Evaluate the claim that a country’s well-being is dependent on its economic development.

Image by Neville Wootton, licensed under Creative Commons.

Evaluate the claim that a country’s well-being is dependent on its economic development.

The first female Thai Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, was ousted from power primarily on the argument that she would irrevocably compromise the future of the nation by taking on too much debt in the funding of her pet project – a high speed rail that connects parts of Thailand and even neighbouring countries. If indeed pulled off, this could have sparked tremendous economic development in the vast nation, currently segregated by chasms in wealth and opportunity. However, the Yellow Shirts faction argue that this project would instead hinder economic development, since the nation would be buried under crippling debt. Whichever side of the argument, what is apparent is the unanimous assumption that the nation’s well-being is dependent on its economic development; what differs is the strategy to achieve said development. This, however, relies on a simplistic view of the term “country’s well-being” as it opines that well-being is primarily material. Should we acknowledge that well-being of a nation necessarily comprises fewer tangible criteria, then it is clear that economic development often leads to well-being for a nation, but admittedly can hardly promise it.

The main reason why most would instinctively agree that economic development is fundamental to a nation’s well-being is the fact that our capitalist world necessitates financial ability to provide the material needs for a nation. Beyond merely catering to immediate needs, economic development in the form of long-term strategy and policies, can go a long way in ensuring sustainability and continued self-sufficiency. In the case of Nauru, an island-nation once abundant with phosphate deposits, the lack of economic development beyond mere mining and sales, arguably led the nation to its woeful state today, reliant on handouts and goodwill of Australia, and accepting the refugees Australia places in their nation. The problem is that Nauru is far from alone, with Kiribati and Venezuela failing to meet the needs of their people, arguably also because of their lack of economic development. Hence, it is painfully apparent that in our capitalist world, economic development is often an important element in ensuring the welfare of the nation. Admittedly, some nations like Cuba and Bhutan, have gotten by without much emphasis on economic development, eschewing traditional goals like increased Gross Domestic Product, in favour of welfare and happiness. While the manifestations of their goals are different, Cuba through clear social structure, and Bhutan through the emphasis on happiness, they have in their own ways sought to improve the nation’s well-being. It must be noted that while the main thrust of their efforts may not lie in the usual forms that economic development take, economic development still play a part, with Cuba becoming a more open economy and Bhutan opening itself up for tourism. They may not have been the most eager proponents of economic development as a means to ensure the well-being of the nation, they too incorporate it as part of the government’s arsenal, hence proving a nation’s well-being is dependent on economic development.

Another reason for this dependence is the fact that economic development is often taken as an indicator of a capable government, a trait that is needed for the nation to have a voice on international platforms. As the Chancellor of Germany, a nation with laudable economic health and system, it is little wonder that Angela Merkel is the second most powerful person in the world. This same quality has allowed Singapore, a tiny island-nation, to have a loud voice on international matters. Evidently, sound economic policies and sustained development are essential in the reputation of nations and their leaders. The same clout then enables the nation’s welfare to be protected, without being subject to the generosity of those in power. Greece’s financial crisis rendered them vulnerable and at the mercy of Germany. While Greece sought a bailout, they were compelled to undergo the crippling experience of a complete breakdown of the system and entertain the possibility of austerity measures as condition for future assistance from its wealthier European counterparts. This makes it abundantly clear that economic development is needed to ensure a nation’s well-being.

That said, there is something absolutely noble about turning one’s back on economic matters and focussing on the intangibles instead. Beyond mere economic pursuit, once that has been achieved, the nation’s well-being would divorce from the material pursuits. This is when the Nordic countries seem to shine the way. Not known for rapid economic development nor productivity in the way that Asia has set the bar, countries like Norway, Finland, and Denmark illuminate the way forward for national welfare. Finland has on of the best education systems in the world, a trait that would have been exploited by innumerable other nations to boost economic growth, yet Finland channels its best people into education for long-term betterment. Not materially, but intangibly. Norway’s expenditure on criminals, even recalcitrant ones like Anders Breivik, could have gone a long way in boosting productivity or development, but Norway believes in being human and humane. These examples show that while a nation’s well-being is typically dependent on economic development, it may not be so for nations which have attained enough to meet its needs. For these privileged nations, their well-being then veers away from the pursuit of economic development, on to other areas that are often intangible, and with it, something to be truly proud of.

