?????????????????? ???? ?????? ?????????????????? ???? ??????????????????

Standing in front of Stunakarna in the dense forest Shikhandi, pleaded, "O Yaksha! I need your manhood. "

Yaksha Stunakarna made a pact, "You can have my manhood, but as soon as Hiranyavarna dies, you must return it to me."

Hiranyavarna, the king of Dasharna, gave away his daughter to Shikhandi, but she soon realized that Shikhandi was a woman, and thus began Shikhandi's quest to attain manhood.

Social movements have probably been around as long as there have been oppressive societies. However, it has only been in the last few hundred years that their praxis—the way they combine theory and practice—has become a craft that can be learned and improved. Praxis has always been made by the marginalized and still is. It has to be faster than scholarship, which too often helps the powerful, because of this. Key tactics have been used, improved, and shared across continents. These include the boycott, which comes from the Irish fight against British colonialism, the hunger strike, which has deep historical roots in India and Ireland and was widely used by women suffragettes in the U.K., and nonviolent direct action, which was created by Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa and India. They brought down many unfair systems, including the global colonial order, even though collective behavior theorists still thought social movements were irrational, unplanned, and not democratic.

In this male-dominated world, all social movements strive to attain social justice. What is social justice? Simply put, it is a state of society where all people can have a fair chance at succeeding, regardless of their various identities. The fight for social justice is an ongoing movement that tries to educate and inform people to bring about social change. Social justice advocates can focus on different aspects or areas, such as gender justice, racial justice, and others. But in the end, all of them have the same goal of attaining equity.

Before we discuss equity and equality, we must not forget that Shikhandi was born as a woman in an extremely rigid male world, where men were everything. The Shikhandi character finds its importance all because of a highly dominant male entity called "Devabrata", better known as "Bheesm", or the terrible one, according to Monier Monier-Williams. In war, Bheesma was unmatched. He had knowledge of every possible weapon that existed at that time and could use them very efficiently against his enemies. Battling with him was pointless, for death was sure. As per Mahabharata Bhishmaparva Chapter 108, Shikhandi faced Bhishma in the Kurukshetra war. The Pandavas began the day’s battle with Shikhandi in the front. He was supported by Bhima, Arjuna, and Abhimanyu. Arrows flew from either side. Shikhandi fired three arrows at Bhishma’s chest. Bhishma laughed and told him that since Brahma had created Shikhandi as a woman, Bhishma would let it pass. Shikhandi became angry on hearing this. Arjuna encouraged him further and began attacking Bhishma, keeping Shikhandi in front of him. Ten of Shikhandi’s arrows struck Bhishma in the chest. He didn't care about them either, saying that he couldn't kill anyone because Shikhandi was a woman and the Pandavas were rightful rulers. He also said that, thanks to a boon from his father, he could decide the time of his death, and he decided that it would happen soon. Chapter 173 of the Mahabharata Udyogaparva says that Arjuna and Shikhandi kept shooting arrows at Bhishma until he fell.

But nobody talks about Shikhandi in detail; her character exists and gains prominence because of the men around her. She was Drupada's daughter, Dronacharya's disciple, Dhristadyumna's sister, and Bheesm's arch rival. She never got a chance to make decisions for herself.

New research suggests gender plays a role in these decisions because men tend to organize the world into distinct categories, whereas women see things as more conditional and in shades of gray.

Psychologists at the University of Warwick had men and women judge how each of 50 objects fit into a certain category—whether it belonged, did not belong, or only partially (somewhat) belonged. For example, is a cucumber a fruit? Is a horse a vehicle? After making each judgment, people reported how confident they were about their decision.

For example, men were more likely to see an object as fully belonging or not belonging to a category, while women more often judged that objects only partially belong. The more intriguing finding, though, was that men and women were equally confident in their decisions. This means the gender difference was not due to men simply being more certain or women being more uncertain about their judgments. Instead, it suggests men and women perceive the world differently. This may happen for a couple of reasons. One possibility is that society's expectations for men and women lead men to have more black-and-white views and women to have more nuanced, complex views. Men have been admired in many cultures for being decisive and taking action, even if that means jumping to conclusions. On the other hand, girls are taught to be more thoughtful and open to other people's ideas, even if that means being more critical of themselves. This socialization not only affects behavior and personality; it also colors our perceptions. For instance, women perceive greater risk across many real and hypothetical scenarios relative to men, partly because risk-taking is a central and esteemed component of the masculine gender role.

Emergency medical workers—such as paramedics and emergency room doctors—need to look at a set of symptoms and diagnose a patient with a particular medical condition. During a trial, judges have to decide whether or not evidence, testimony, objections, and other things are legal. Managers and CEOs must be comfortable making definitive judgments over and over. All of these professions are heavily male-dominated by about 2:1 in the U.S. Of course, there are many reasons for gender imbalances in occupations like these, and one might be the prospect of making all these decisions. At the same time, though, women’s more nuanced views are probably an asset in many settings, particularly when there is time to deliberate.

