From The Mind of Merc - Gender Pay Gap

Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics and occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about the gender pay gap.

What struck me about the pay gap was whether job titles could possibly be having an impact on them as there are several job roles where the title ‘differs’ depending on gender - e.g. actor/actress, headmaster/headmistress, waiter/waitress - and that perhaps these differences in job titles feed off the perceived differences in gender and thus contribute to a difference or bias with regards to salary. So even if it’s exactly the same role, an actress will be paid less than an actor, a saleswoman paid less than a salesman, a comedienne paid less than a comedian. 

(There are also cases when this inference works out negatively for men. For example, stewardesses, nurses, midwives are all perceived to be female yet are jobs performed by men and women.) 

As we have already got rid of some denotations – such as dropping the W from WPC – and as we now live in a time when the emphasis for employers is on focusing on equal opportunities, is it perhaps time to amend the others?
So instead of actor/actress we use actor, perhaps use server instead waiter or waitress, and might this be the start or help towards achieving true parity with incomes.

Here are examples of other roles with perceived or clear differences (and their proposed revisions):
- Actor/Actress à Actor
- Fireman/Firewoman à Firefighter
- Salesman/Saleswoman à Salesperson
- Policeman/Policewoman à Police officer
- Chairman/Chairwoman à Chairperson or Chair
- Usher/Usherette à Usher
- Author/Authoress à Author
- Waiter/Waitress à Server
- Steward/Stewardess à Flight Attendant
- Barman/Barmaid à Bartender or Barstaff

Particularly in our (for the most part) more accepting gender-fluid society should gender neutral roles now be the norm?

After all:
Are the roles they refer to any different? No
Do they impact on the person’s ability to do the job? No
Might they help dispel any associated misconceptions and prejudices? Who knows…

From The Mind of Merc - Democracy

Sometimes I find my mind wandering over various eclectic topics and occasionally I am inspired to write some of them down. Today I was thinking about democracy.

This is a topic which could be discussed and debated at length so I will try to keep what I have to say succinct and short.

There seems to be an inherent issue with democracy. And to my mind it is that those in power have never truly grasped the concept – either through a lack of intelligence or a surfeit of arrogance.

When it first began to disseminate through society, those in power presumably thought they would be able to control it – through entities such as ‘rotten boroughs’ etc. Consequently those in power continue to fail to adequately and appropriately respond when faced with the voice of the people. They fail to listen to this crucial voice; presumably believing the people will do as their told. This is nothing new but in this modern age with the freedom of information etc it is less practical and less acceptable.

People will not be controlled but they will be heard – particularly in case of injustice and inequality - as has been demonstrated in the past by the suffragettes and by the more recent protests.

Democracy (from its original Greek origins) literally means ‘rule of the commoners’ and it should mean just that. If you are going to institute a democratic government then the voice of the people must be heard – otherwise it contradicts its own existence.

In a true democracy the voice of the people must be heeded and in the modern society cannot be ignored and the best response ultimately as to hear out those disenchanted with the current political paths being taken. If that means accepting that mistakes have been made and taking appropriate action then so be it but persisting with a flawed and unsubstantiated course of action can only lead to disaster.

A dictatorial leader should not be and is not accepted in modern day society. Any attempt to be so can and is being countered if it contravenes basic upheld laws and statutes. One such applicable ‘law’ in the current political situation is the Declaration of Independence which states that "…when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and provide new guards for their future security." Ergo if a dictatorial leader wants absolute control and attempts to exercise said control in an oppressive way then it is the ‘duty’ of the people to object. To ignore, disregard or, worse, ridicule these objections is tantamount to incitement. Indeed, history suggests that doing so can only result in one outcome – see England 1649, France 1789 and Russia 1917.

However, as John Lennon said “When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you – pull your beard, flick your face – to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don’t know how to handle is non-violence and humor.”

Ergo violence is not the answer as by getting violent you give your opponents ammunition, you sink to their level and you play their game. But likewise neither is arrogance, ignorance or disregard of widely held standpoints the solution.

In the end, ears must be open, all voices must be heard and only then can true co-operation take place and democracy truly exist and succeed.