All in all, it is apparent that a nation’s well-being is largely dependent on economic development, whether past or present. The issue is not then the mandate to push for even more economic development, but to realise it is just a means to the end. True well-being is the freedom for governments to do what is best of the nation and people, without needing to fear that they will be ousted for it.

~~~~~~

All sample essays in this blog are original works written by Belinda. They are handwritten under timed conditions (90 minutes), and are subsequently typed out as blog posts. If you like what you read, leave us a comment below! :)

'Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out its own problems.' How far do you agree?

Image from Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons.

'Countries experiencing conflict should be left to sort out its own problems.' How far do you agree?

Ex-President of Nigeria, Jonathan Goodluck, flatly refused to acknowledge the growing problem of the Boko Haram, at least officially. Rather than deal with the conflict consuming his already-troubled nation, he sought to fling wave after wave of his men, armed with just forty bullets each, to give the fractured segments he resolutely refused to acknowledge. His staunch refusal to sort out such evident escalations of disagreement has led to exacerbating tensions not just in his nation, but in and around the region. Unfortunately, Nigeria is far from alone in being incapable or unwilling to sort out its own problems, at least not in a manner deemed satisfactory to the powers that be in the world. Such distrust has led to cries for world powers to intervene in any domestic issue that potentially could escalate in conflict, justifying America's role as the de-facto World Police. Still, there are others who believe that countries have the ability to sort out their own problems and manage the conflict within their territories, with their nuanced knowledge of the issue, and facilitated by a lack of resistance to the interventions, as typical of external help. Having considered both sides of the issue, I must admit I am more for non-intervention, believing that countries experiencing conflict should be generally left to sort out its own problems.

Admittedly, there is some merit to the argument that such countries facing conflict should not be abandoned to their own devices since the conflict is often, in large part, due to a lack of ability or resources. This is indeed a fair point when we consider that the conflict is a testament to the inability for the initial disagreement to be resolved. Whether it is due to a lack of resources to meet the needs of the nation, or less tangible forms of inability, it does appear that patient optimism would likely prove insufficient in resolving the problems. King Mswati III of Swaziland has been turning a blind eye to the abject poverty that most of its people struggle with on a daily basis, while indulging his fifteen wives in luxuries and comfort. The growing resentment in the community is gaining attention, even if the monarch is determined to ignore it. Sadly, Swaziland is far from being alone, with Aung San Suu Kyi's conspicuous silence on the Rohingyas deafening, to say the least. Whether the conflict is borne of a lack of resources or ability, the severity that fuelled the escalation can indeed be said to justify intervention of some sort. At least, at first glance, it seems we are morally obliged to not leave the troubled to their own limited devices.

Armed with the perceived need for a foreign power with an arsenal of both resources and morality, we have embraced intervention, conveniently overlooking the vested interest of such measures. We have so often painted in our minds, images of countries in conflict as torn, broken souls incapable of survival, and the intervention as the arrival of justice and light to life the afflicted out of the miasma and darkness. Most of the time, we completely fail to consider the motivations of such assistance. In the rare occasion that we do, we defend it as fair reward for the supposed altruistic efforts. America's fervour in ensuring justice, somehow seeming to be confined to nations that have oil, is perhaps the clearest indication of such vested interest. Even if we dismiss this accusation, there are an abundance of other examples. Be it the generous assistance extended from Australia to Nauru, so as to solve its economic challenges, that has seen Nauru become the dumping ground for refugees turned away by Australia. Or the recent news of Filipino President Duterte rejecting millions and millions of financial aid offered by the United Nations for different problems and issues. All these cases reveal one undeniable truth: Assistance is rendered with vested interest. Even if it can mitigate issues in the short run, the implications, not to mention obligations, make the intervention or acceptance of it, rather imprudent.

