Breaking The Bias: Whose Responsibility? || By Adebisi Michael

Grey areas have always been the order of the day whenever conversations and discussions on sensitive topics such as gender equality are being brought to the light or analyzed. Some opinions are often viewed as controversial, while some adopt a rather interesting approach to who should champion the movement of breaking the bias. 

 The importance of this topic in this contemporary age cannot be farfetched. It is necessary to strike a gender balance for a chaos-free society and sustainable peace development. However, it should be acknowledged that in the past, topics like this could not make the frontiers of discussion, let alone discuss the roles of women in some particular activities, from the smallest unit, which is the family, to the biggest, which is the society at large. 

The movement for gender equality, which started in the 19th century, birthed this discussion. When breaking the bias, this should not only be a discussion that will revolve around women because, through the effectiveness of affirmative actions, the inclusion and involvement of women have been achieved. Since the concept of gender is not biased in its definition, submissions concerning this topic should be balanced. This is to support the United Nations. Article 1 of its Charter, they stated that:

 “To achieve international co-operation … in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

 

This is where the discussion of whose responsibility it is to break the bias will now take its distinction. 

This is best discussed in approaches invented by Professor Albert in his discussion of how a nation can achieve sustainable peace. We can spell the responsibility of breaking the bias out through the whole individual approach, nation, the entire society approach, whole organizational approach and the whole the government approach. The reason for tagging their strategies is to aid the assertiveness of affirmative action, which simply means that by knowing the responsibilities, the parties mentioned for results must execute them.

 

Whole of societal approach

Undoubtedly, the family remains the smallest unit in a society where individuals first shape their beliefs and thoughts. As simple as it might appear in theory, the responsibility of parents of to make sure that both in words and action. Their messages to both their male and female children should not be of the traditional gender beliefs.

The male children are expected to take certain responsibilities and not engage in some because they are meant for the other sex. It should be erased that certain opportunities, such as education, leadership, and jobs, are open to just the male children, which are not available to the female children. This will promote their mindset that responsibilities within the family and beyond are not done or allocated based on gender but by ability.

 The adverse effect of this is that there will be smooth running of day-to-day within the family as everyone would contribute their quota as much as possible without being forced or pushed. 

Proper orientation of community leaders about less consideration of distinctive sex to community responsibilities needs to be assessed. The community's commitment is to break the bias when it is time for participation and representation.

 Individuals in the community should start selecting the representative after a timed assessment of their ability and understanding of the available roles. There should be enlightenment on the embargo on some positions that particular sex cannot fill. While some functions such as welfare, and vice, among others, are believed to be filled by women alone, posts like the head of the community and other assumed men-like positions are customized for men in the community. This is a traditional gender belief that needs to be changed for an effective break of bias. 

The effort of religious leaders is most required because religious, historical records clarified that women, in particular, are limited to participating in some rites, let alone becoming a leader. Some religions even forbid women's physical appearance where religious activity is being carried out. However, there have been changes in this age of gender equality campaigns.  But how far has the mindset of religious individuals been influenced in breaking gender bias? Leaders should preach this involvement and start involving individuals based on their position and responsibilities. 

To some extent, education remains one of the aspects where the success of gender equality campaigns can be appraised. Aside from parents being responsible for all children having access to proper education without being biased in such decisions, it is also the responsibility of school authorities and management to make sure that pupils/students are built differently, have different abilities, and have different IQs but have equal access to education. This should be the benchmark for involvement and role consideration. This will prevent gender sectionalism and promote equality, which is the accurate definition of breaking the bias. 

Whole of individual approach

It is important to state that we are all human before sex distinction, and it is always sane to remember that ability is defined by individual sex. While modules of consideration remain convention, grit, and constitution, it is pertinent to know that gender equality has been taking the expected shape through affirmative actions. The ability of beneficiaries to be responsible in their various roles is another approach to achieving more in breaking the bias. Individuals representing the majority should know that it is their responsibility to display a high level of excellence, as this is a pathway to attesting to the fact that the course of the campaign is worth it. 

Whole of government approach 

This approach is holistic, and it involves the executive, legislative and judicial bodies that make up a government. There is a need to remind this day government that while making policies and passing bills, there should be adequate gender consideration, which should be in theory or paper and be exercised and activated. The first gender equality campaign in the 19th century was a clamour for women’s participation in governance, i.e., the right to vote and to be voted for. Presently, in largely every part of the world, this campaign has had its effect as women have held leadership positions. We can also see the issue of breaking the bias in Arend Lijphart principle of “Consociational Democracy” where he proposed affirmative action as one of the principles where women are equally represented in government in order to achieve proportional representation in government where politics is no longer a zero sum game. It becomes the responsibility of the government to break the bias because I cannot overemphasize the efficacy of the constitution until some policies. And laws are established with evidence and act; much would not be achieved in breaking the bias through the entire government approach. 

Whole of organizational approach 

The role of non-governmental organizations and governmental organizations in enlightening the generality of people should not be taken with levity. The more these organizations endeavor to orientate segments of the society, the easier it is to break the bias. Existing organizations are functioning well to break prejudice through seminars, empowerment programs and events. The streamlining, of course, to a particular aspect of the gender problem is the sole responsibility of each organization so as not to confuse the public and not overwhelm its members. Taking engaging campaigns beyond borders is another responsibility organizations that have achieved more in their localities should know and explore. There should be a synergy between and among national and international-based organizations for holistic dissemination of information and activeness. Since this is focused on saving the world's welfare, the message needs to be timely passed and acted on. 

Just before I conclude, this was inspired by a topic discussed at the YALI network Oyo state on the 26th of March, an issue mentioned by Esther Opone and engaged by all participants. We agreed it is our responsibility to break the bias at a different level where we find ourselves. There should be a chain of connection from the smallest unit to the largest where the message of equality remains undisrupted and abridged. 

The above approaches are efficient enough to showcase categories of individuals and bodies responsible for breaking the bias. Meanwhile, much of this discussion has been directly focused on women. But in advocating for women’s involvement and participation, men are being sidelined in some roles simply because justice to equality needs all hands on deck in other to be achieved at all costs. The question of “will the bias ever be broken?” keeps surfacing. The above have been able to submit that there should be a resounding balance when addressing gender-related issues; there should be clarity in sex and gender. The bias can only be broken when no sex is left to suffer a shift of attention to the other sex. 

- Adebisi Michael O (mspsp)