We can agree on Maslov's hierarchy of needs to be sure. This diagram represents a kind of Cliff Notes for the wealth of complexity in each of these needs. My heart's desire lies in the need for Love/ Belonging I think. More specifically the need to be fully known and fully vulnerable (loved and unconditionally accepted) by another human being. Not to be confused with the idea of having someone "complete me" (which I think is poppycock) or the idea of being made safe or worthy through a relationship with another (which I think is next to impossible).
I'm wondering if my heart's desire is an illusion and like so much else it is through Self Actualization that I will create love and unconditional acceptance for myself. At least before I expect to receive it from some one else. Is a Mother's Love the exception, or is that also an illusion? Perhaps a Mother's Love is the metaphor for my heart's desire. Ok, I know it is.
In the meanwhile, again, I am blessed with the love of those around me and I'll be working on internalizing my Mother's Love along the way.
We all must accept ourselves for who we are as the precondition to transformation.
ReplyDeleteThere's always been gender-based pay discrimination in the workplace; it's just the absolute opposite of what most people believe. The fact is, women get paid the same for LESS work due to gender discrimination. In some cases, women also get paid MORE than men for the same amount of work.
ReplyDeleteI'll give you the holy grail of examples. Male and female tennis players receive equal prize money in grand slam tournaments, despite the fact that men play best of five set matches while women play best of three.
Now imagine this commonplace scenario in a grand slam final: two male players duke it out over a five set match, while the women's final goes for its maximum three sets. This means the women have played only three-fifths the amount of tennis that the men have played (60%). And the prize money is equal...
PROFESSIONAL FEMALE ATHLETES GET PAID THE SAME AMOUNT AS MALE ATHLETES FOR DOING ONLY 60% OF THE WORK THEY DO! WHY AREN'T THE FEMINISTS COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS! WHAT HAPPENED TO EQUAL PAY? AND IT DOESN'T END THERE. IMAGINE A FEMALE PLAYER WINNING IN STRAIGHT SETS (2 SETS) AND THE MEN PLAYING FIVE SETS. THE FEMALE PLAYERS STILL GET THE SAME PRIZE MONEY, DESPITE PLAYING JUST 40% OF THE TENNIS THE MEN HAVE PLAYED!
In the 2012 Australian Open, Victoria Azarenka received $2.3 million for winning the women's singles title. In doing so she played a total of just 15 GAMES in 7 tennis matches.
The men's 2012 Australian Open champion was Novak Djokovic, who also received $2.3 million but played 55 GAMES in 7 tennis matches.
These kind of disparities are an outrage. Male players are clearly working harder than the women and therefore deserve more money. This is also disenfranchising for the crowds who pay to watch these events because it will artificially inflate ticket prices as female athletes are being paid a disproportionately large sum of prize money (compared to male athletes) in relation to to the amount of revenue that they are actually generating for tournament organisers.
Now obviously the above is only a specific example in a professional sport. BUT I assure you that this same principle (women getting paid more for the same amount of work, or the same for LESS work) is actually apparent in MANY PROFESSIONS AND MANY FIELDS. Other fields where I have been exposed to this FIRST HAND are the police force and the military.
The whole concept of men being paid more is nothing but a feminist fairy tale.