To complicate matters, problems are not universal, couched in the unique context and mindset of its people. This hinders the effectiveness of intervention in other countries' problems. The reality is that we see the world from our own perspectives, so the assessment of the cause, and by extension the solution, is very much married to our perspectives. Our perspectives, again a product of our time, experiences, and social values. To then apply this lens to a society not our own is foolhardy at best. Without understanding the multitude of causes and the byzantine web of exacerbating factors, the simplistic imposition of a supposed panacea, with the naive arrogance accorded by privilege, will bring little of the reprieve we vainly seek. Our prideful ego, in seeking to bring advancement and improvement to perceived forgotten lands, can be found littered in the annals of history, thwarted by the savage, ungrateful creates unable to comprehend the gifts of modernity. From the futile attempts to educate women on menstrual hygiene, or merely seeking to eradicate the abhorrent practice of Chhaupadi - banishing women to secluded huts during their menstrual cycle - our efforts to solve problems and eliminate conflict are clearly thwarted by our lack of true understanding. Whether conflict stems from gender, cultural practices, race, religion, or whichever arbitrary division prevalent, intervention on the basis of wisdom, knowledge, or wealth, does little to resolve conflict, even if it might numb the extent somewhat.

What perhaps is the straw that breaks the camel's back is the pride involved in conflict resolution. This is particularly troubling since one country's problem can be construed as injurious to the image of the nation. To then have another nation coming to the rescue is likely to be far more than any self-respecting citizen can bear. After all, nationalistic pride would prevent one from accepting the superiority of another nation and its ways, especially at the implied rejection of one's own, or at least the acknowledgement of its inadequacies. From Castro's rebellious declaration that Cuba does not need "gifts from the Empire", to North Korea's persistent efforts to credit the Supreme Leader for the items sent by America, the insecurity and threat to sovereignty is plainly evident. Even in the face of rational reason, the acceptance of assistance from other nations is an admission of weakness and ineptitude. Moreover, this is assuming that the help was not already mired in a Gordian knot of terms and conditions, intended to impose the values and will of the party offering help. The European Union's offer to bail out bankrupt nations often included a requirement for austerity measures, at once a clear show of dominance and also a less than covert criticism on existing leadership. Such efforts, rationally sensible, provoke resentment and retaliation, further fracturing the communities already having difficulties.

With such clear limitations to intervention, it is logical for nations to be given the space to work through their issues. They have the clearest insight and knowledge; and whether they admit and acknowledge it is another matter.  The solutions, however juvenile or imperfect the rest of the world deems, is theirs and they can focus on tweaking it instead of being compelled to fervently defend it out of pride. Perhaps most poignant is the revelation that problems and conflicts are largely products of perception. The value-judgement and priorities already vary enough from individual to individual, without foreign input to complicate matters far more.

Now, it is not to say that foreign intervention has no place, but that the conditions must be thus urgent and severe enough to necessitate the actions, considering the implications and general futility. Thankfully, our pride does allow for the acceptance of help and intervention, at least when it is apparent that the refusal of which mean certain death and suffering in the immediate future. Typically triggered by natural catastrophes, the urgency and severity facilitate the expression and acceptance of humanity, without fear of the cynical self-interest that attaches itself to rational thought and plans. Wherever the catastrophe, the world rallies quickly, driven by the stark reminder of our own mortality, to help a fellow human being. We are cognisant that without assistance, irrevocable consequences are swift and cruel, spurring us to act as a collective bastion of humanity. Yet, in less urgent situations, we find ways to rationalise our way out of helping or accepting such help, however severe it may be.

In all, it is clear that countries experiencing conflict should generally be left to sort out its own problems, with its expertise and the futility of intervention, though it must be acknowledged that we should make an exception in cases of extreme urgency and severity. Whether the decision to not intervene is borne of acknowledgement of futility or trust in the community, this approach will at least reduce complications and divergence that lend itself to further disagreements. It takes a lot of faith to allow events to unfold themselves, the effort to resist intervention far greater than simply taking over. Let us not make the mistake of equating non-intervention with disinterest, but instead, choose to see it as the greatest expression of faith and confidence in the fellow humans in other nations. As much as we lambast Nigeria and their president, we should remember that the people had the wisdom to not re-elect President Goodluck. That should count for something.

