Equality

(I'm not bashing anything, so if you're going to flame me, forget it. This is one person's opinion, so deal with it.)

Something in mX today really made me think. Although I don't have the newspaper in front of me right now, someone said something to the effect of 'if we're all equal, then why must I get up, why must I.... ' I forgot the rest. The point is that this is a man talking to a woman (I assume). If we're all equal, why do men still have to appear chivalrous, give their seats to women on the train, and so on?

This got me thinking. So if we are all equals, then what about others like the disabled, the elderly. Should be be as though they are equal to us, and not get up, respecting this pride we think they have that perhaps they want to pretend that they are not as old, frail as they seem. Or perhaps that we think we should not get up for say, a one legged man because he think he would want to preserve his dignity, and to show we are not pitying him for being disabled and treat him as an equal?

This idea of equality now seems highly overrated. As far as we're concerned, people will always have a hierarchy. Women are on the bottom because we are and have been for a long time - don't flame me for that, you know it's true. Be it as it may that men think that their positions are well deserved, the hypocrites. (Oh yes, I am a girl.) You say a woman's place is the kitchen, then you dominate the head roles of commercial kitchens. Where is the logic in that? You just want to occupy all the positions of higher power.

Oh I remember, someone also wrote 'why should men give up their jobs so employers can show they are women-whatever.....' Perhaps these women are genuinely deserving. Perhaps the employers actions are a little fueled by their intention, however, perhaps they are genuinely highly skilled. Isn't the fact that you consider roles to be taken by women only because the company wants to present the image that it doesn't discriminate mean that you already think these women are not deserving of these roles? So much of this equality you speak of. You already assume that because a man did not gain this position, an unsuited woman has been given the job for the sake of reputation. Sure this may be important, but if this woman is in a position where she has to make important decisions, if she cannot handle the job, they might as well have just signed a death warrant for themselves.

Stop jumping to your own conclusions. You think of equality in this way because you are still considering yourselves to be superior, and thusly more deserving of the position than a woman is - because she is a woman and the company wants to look good?

In older times, perhaps chivalry was an act to belittle women, to show them that they were not able to do anything by feeling the need to help them down, to push their chair in for them to... whatever it may be. Was that the purpose of these actions? You are helping her because you genuinely think she needs help in doing these things, or are you helping her because you think that perhaps it's something she can't achieve? Hmm? Is this not a new way of considering this situation?

I have no problems if you are genuinely helping me because I need the help, say if I'm juggling three bags, and a folder and trying to open a door with my elbow. Then I would appreciate it because you are seeing me as an equal and as someone who would want help if you consider yourself in that situation.

Nowadays I seem to consider acts of chivalry as perhaps more of a recognition that you exist and that they want to be helpful. Perhaps maybe a little repayment for the past? This is how I see it.

I don't see why people have to be forced into gender-like things. Such a good example is on the front of the newspaper today, the Sydney Morning Herald, with the headline 'Sexless in the city: a gender revolution". I'm not lying if I said I dislike being female. I don't know if I want to be male either. Being neutral the moment seems like a good idea, although I don't know what it says about population from now on (I don't think my children will really be missed.... I might regret writing this sentence...). People should stop forcing people into gender stereotypes and girls should not have to feel so conspicuous if they are the only girl in a group of 20 guys. (Meaning there should be less differences between the way genders think.)

Why do I have to wear a skirt to a formal occasion?

(more may be added later)

Just write it out.

This topic goes way back to the time of the just-post-HSC, or possibly during HSC when they were mentioning that in future years, students would be able to do their exams using their laptop instead of writing on their exam papers.

Of course, not only is such an idea highly difficult to completely integrate - although I'm sure they're working on it - one of the issues is the fact that it appears that they intend for the students to use the computers being distributed to Year 7 and Year 9 students. This means that perhaps a student would be able to cheat, but of course, there should be ways in which this would work - I'll leave it up to the experts.'

But the problems of such a suggestion(?) is not what I want to be dealing with.

It is the fact that this does not really solve the problem that is. What problem, you ask? Please excuse me for not structuring this better, but the reason idea was presented in the first place was because of the dropping standards of students' handwriting, making it harder for teachers to mark exam papers with speed, while still giving the student all the marks that they can.

I do not admit to have the best handwriting but I do try hard to make my handwriting at least understandable. If it suddenly becomes that exams will be able to be taken using the computer - not that it is unheard of in our technology driven world - this does not address the problem, and instead just makes it worse.

