make them feel more alluring, more loveable. And women, they say, know women.

Men carry power well; like wearing an expensive tailored suit, everyone can see it, it is an overtly displayed air of superiority. Power and status were once based on physical strength and prowess in aggressive and defensive behaviour. Now, whilst there may still be some level of empowerment in these attributes, the real power comes from financial status and the elevated social position which this confers. Men command undue respect for this social status.

Women carry power less well; society sees powerful women as misfits, intruders into an alien male-dominated society. To some, their achievements are to be lauded and to others, denigrated. They may display the overtly superior behaviour of successful males but, somehow, they usually look as though they are wearing someone else’s ill-fitting clothes. Society has determined these attitudes. The traditional female strengths of cooperation, nurturing and compassion hold little value in the world of high achievers; a successful woman is not necessarily a feminist. Women covet equal social status and respect. Women do not, by nature, command.

The reason things are like this is fairly simple – social constructs. These are the values which society has put on things; they are relative to each other – some things have a high value others have a low value. The importance or significance of certain attributes within society – certain gender roles, certain ethnicities, certain religious beliefs, certain ages, certain dress codes, whether you are fat or thin or tall or short – will each raise or lower your level of status within that society. In our modern world they are all totally artificial values.

Once upon a time, physical strength was an essential attribute for defence and for hunting; a different type of strength was needed for raising and nurturing a family. Then, of necessity, the former role was performed by the male and the latter by the female. Nowadays, these once very pertinent constrictions on lifestyle choices are, theoretically, virtually irrelevant. Except for two things; firstly, because humans have performed these gender specific roles for so long they have become hard-wired into the human brain; secondly, because of this hard-wiring society has created certain restrictive constructs for both males and females. These social constructs have formed the norms for each gender. As long as the majority of people do not dispute the relevance of maintaining this social hierarchy it will remain.

If we want to change the way society is structured, to change its value systems, we first need to acknowledge and examine the ways in which we act and interact within our existing society; we then need to be able to highlight certain of these gender based differences and their potential effects on our behaviour as a society. If we try to take a dispassionate, value-neutral view we will see how our perspective, as both an individual and as a member of one gender, has been formed and reformed; we must be able to accept that both genders have positive attributes and behaviours and also that we both have negative attributes and behaviours. We must be open to a critical self-examination of our own gender, at both individual and group levels, and thereby be able to acknowledge its strengths and weaknesses; we must also be able to make a comparative evaluation of our opposite gender. The stereotypical behaviours which are so readily the subject of comedy sketches are, in fact, based on truths, albeit grossly distorted caricatures of these truths; we really do behave in ways which can be seen as amusing or which can also engender pathos. We must acknowledge these differences and, when appropriate, be able to laugh at them; determine which are of real value and which are nothing more than amusing distractions. Not being able to look at society’s use of humour in this way would make it the ‘elephant in the room’, a potentially morale devouring omission. Laughing, like crying, can be a release mechanism for relieving tension.

Then, from an informed and dispassionate position decide if we, as an individual, believe there is a need for a radical change in the structure of society and, if our beliefs are purely personal or are reflected more generally in society as a whole. Just like a political election campaign the only way you will get change is by all of the ‘electorate’ being well-informed, for them to know all the positive arguments and all the negative and destructive counter-arguments, for them to have a free vote and for the system to be equitable. But, in the case of this type of radical social change, it certainly isn’t going to be brought about by any form of election. An enduring change to the structure of society of such magnitude can only be brought about by either a relatively slow evolutionary process or by a revolution. Women are the seekers of this change; women are not, by nature, revolutionaries. It has taken us hundreds of generations to get to where we are now; for there to be a majority (or a powerful and unopposed minority) which is in the position to instigate the creation of a new social order, and for the changes to happen which will facilitate the complete overturning of the status quo and the structure of a radical new style of society, will take a few more generations. Not as a short-lived experiment but as a permanent and positive move forward in human evolution.

They say that you should be careful what you wish for – in case your wish becomes true.

Over a hundred years ago Emmeline Pankhurst and her ‘sister’ Suffragettes struggled for, were imprisoned for, and even died for, the cause of enfranchisement; for women to have the right to vote. It was, to them, the first step towards true emancipation; a world where women could be acknowledged to have a status equal to that of men and thereby life opportunities equal to those of men.