~~~~~~

All sample essays in this blog are original works written by Belinda. They are handwritten under timed conditions (90 minutes), and are subsequently typed out as blog posts. If you like what you read, leave us a comment below! :)

'More than any other time, the old have no place in society today.' How far do you agree with this view?

Image from personal collection

'More than any other time, the old have no place in society today.' How far do you agree with this view?

As the horror of the Brexit poll hit the people, as they scrambled to make sense of what their collective stupor and ignorance had caused, the data-crunchers found a scapegoat on which to pin the responsibility. It turns out that the older voters had favoured the "Leave" campaign over the more rational "Remain" one. Vehement protests and moral outrage took over as the people shifted their regret into anger that the old had supposedly sabotaged the future in which they would not have to live to see. Many began to lament that the old, more than any other time, have no place in society, citing their entrenched mindsets, the rampant ageism, and their inability to keep up with the rapidly-changing world. The more rational, however, point out that the old today have more place than before, with the larger numbers of the old cementing their place in society as demographic composition changes, with ever more efforts in place to facilitate the old in attaining their needs, not to mention the commitment to their quality of life. Having considered both sides of the issue, even at the risk of sounding idealistic, I have to admit that I am of the opinion that the old in society today can hardly be said to have no place in society, when compared to any other time.

The pessimistic would argue that the old today are obsolete in modern cosmopolitan societies, unlike in the past when their entrenched mindsets were in sync with the more homogenous societies of yesteryears. Many societies today are diverse and cosmopolitan, often embracing a breath of views hitherto unprecedented. The implication is that individuals may too easily feel out of place in society, with the older individuals plausibly having difficulty feeling at home in a society that has evolved at a pace that far outstrips their ability and willingness to let go of the familiar. It is then a hop and a skip away from concluding that the old must then have no place in this dynamic world. The popularity of the "I don't want to live on this planet anymore" meme featuring Professor Farnsworth of Futurama aptly reveals the perception of the elderly mentality, suggesting that the old must feel utter disgust and disappointment in the world today. It is evident there is widespread discomfort in the current state of affairs, with the old seeking escape from the world they no longer recognise. While amusing and humourous, even possibly true in some cases, this argument grossly overlooks the flawed assumptions that render the conclusion invalid. It may be difficult to admit, but this widely held belief regarding the old is, in fact, born and perpetuated by the younger generation eager to dismiss the abilities of the old, whether out of pride or ignorance. In particular, the older generation's staunch defence to preserve values and practices may be far too easily dismissed as a product of entrenched mindsets, thus alleviating the possibly equally stubborn younger generation's need to give due consideration to the words of the old. One such example could be the distorted feminism that is prevalent. Female empowerment and rights are indubitably evidence of progress, though the more extreme efforts, such as the Slut Walks, in which women often demonstrated their freedom through the abandonment of clothing to embrace varying degrees of nudity may bring concern. Likewise, the efforts of the sexual minorities to gain acceptance have often turned to provocative means. Such perverse goals and unorthodox means are understandably likely to be met with disdain of the older people in society, who may feel some discomfort at the ways of the youth today. The stereotype of the old as concerned though out-of-touch with modernity, manifesting their good intentions in the form of nostalgic laments, unsolicited advice, and even condemnations of shame, quickly come to mind. However, rather than misconstrue these phenomena as evident that they have no place, we should recognise it as precisely the very reason why the old have a place. As much as their natterings may seem unimportant, the old in fact play the crucial role as the last bulwark that slows the rapid changes across domains that are simultaneously gnawing away at the foundations that underpin society. True that the words of the old, so steeped in the past, may not garner the same media attention that the latest social movement can, but even as the young struggle to break free from the reins, they need the old there to hold the reins and prevent them from a path more tangential and problematic than they had hoped for.

