Dear Patient Reader,
I find the terms ‘feminism’ or ‘feminist’ unsettling for the reason that they are ambiguous. There is an uneasiness in the almost stark distinction that feminism creates. Leaning towards equalism, I feel that matriarchies or patriarchies can work out equally well. I think that the problem is individualistic. Where you have a larger number of individuals who think about their personal gain is where you have a deficit of equality. And that is 80% of the authorities and population who naturally work to amass wealth, naturally. When you have a larger number of individuals who are ready to distribute the wealth more sparingly is where you have an increase in equality.
The 80/20 Rule in a Nutshell
A well-documented principle, ‘the 80-20 rule asserts that 80% of outcomes (or outputs) result from 20% of all causes (or inputs) for any given event. In business, a goal of the 80-20 rule is to identify inputs that are potentially the most productive and make them the priority’ (Tardi, 2020). The rule is also known as the law of the vital few (20%) and trivial many (80%).
What I think is that,
‘Trivial many’ + personal gain = deficit of equality
‘Vital few’ + distribute wealth = increase in equality
80% of our population are the trivial many, and 80% of this figure are men in most cases.
Let us apply the 80/20 rule, also known as the Pareto principle, in context to this example about Company X and its workforce.
Including all levels, Company X has a total of 384 persons. Of this, 57% are male while 43% are female. 20% of these percentages contribute to the overall efficiency and innovative output of the company.
Looking at the figures in the table, there are 77 as opposed to 307 persons who make an active difference. As you can see, there is a smaller difference between male and female workers in the vital few than compared to the trivial many. My belief is that what makes good companies good, or better conditions for equalism are the vital few who constitute drive. A vital few who can work well together towards reaching a business objective are well-set to look past gender. Though this is an idealist example I do think it works to show the potency of the workplace as well as a community dynamic.
Certain societal dynamics and family structures teach and condition girls and boys to develop a work ethic and independency when they reach adulthood. We then understand that men and women are both as capable of doing a job well. The first point I would like to stress upon again is that an openness and distribution of wealth has the strong potential of ensuring equalism later down the line. Physically, it is true that we are not the same. Our strength and bodily abilities cannot be the same. But intellectually, I think that the vital few can get along very well. And with camaraderie and a work place ethic, come to the advantage of whatever organisation it may be.
Though this may not make sense to you, I felt that I wanted to explain my opinion. I applied the Pareto principle because its application is versatile. Try applying the 80-20 rule to a benign situation. You may find that it does apply.
A good read ‘Why so many young women don’t call themselves feminist’ by the BBC
Bibliography
Tardi, C. (2020, May 25). 80-20 Rule. Retrieved from Investopedia: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/80-20-rule.asp
コメント