Equal opportunity? Women still do not sit at the decision-making table
Women are the majority in the civil service, academia, and many systems – but only 9% of senior executives are women. As long as women who reach the top are still counted as an exceptional event, it is impossible to talk about true equal opportunity.
In her article in the "Israel HaShavua" supplement ("Women in a party are a sign of sanity. Unless they happen to be right-wing", 5.08), Irit Linor sought to end the debate on women's representation in court: "The required equality is equality of opportunity, not equality of results." I do not agree with Linor on most of her musings, but precisely because I agree with this principle, it is difficult for me to accept the conclusion she derives from it.
It is sad to think of those who would oppose true equal opportunity, whatever the result may be. Choosing a person, man or woman, based solely on their skills assumes that equal opportunity exists in practice.
And that is exactly the problem: women make up more than half of the population and graduate from academic studies at higher rates than men, lead research, manage public systems, and serve as officers in the IDF – but as one gets closer to the centers of decision-making, they become fewer and fewer.
In a discussion I led as acting chair of the Committee for the Advancement of the Status of Women, it emerged that women are the majority among civil service employees, but as one climbs the ladder of ranks, their rate decreases. At the highest management level, they constitute only 9%.
If the system indeed chooses by skills, and equality is already here, the absurd question remains: are women talented enough to carry the bulk of the civil service on their shoulders, but almost never talented enough to stand at its head?
Linor lists a series of women who reached the top, and asks to see them as evidence that there are no more barriers. But it seems that this is actually evidence contrary to Linor's interpretation: the women who reached the centers of decision-making can still be counted by name. No one thinks to count men that way. They are not perceived as exceptions, but as the default. As long as women are the ones who need to be counted and presented as exceptional, it is difficult to argue that the barrier has disappeared.
From here stems the importance of representation: representation of women is not a prize, and it does not assume that women are better than men.
They are not better, nor are they worse. Feminism does not seek to applaud a woman just because she is a woman, or to prefer women over men – it seeks that the system does not place a glass ceiling before a woman just because she is a woman.
No less disturbing to me is the attempt to turn the struggle for women's equality into an issue identified with a specific political camp. Since when is the question of whether half of Israel's citizens have an equal place at the decision-making table a question of right and left? One can be conservative, right-wing, religious, or secular and believe in full equality between men and women. Talent, leadership, and ability are not divided by gender.
In a survey by the 50:50 initiative, following which I held a discussion in the Committee for the Advancement of the Status of Women, it was found that for women aged 18-24, women's representation is the second most important consideration in choosing a party. This is a statement by a generation that understands that representation is not a goal in itself, but a condition for decision-making centers to better reflect the society whose lives they decide upon.
And a tip for Linor: on the day when a talented woman will no longer be an exception when she sits down at the table of decision-makers, and you will not be able to count our names – you will know that this debate has been decided and equal opportunity is truly already here.
Advocate Adi Azuz is a Knesset member on behalf of the Yesh Atid party.