Well, women got the vote; and, slowly, women’s lives have been changing for the better; haven’t they?

Now, less than a century later, in certain areas of most cities and large towns in the UK – particularly on a Friday or Saturday night – you will find numerous highly inebriated young women more scantily and more provocatively dressed than you could find a prostitute in any seaport in the world. These representatives of their gender are loud, aggressive and display sexually explicit behaviour. Frequently, they can be seen losing every semblance of their dignity as they rollick about drunkenly. Some will end up having ‘cat fights’ in the street, others will reach the nadir of their evening by falling comatose in the gutter. Down adjacent alleys, girls give their inebriated bodies in public acts of copulation. Their less intoxicated, or less liberated, ‘sisters’ await a slightly more discrete venue for their soon to be forgotten acts of depravity. They may represent a tiny minority of the young women of their generation but they are highly conspicuous by their behaviour.

Meanwhile, by daylight, in the business centres of those same cities, university educated women dressed in smart suits strut importantly to their professional destinies. They have all the intelligence and acumen to out-perform any male competitors, they bring their feminine attributes to the workplace and race up ‘the greasy pole’ of promotion with a velocity capable of shattering any ‘glass ceiling’.

Then, seemingly inexplicably, this same once potent minority of young women become like some unstoppable laser-guided missile as they enthusiastically seek out their target. They willingly take their leave from the world of work and exchange it for the undeserved anonymity of the lifestyle of motherhood, for the allure of maternal duties.

In 2014 Kirsty Allsopp stirred up a real hornet’s nest by stating that she would tell her daughter (and thus, by inference, all other young women) to abandon thoughts of higher education and a career path and to get married, get on the property ladder and have a baby by the time she is 27. A career path, she advised, could be followed later in life. Her suggestions caused a furore in the media and she was accused of being both sexist and patronising. However, there were also some substantial areas of support.

Management Today made some very interesting observations on this debate. They noted that Apple and Facebook were now offering to freeze their female staff’s eggs so that they could continue to work until their 40s. Does this offer reflect a caring female-centred attitude or profit oriented companies manipulating or taking advantage of their female staff? The fact that they offer such a scheme certainly confirms and reinforces the stereotype of the strength of the draw for young women preferring a family over a career.

In the article, both Amanda Mackenzie, CMO of Aviva, and the Natural Fertility Centre, cite the health benefits of motherhood in the 20s. Further, three women who had their families first and their careers later in life are interviewed. They were Nikki King – chairman of Isuzu Trucks UK, Sally James – ex of UBS Investment Bank and now a director of three large companies, and Anne Owers – the former Chief Inspector of Prisons and now chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. They jointly believe that there are three relevant factors (1) that women over-prioritise their careers and that being enticed into the virtues of a university degree course is not always the best route (2) that taking the career route when you are young is not the only option for success in business and (3) that both life and career changes are possible at any time of life.

Why is it that some women are initially driven to want to succeed in business and commerce, in what they perceive as a man’s world? Their female networking will have already told them of its testosterone driven ways; they will all have heard the legend of the glass ceiling, they can sense the potential futility of their cause for themselves. Yet, they still appear compelled to seek admittance to this self-perpetuating, self-gratifying, patriarchy. Are they driven to change the system rather than to reinforce it? Do they believe that if they can gain entry into this exclusive club and become part of the inner sanctum that they will be in a position to instigate a revolution from within? In truth, they know that if they ever tried, the moment their insincerity was uncovered they would be rendered commercially impotent. Their young working life sacrificed for a futile symbolic gesture.

Instead of trying to emulate men, instead of trying to gain access to man’s world, why haven’t women chosen to make men more like women; why haven’t women inculcated feminine values into men? After all, men are only boys who got older. And, it is almost exclusively women who are in charge of creating the fundamental value systems for both girls and boys – from conception until, at least, the beginnings of secondary education. Mothers, grannies, aunts, friends, neighbours, primary school teachers – all women. Where’s the problem, ladies? Why not start off by making sure that all boys are exposed to a growing-up process which develops an empathetic nature