Now, let us consider this simple study to understand the gender difference in categorization. People are shown 3 objects (e.g., seagull, squirrel, and tree) and are asked to select the 2 they think should be grouped together. That is, they pick whichever 2 of the 3 things seem to "go together." People who choose seagull-squirrel are assumed to be thinking about the objects in terms of their categories (these were the two animals). But other people select squirrel-tree as their two items, which ignores categories and instead groups the objects based on their relationship to one another in a particular context (squirrels are often in trees). These are very distinct approaches to understanding things in our environment. The first approach uses categories to make inferences about an object’s characteristics. For example, say you’re trying to figure out what your new boss is like. Knowing he falls into these categories enables you to make abstract generalizations—using the stereotypes of those groups—about what he might be like as your boss. The information you get from these generalizations, though, is inherently abstract. The other way to understand him is by focusing on his relationship to other things. For instance, maybe you know that he’s a close friend of your previous boss, and though you’ve heard he’s very committed to his marriage, he’s not very loyal to the company you both work for. Unlike the stereotypes, these relationships (his friends, his love life) are specific to a certain situation and don't apply as well to other situations (like how he treats his employees). What you know about him is context-specific.

Both these categories are clearly visible in Shikhandi's characterization too. The first was abstract generalizations of women. The second was by focusing on her relationships. Surprisingly, both were not stable, which is considered to be a trait of women in those days and hence a sign of weakness of mind and decision-making.

Let us now look at the concepts of equity and equality. Equity, by definition, is the quality of being fair and impartial. Equality, on the other hand, means the state of being equal. When discussing social justice, these terms become highly important. Social equality is more about having success, while social equity is more about being able to have success. What we can understand is that it is not about everyone having the same level of wealth or happiness, but about removing any existing barriers that stand in the way of various individuals and their social resources.

Having understood this, one question still remains. What is the main roadblock to achieving an equitable society? The answer is not a simple one. There can be several roadblocks, but the most prominent is the cycle of oppression.

Oppression is connected to the balance of social power. Whenever this power or authority is exercised unjustly, oppression comes into play. It is difficult to fight against it because of its cyclical nature. As long as society keeps doing things that hurt other people without realizing it, it keeps building on itself and getting stronger. To understand the cycle in a much better way, let us break it into stages:

Stage 1: The starting point of this cycle is a difference. We notice things about other people's looks, actions, or beliefs that are different from our own and put them in a certain group.

Stage 2: When you look at people based on their differences, you create a stereotype, which we talked about earlier when we said there are different ways to look at things.

Stage 3: Stereotypes are always damaging and serve as the basis for prejudice—negative or limiting beliefs about a group of people, just like the example of how a boss might be that we discussed earlier.

Stage 4: We are treated unfairly when we act on a bias, whether we are aware of it or not.

Researchers have found that men tend to think about many things in a more abstract way, using categories and generalizations, while women tend to think more in terms of concrete situations and relationships. One thing that shows this is how some psychologists compare the way men and women think about right and wrong. Males’ moral judgments tend to be governed by abstract principles of justice, duty, and fairness that apply to all people and situations (e.g., whether a law is broken, whether justice is served). When deciding what is right or wrong, women give more weight to the relationships between people and special circumstances. Moral judgments are made based on subjective feelings (like whether someone feels betrayed or hurt) rather than abstract principles. In any case, men seem to be more comfortable in the black-and-white world of categorical thinking. This gives a different view of why men aren't just more likely to be in leadership positions but also usually want them more than women do. More than, say, a lack of confidence, a dislike of hierarchies or competitive environments, discomfort with working in a male-dominated field, or fear of discrimination, the idea of making repeated categorical judgments may keep women from these jobs.

So it is not wrong to say that it is men's black-and-white categorical thinking that is responsible for discrimination against women, which Shikandi suffered as well.

Why does discrimination happen? It is a good question to ask. Discrimination happens when an individual uses their authority or power to limit someone's opportunities because of their identity. Shikhandi was a great warrior and a great leader, but she did not lead King Drupada's army into battle. While discrimination happens at an individual level, oppression happens at a social or institutional level. When Shikhandi came back with manhood, she was not allowed to rule as a king. She was never allowed to father kids, despite Hiranyavarma’s daughter returning to Panchal. All we know from the Mahabharata is that she was killed by Aswatthama in a sleeping state.