If it is important now for students to be able to type quickly to be able to write as much as they can, and demonstrate their ideas as well as they can, this would mean a new focus on typing speed rather than handwriting, and handwriting will only get worse. There are reports all the time of students unable to write properly, and so on, yet this only fuels it.

Isn't being able to use a computer also a big disadvantage though? Whereas us before were required to carefully plan our responses to questions, this means that it is not required of a student to plan now, as they are able to go back and edit. It is not as if they cannot allow editing, as even when handwritten, students will go back and change words, add words. It's just that more words are able to be added seamlessly with a computer, not to mention if something such as using timing indications for the edits could be implemented to solve this, this would just cause more work, and possibly training for teachers.

So while I deviate from the point a little, how does changing to typing out exams solve anything? It is only going to create a different problem, and no doubt things like handwriting are going to disappear, right?

Although new technologies appear on the internet that now have a larger focus towards handwritten things, which step is in the right direction?

(Check out Tegaki-e, the hand-written/drawn blogging site. I have no confidence in my artistic ability, so I've not used it, but it is a very interesting site to browse.)

DV - No, I didn't mispell DVD.

Not in any way do I count myself as an expert on this subject or can I have said I've read anything particularly scientific about this subject, but this is a topic I wanted to consider from a somewhat odd point of view, in my opinion. Having not experienced it (not what others would define as it?), nor having studied this kind of topic, you can disregard what I have to say. These are just my opinions and observations.

I was reading a book a while ago - as I said, in no way scientific, it could actually be described as pretty 'trashy' - and it had a case of domestic violence in it. The beginning of the book showed the main character, a social worker working for a woman's shelter, talking to one of her clients. She was a 'battered wife'. I observed that the social worker didn't seem to understand the ... victim's mentality. The victim's situation was reaching a dangerous point, and the social worker at this point tells the victim:

"You need to get out of that house. Take these threats seriously, and get yourself and your kids out of harm's way."

Although this seems to be a reasonable piece of advice to tell a victim,often it's not something they see as possible. If I were in the social worker's position, I am sure I would be thinking the same thing, giving the same advice, but is this not because we have never faced the same sort of situation (and if we had, would be necessarily be a social worker now? Have the qualifications? Not be dead? Anything is possible of course).

The victim is scared, because her husband used to be in the military (a special sort of black ops like unit?), drinks, has anger management issues (possibly because of his dispatchment from the military or something?) and has threatened to kill her if she leaves. Knowing what her husband is capable of, the victim is unable to comply, and is so frightened because of her first hand experience of her brutality, that she cannot think otherwise. This is where the social worker cannot begin to understand, as she has never met this husband, and only knows the information the victim has provided.

The victim had also told her husband that she had gone to the shelter, in fear because her husband wanted to know where she had been going. The social worker is supportive the whole time, trying to be encouraging, producing ideas which may give her some hope. I'm not saying that she's not like a model of a social worker, however, I wonder how we can begin to compare to these people's experiences and be able to deal with them effectively without having experienced it ourselves. Of course, such a situation is brutal and it's not as though I encourage that people face these kinds of situations, not to mention that each person's experience of DV could be different, however ... I just feel that perhaps sometimes the social workers cannot think from the victim's point of view, so caught up in trying to help them.

Of course, if everyone thought from the victim's point of view, I hardly think any case would ever be resolved. Therein lies my dilemma within this post, and with many things within my life. Although I can see how this way is probably the best way to be able to deal with such matters, it doesn't seem right, as client and social worker somehow do not seem to have any sort of crossing over with each other. It seems almost as if the social worker is missing the point. Yet that is probably not so.

The social worker is there to provide hope, isn't that right? Also, they should maintain a professional distance, otherwise all cases would affect them too greatly to continue their work. They could possibly be traumatised and need to consult a psychiatrist - hence why my parents say a psychiatrist is the worst job, having tolisten to everyone's problems. Not to mention there are greater things than merely having the experience of being abused that influence a victim's mentality. It's not possible for a social worker to be able to deal with everything.

Although I can understand all this, and this post is not essentially conclusive, it's just a little sight into what I think of this. I commend social workers for their work, but from my fortunate third part point of view, I wonder why these social workers seem to be missing some sort of point, seem to not be addressing all of their client's problems. Without knowing enough of this subject myself, perhaps I can reach no conclusion, but I hope that this has inspired some thought in at least someone.