Image from knowyourmeme.com

Still, the most cynical would insist on the old having lost their place, choosing to see the old as burdens and helpless victims of ageism in the societies that are now cognisant of the realities when faced with unprecedented numbers of the previously-celebrated rare few survivors into old age. They point to the undercurrents latent in many developed societies between the young and old, suggesting that the younger have grown tired of the old, exhausted under the weight of supporting the many older people, who seem utterly incapable of being self-sufficient and fighting the discrimination they incessantly lament about. As an illustration, these cynics point to both the disgruntled comments of the young and the old, with the occasional incident on the news as irrevocable evidence of such sentiment. Despite some existence of the impatience and frustration that rears its ugly head every once in a while, the fatalistic notion of consequent irrelevance as inevitable overlooks the need for adjustment to changing demographic shifts, which although uncomfortable, is rather temporary. As much as there are a number of societies still negotiating the changes, there are many that have successfully adjusted its mindsets and policies to support the needs of the growing silver generation in their population. From atop the list of ageing populations, Japan has successfully found a place in its heart and well-oiled economy to accommodate the elderly, who take on meaningful tasks with the traditional skills few youths have, and who contribute to the community in ways considered less effortful and more suited to the realities of old age. In other ageing societies, the old are far from just useless burdens, cast aside and preserved in the name of ethical duty. It is evident that besides the initial adjustment and irreverent few voices that cast doubt, the old have a place in society.

Admittedly, some sympathetic individuals have expressed pity and concern for the old who they perceive to have no place today, considering the degree of technological advancement that drives our world today. There is fear that the rapid progress and seemingly ever-changing processes are far too much for the old who would supposedly feel out of place and obsolete, in a way that the old from other times would plausibly not. Putting aside the fact that this conjecture is a construct of imagination and laced with some well-intentioned stereotypes, this view, in its zeal for compassion, under-estimated the ability of the old to learn and overlooked the abundance of resources now available to quench the insatiable thirst for knowledge and self-improvement, both of which are unaffected by age. As much as age has been a convenient excuse to justify a lack of interest, effort, and success, especially when it comes to learning, this argument fails to hold water when we consider the sheer amount of options now available to facilitate the learning of the older generation. The subsequent silver invasion into domains once solely dominated by the young, such as social media platforms, reveal the undeniable truth that when the old desire it, they have a wealth of resources to enable them to get it. Today, they reign over social media platforms that the young hurriedly left behind, finding more ways to make use of the platforms, be it livestreams of garage sales or sharing of the latest health tips. The elderly are able to, and have embraced technology, thus cannot be considered obsolete, especially when we realise that the efforts to help the old and resources provided are, in fact, clear indications of the continued relevance of the old.

In the face of the arguments on empowerment and resources, the most staunch would still insist that the frailty of old age means less place for the old in society. This is arguably exacerbated by the limits that have been pushed in terms of medically-preserved decrepitude. As individuals age, it seems logical to no longer retain the physical prowess associated with youth in their peak physical states. Medical issues seem to creep up and ageing bodies try to negotiate the issues to compensate for, and carry on, some semblance of life. The feared fall of an elderly, the dreaded hip replacement or knee replacement, are some physical issues faced. The intangible senile dementia and other conditions add to the fray, with the old already embroiled in this private struggle. Thankfully, the concerns surrounding health in old age have been largely mitigated by the powerful strides in technology that has the ability to negate the ravages of time. Physiology has been thoroughly studied and many treatments and interventions developed. From the media's hype over ordinary women who defy time by looking like they are their children's ages, we can see that the old have access to and employed techniques to overcome these physical limitations. Even for the mind, there are many pharmaceutical interventions, such as to delay and even reverse brain ageing. Clearly, technology can, or at least soon, ensure the old still have a place in society. I do concede that such tools and benefits may not be available to all the elderly in every society. The availability of the resources and efforts are still predicated on one's wealth and thus not readily accessible to everyone. Still, the circumstance that the old find themselves in is not without reprieve. As we look beyond today, we need to help the old and those without resources to be able to seek the help they need.