This kind of silent societal oppression continues even today. An example of oppression is when organizations deny people employment simply because of their race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. In some cases, the law even supports such acts of oppression. The cycle continues through internalization. Members of the oppressed group grow up with oppressive stereotypes and prejudice about the social group they belong to. As a result, they act to support those beliefs, no matter how damaging they are. Shikhandi grew up all her life hearing that she had to become a boy, so she never tried to become a good girl, a true woman, or a queen with virtues who could challenge the male dominance. Her whole life revolved around one stereotype: that she had to become a boy and grow up to become a man, but what would she do if she got to manhood? Did she just lose her life and precious manhood in a battle? There are no answers, only a long and uneasy silence. Shikhandi's failure created a "second generation" of stereotypes.

One of the damaging byproducts of oppression is priviledge. It makes things harder for people in oppressed groups while giving more options to those who already have power.

Is there no way to break the cycle? There is, of course! The way to break this cycle is by dismantling the stereotypes and educating ourselves and each other. The rest will surely follow.

So why should corporates worry about Shikhandi? Well, because corporations are creating more of them, generation after generation. They are ardent followers of Shikhandi. In a survey done by IIMs, 35% of the women who answered agreed that they don't have the same chances to move up in their jobs as men do. The survey was based on female alumni and students from 20 IIMs. Gender stereotyping and bias emerged as key factors hindering the progress of female professionals. 58% also noted that they faced bias in the workplace.

According to Uma Kasoji, an IIM-Kozhikode alumna, "The most commonly encountered biases are "Prove it again" and "The Tight Rope." Among those surveyed, 26% faced the "Prove It Again" bias, where women are held to a higher standard than men and must continually prove themselves." About 23% of the people who answered the survey had to deal with "The Tightrope" bias. This is when professional women are seen as either too weak or too strong, and they have to find a middle ground between the two. There weren't many women in leadership positions. In fact, 61% of women said that the number of women in the top leadership positions of their organizations wasn't important and that they needed more role models.

Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, Chairperson of Biocon, says, "Women are hardly given the chance to be evaluated on their potential—that’s very unfair to them." We need to give opportunities and time for women to deliver – that’s where it starts from. Organisations need to put in extra effort for diversity and gender inclusion. "

People are much too complicated to be summed up or explained by just one label. Sure, we can learn a lot from someone saying, "I identify as a woman," but will we understand that person based on just one aspect? Humans are many different things at the same time. At the most basic level, each of us is a complicated mix of many different identities that come together to make one unique person. Add them all up, and you will have yourself an exceptional individual.

Humans tend to simplify things that are difficult to understand, and as a result, we get reduced to one single label that doesn't even begin to cover all the amazing things we are.

Corporate organizations need to understand that knowing someone's identity is not knowing someone's story or where they are coming from. So, the best thing is to try and have a relationship with an entire individual, not just one of their identities.

As Uma Kasoji, an IIM-Kozhikode alumna, also points out, "Bridging the gender gap in leadership requires a conscious investment in terms of time, effort, and funding." Organisations need to invest in the growth of female professionals through structured programmes. Only then can they effectively address the gender gap."

For Google, Amazon, and McKinsey, they held the fort as dream companies from last year, with Tesla and Unilever the new entrants. Indra Nooyi and Shaw emerged as the most admired female leaders.

Gender norms are the unwritten rules and guidelines that society gives us based on our gender. They are inescapable and deeply rooted in our minds. They tell us what to wear, how to look and behave. If you are a boy, pink is not your colour. If you are a girl, playing with dolls is the only option you have. This is how gender norms work in our society. They may change over time, but you can still see their overt and covert effects in the business world.

Gender norms are unwritten rules about gender, while gender roles are specific groups of those rules that decide where people stand in society.

Gender roles are hard for a lot of people to deal with because following them causes internal conflict, while breaking them causes an outside conflict in society. A binary understanding of gender is deeply embedded in our society's norms and rules. It is rigid and restrictive, lacking nuance and compassion. Living in a binary reality when, deep down, you feel like you don't fit into it can cause identity dissonance and hurtful internal conflicts. The dissonance that binary gender restrictions cause can lead to depression, anxiety, and other dangerous mental illnesses.

Corporations need to realize that it can be freeing and less stressful to move away from a binary view of gender and toward something less limiting. Gender is a socially constructed thing, a way to put people into groups without knowing their whole story. They can't keep doing what Shikhandi did. Instead, they should try to make sure that everyone has the same rights.

?#genderbias #genderequality #gendergap #feminism #genderequity #equality #genderinequality #feminist #gender #womeninbusiness #womenempowerment #sexism #diversity #womensupportingwomen #equalpay #womeninleadership #womenempoweringwomen #inclusion #genderparity #genderpaygap #womenleaders #phenomenalact #maleissues #wagegap #genderstereotypes #doublestandards #leadership #womeninmedicine #mensrights #sexist #linkedin