Over the past week, much debate arose over the decision to bar single mothers employed with private security firms from working night shifts.
However, as the debate erupts, what is unfortunate is the fact that despite the calls by gender equality activists for the decision to be reviewed with the need for a more comprehensive approach, Minister Keith Scott is moving ahead with his “noble idea.”
The United Nations, in its report on attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, more particularly Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women – has informed that Guyana has made good progress in the area of gender equality, and has achieved gender parity.
The issues of gender equality has attracted worldwide debate over the years. The World Economic Forum’s annual gender gap event reported last year that, in several countries, women’s participation in the labour force has declined, and the number of women in senior positions is shrinking.
The annual report looks at progress towards equality between men and women in four key areas: educational attainment, health and survival, economic opportunity, and political empowerment. Sadly, that report highlighted that progress towards economic equality has slowed globally, with the economic participation and opportunity dipping.
Locally, President David Granger, in his “Power to the women” speech on International Women’s Day 2017, committed to ending gender inequality in Guyana. As a matter of fact, the President is quoted as saying, “We can, we must, and we will achieve greater gender equality, to empower our women and girls. The struggle for equality and parity continues…Gender equality cannot be achieved in the absence of a more equal society.” He also said that Guyana’s approach is to make gender equality a parallel policy of his government.
That being said, it begs the question: why does one of his ministers now take a backward step on this issue? Are there no consultations over decisions on national importance within the Cabinet? Such issues will not only have social backlashes, but, importantly, can lead to economic hardships for women, and moreso single mothers. If such a position is taken, women’s chances of employment with security firms will ultimately be marginal. This decision is no less than an infringement on gender equality, and can be used as a tool for demoralising women. Women in Guyana have made enormous advancements over the years, but this decision from Government shows that the administration still has some longstanding views of women as the lesser sex and their place being in the home.
It can be agreed that while the minister’s heart may have been in the right place following some conversation with few private security firms, he should instead have met with women before making any decisions. Ironically, the very private security firms with whom the minister met have, in a public missive, called his actions a “cruel and arbitrary attack”.
At this point, what is needed is dialogue between Government and women, moreso single mothers who work the night shifts as security personnel. This discussion should look at promoting and facilitating opportunities for women as they balance paid work and family responsibilities.
The women of Cabinet should not sit by idly and watch their male colleagues trample on the rights of Guyanese women.