All in all, our cynicism, fears, and criticisms, may tempt us into downplaying the place for the old, but we need to keep a rational mind to focus on the place they have. With the world staring down a silver tsunami, it is best we make pace with any existing issues to help our society, young and old through the next set of challenges. A convenient scapegoat the old may be, it is still unwise to give them up as sacrifice whenever any polarising poll comes around. Before blaming "Brexit" on the old, it would make more sense to listen to the views in an objective manner and understand the issues, rather than take the easy way out by blaming the old.

~~~~~~

All sample essays in this blog are original works written by Belinda. They are handwritten under timed conditions (90 minutes), and are subsequently typed out as blog posts. If you like what you read, leave us a comment below! :)

'The pursuit of equality between the sexes is not only futile but foolish.' Do you agree?

Image by GDJ via Creative Commons

 
'The pursuit of equality between the sexes is not only futile but foolish.' Do you agree?

Only one female made it into the top hundred list of highest earners in the sports industry. Serena Williams, the last woman standing, is ranked a mere fifty-first in the 2017 list, according to Forbes. This has led to outrage and disappointment among the feminists, who consider this a scandal and reason for their renewed vigour. The more realistic are aware that the pursuit of equality between the sexes is utterly futile, being fraught with challenges, and the cynics among them would be quick to argue that the endeavour is clearly foolish if clear results are not attainable. The more idealistic would choose to focus on the principle and value of the endeavour, believing that it is a sensible choice. Having considered both sides of the issue, I harbour no unrealistic notion about the efficacy and acknowledge the futility of the effort, but I must admit I see value in the pursuit nonetheless, with the ensuring debate, empowerment, and hope for our humanity in the long run.

I must concede that there is truth in the viewpoint that the endeavour is futile, being fraught with nuances and complexities that led some to believe the entire pursuit as being foolish. It is true that the concept of equality is already challenging to grasp, much less apply to the sensitive topic of differences between and within the sexes. Equality, being about ensuring similar access to opportunity, is already challenging to understand, being so often misunderstood as equitable outcomes. The problem is further complicated with inherent differences between the sexes that render any pursuit of equality rather pointless, with many misconstruing the fundamental notions and consequent inability to arrive at a common consensus. The pessimists would then point to the innumerable efforts on the part of feminist and activists in pursuit of equality and feel buoyed by the evident lack of success, not to mention vast amounts of time, effort, and other resources that have been poured into the pursuit, all in vain. The Slut Parade, International Women's Day, and even #Women2Drive would perhaps be at the top of their minds as they shake their heads at the foolish squandering of resources, believing that the pursuit is foolish since it would be for naught. I must disagree on it being foolish. I choose to focus on the discussion that ensued, though rather inconclusive, and at times, even controversial, the discussion is still very much of value. The fervent and often heated debate actually serves much importance to the growing maturity of the society, as the populace considers different views on the respective sexes and reflects on what equality means for themselves and others. The emotional debate over victim-shaming in rape cases and the extent of rights that each individual has over himself or herself is an invaluable discussion, even if little consensus is achieved in the end. Hence, as much as I agree that the pursuit of equality between the sexes is not likely to bring results, I do not think it is foolish when we consider the resultant discussion.

On top of the discussion that the pursuit brings, it is imperative that we consider the resultant empowerment of the vulnerable that renders this admittedly futile pursuit not so foolish after all. Pursuing gender equality may well be doomed due to ingrained mindsets, but the overt emphasis on the situation at least ameliorates the situation of the less powerful gender. Take for instance, the oft-cited plight of Saudi Arabian women, who are deemed to be victims of one of the most unequal societies in the world. The females in the society are not even adequately empowered to be allowed into a common space with the males of the society, not to mention have a bank account without the blessings of their husbands, or be eligible to earn their driving licenses. With the admittedly pointless pursuit of gender equality, what it at least does is to highlight the plight of the gender most disenfranchised, so that some improvement and attention is at least possible for those who are incapable of helping themselves. The concessions in allowing the women in Saudi Arabia to finally get their driving license without providing means for independent travel and even vote, albeit in a most undemocratic society, at least serves to alleviate the grievous sense of injustice somewhat, despite clearly not being meaningful representation or even indication of true equality. The same can be said for the women in Afghanistan and Yemen, or even the men in Singapore. Hence, while I do acknowledge the endeavour as futile, I simply do not consider it foolish.

Still, the staunchly pragmatic would dismiss the pursuit as foolish, with the futility, or at best insignificant benefits. They argue that the social upheaval and polarising debate are far too much a cost to bear, in the light of the inconsequential outcomes. They would point to the sharply divisive controversies that have threatened to tear the already fraying social fabric in most societies already under pressure from global forces. As it is, traditions and norms are already under siege from the diversity brought about by the unprecedented mobility and diasporas that have spread far and wide. In this situation, the pursuit of gender equality may well be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, as it could well be what stretches the fibres that are barely holding society together. The outcry over the treatment of Indian women, especially the Dalit women, has been made the scapegoat for the division and lack of progress in the Indian society. Yet, such a fatalistic and pessimistic view overlooks the possibility of some progress and maturity in the society, albeit in the long run. The risk-averse approach focusses too much on the short-run threat, without giving due consideration to the possible progress that can be gained in the long run. This is not to say that the endeavour would be eventually successful or to even bear some fruit in gender equality. Instead, it is entirely likely that we would be condemned to the perpetual over-compensation that the pursuit of gender equality serves to constantly result in. Rather, what makes the endeavour meaningful, and not foolish as claimed by the pessimists, is the development of the maturity of the populace and, dare I suggest, the advancement of society and civilisation. As much as we have yet to have any true equality of the sexes, we can infer the potential of such pursuits of equality between criminals and non-criminals. The enlightened approach seen in the Nordic countries had been sparked by the humanitarian emphasis on equality. Norway's revolutionary, world's-first commitment to equality, seen in the Halden Prison and the Bastoy Island Prison, had its genesis in the pursuit of equality at the realisation of the cruel ways previously employed on juvenile delinquents in the Boys' Home on Bastoy Island itself. The contemporary island retreat of a prison is testament to the progress such pursuits can bring. While true that these Scandinavian countries are, for now, rather lonely in such enlightenment, what is undeniable is the prerequisite of the pursuit for equality in the long-term progress of the society. Hence, as much as the pursuit of equality between the sexes is unlikely to bear fruit, given that it is perhaps one of the only inequalities backed by actual differences in biology, the pursuit itself is hardly foolish as it is a necessary first step in societal progress.

On a more practical note, the admittedly futile effort is still not foolish when we consider the actual need for change in gender roles and responsibilities brought about by the changing circumstances, which the pursuit would facilitate. The world today is changing rapidly in terms of technological advancement, altering the situation in societies, cost of living, and also work demands. Along with these, society's expectations with respect to gender roles, procreation, and family, have also shifted. Some more significantly than other perhaps, but nonetheless, changed and are still changing. As a result, the entrenched gender inequality would prove to be a hurdle for the required changes to keep up with changing societal needs. Hence, even when the pursuit of gender inequality would likely fail to bring about true equality in terms of access to opportunities, it is a worthwhile endeavour as it crucially paves the way for much needed changes that facilitate society's adapting to the changing circumstances in order to survive, much less thrive. This can be seen in the Finnish society, which is often held up as a guiding light for equality, where females are given concessions and support so that motherhood would not unfairly penalise them. Putting aside the controversial argument that this is equality in practice, when so clearly the men do not have access to similar concessions, what is evident is that the society has benefitted from the pursuit of equality, in that the effort has been leveraged upon to make much-needed changes to the landscape of work and socio-exploitation of human resources to ensure Finland's continued survival in the modern world. The same can be said of the Chinese in mainland China, which in the name of gender equality, has made being a leftover woman a badge of honour to harness the previously unexploited potential of the female population. In South Sudan, the practice of abusing fattening pills to achieve the societal standard of feminine beauty, at the expense of health, is now criticised, again under the banner of gender equality, to ensure the populace moves away from such wastage of resources and onto the empowerment that would help improve the pitiable plight of the impoverished nation saddled by traditional notions steeped in gender subjugation. Evidently, as much as the pursuit is indeed futile, the potential of the endeavour as a means to ensure society is able to keep up with changing circumstances makes it far from foolish.

In all, the pursuit of gender equality is likely to be futile, given the complexities and subjectivity of the notion, not to mention the entrenched mindsets that hinder any effort. Still, it is far from foolish considering the consequent debate, empowerment, and its potential as a tool for progress and advancement. As much as it is a thorny topic and a source of frustration for many, we must resist the temptation to surrender the pursuit using the simplistic assertion that futility equates folly. Instead, we should recognise the excuse for what it is and look beyond its immediate futility to recognise its central role in our growth, be it personal or societal. Perhaps another way of looking at it is to realise that it is more foolish to succumb and accept limitations as told, for if Serena Williams did, she would not have made it to the top hundred list, nor become the inspiration for so many in the world.

~~~~~~

All sample essays in this blog are original works written by Belinda. They are handwritten under timed conditions (90 minutes), and are subsequently typed out as blog posts. If you like what you read, leave us a comment below! :)