logo
Fairness means ditching the myth of the self-made woman — Shakira Teh Sharifuddin

Fairness means ditching the myth of the self-made woman — Shakira Teh Sharifuddin

Malay Mail24-04-2025
APRIL 24 — In her book Against Meritocracy: Culture, Power and the Myths of Mobility, sociologist Jo Littler critiques what she calls 'neoliberal feminism' — the idea that women can succeed in male-dominated spaces simply by working hard and being ambitious. Personalities like tech executive Sheryl Sandberg, known for the Lean In movement, embody this vision. But Littler argues that this perspective ignores systemic discrimination and disadvantages working-class women, women of certain ethnicity, disabled women and other marginalised groups.
Littler was also of the opinion that mainstream media and, I would add, corporate culture only celebrate 'exceptional' or high-achieving women who succeed despite obstacles, reinforcing the idea that success and failure is a personal rather than a structural issue.
Herein lies the problem. For as long as women define and measure success according to conventional standards, such as becoming a CEO, a successful entrepreneur, or the first person to achieve something, the focus remains on breaking symbolic glass ceilings rather than addressing the deeper structural barriers that sustain inequality.
For privileged women, particularly those of higher social class, the response to justify their worth and to counter the disadvantages and challenges they face due to their gender is to throw themselves into the meritocratic race, competing for the same rewards while downplaying the class privileges that made this possible.
Sheryl Sandberg, the face of 'Lean In' feminism, remains a symbol of meritocratic success — one that critics argue overlooks the structural barriers many women still face. — Reuters pic
What is even more unfortunate is that, as a result of this race to the top and the rhetoric of personal effort and merit, there is a tendency to shy away from or altogether avoid honest discussions about removing and challenging the structural barriers that prevent many capable individuals not just women who may be mothers or daughters, but also men, caregivers, and people with disabilities from participating meaningfully in society.
This partly explains why, despite more women in senior roles, progress toward a more flexible, inclusive workplace for everyone has been slow. It also explains why the idea of work-life balance is often viewed and dismissed as unproductive.
As hard or unrealistic as it may be, it is worthwhile to re-examine and challenge this view. In a world where reaching the top is possible only for a select few, it is even more important to acknowledge and celebrate the many women who choose different paths, raising families, starting home businesses, or caring for elderly or ill family members. Their contributions are just as valuable to society, if not more.
I hesitated to write this, having shared similar thoughts before. However, after watching and reading about the various events and discussions surrounding International Women's Day this month, I feel it is worth sharing some of my personal thoughts and observations, if only to get them off my chest. It was encouraging to see more conversations about the challenges women face, such as access to care work and health services.
At the same time, however, it was somewhat uninspiring and disappointing to see the girlboss and hustle culture narrative still being promoted at large in some spaces, especially by women in the corporate arena.
I am aware of the privilege that allows me the time to reflect and write. Still, I hope for growing awareness of the many intersections — gender, class, disability, ethnicity and greater empathy.
Not everyone and certainly not every woman starts from the same place. By listening to the everyday stories of women, we gain insights statistics cannot offer and shift the conversation from merit to fairness.
* Shakira Teh Sharifuddin is a PhD candidate in Sociology of Education.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NTSB chair says media reports on Air India crash are speculative, premature
NTSB chair says media reports on Air India crash are speculative, premature

The Star

time2 days ago

  • The Star

NTSB chair says media reports on Air India crash are speculative, premature

FILE PHOTO: Wreckage of the Air India Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner plane sits on the open ground, outside Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport, where it took off and crashed nearby shortly afterwards, in Ahmedabad, India July 12, 2025. REUTERS/Amit Dave/File Photo (Reuters) -The United States National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said on Friday that recent media reports on the crash of an Air India Boeing Dreamliner that killed 260 people were premature and speculative. A preliminary investigation released last week by India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau found confusion in the cockpit shortly before the June 12 crash, and raised fresh questions over the position of the critical engine fuel cutoff switches. A cockpit recording of dialogue between the two pilots of the flight supports the view that the captain cut the flow of fuel to the plane's engines, Reuters reported on Thursday, citing a source familiar with U.S. officials' early assessment of evidence. GE Aerospace, Boeing, Air India, India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation and AAIB did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Homendy said investigations of this magnitude take time, and that the NTSB will continue to support AAIB's ongoing probe. (Reporting by Abu Sultan and Gursimran Kaur in Bengaluru; Editing by Richard Chang)

Incorrect speed record card caused 2024 Nepal plane crash, panel says
Incorrect speed record card caused 2024 Nepal plane crash, panel says

The Star

time2 days ago

  • The Star

Incorrect speed record card caused 2024 Nepal plane crash, panel says

KATHMANDU (Reuters) -A passenger plane crash in Nepal last year that killed 18 people was caused by faulty information about the aircraft's takeoff speed in the flight documentation, a report issued on Friday by a government-appointed investigation panel said. A CRJ-200LR aircraft, owned by Nepal's Saurya Airlines, crashed shortly after taking off from the capital Kathmandu in July last year, killing all 17 passengers and the co-pilot. Only the captain survived. The crash was caused by a "deep stall during take-off because of abnormally rapid pitch rate commanded at a lower-than-optimal rotation speed", the report submitted to the government said. Aviation expert Nagendra Prasad Ghimire told Reuters the aircraft made a premature takeoff before gaining the necessary speed. The report said errors in a speed card - a document that provides important airspeed information for a specific aircraft, particularly during takeoff, climb and landing - had gone unnoticed and the airline had failed to address previous cases of a high pitch rate - the rate at which an aircraft's nose rotates up or down - during take-off. It said there had been gross negligence and non-compliance by the operator during the entire process of cargo and baggage handling. It recommended all operators review their speed cards and comply with the requirements of cargo and baggage handling. The panel also asked the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN) to review the procedure for permitting non-scheduled flights. CAAN spokesman Babu Ram Paudel declined comment, saying he had not seen the report. Saurya Airlines will do "everything necessary" to implement the recommendations, operation manager Bivechan Khanal crash focused attention on the poor air safety record of landlocked Nepal, which is heavily dependent on air connectivity. In 2013 the European Union, citing safety concerns, banned air carriers certified in Nepal from flying the European sky. (Reporting by Gopal Sharma, Editing by Timothy Heritage)

Explainer-What are the fuel switches at the centre of the Air India crash probe?
Explainer-What are the fuel switches at the centre of the Air India crash probe?

The Star

time3 days ago

  • The Star

Explainer-What are the fuel switches at the centre of the Air India crash probe?

FILE PHOTO: Tail of an Air India Boeing 787 Dreamliner plane that crashed is seen stuck on a building after the incident in Ahmedabad, India, June 12, 2025. REUTERS/Amit Dave/File Photo NEW DELHI (Reuters) -A cockpit recording of dialogue between the two pilots of the Air India flight that crashed last month supports the view that the captain cut the flow of fuel to the plane's engines, said a source briefed on U.S. officials' early assessment of evidence. Below are a few facts about engine fuel switches, their functions in the aircraft and their movements on the Air India flight. WHAT ARE FUEL SWITCHES? They are switches that regulate fuel flow into a plane's engines. They are used by pilots to start or shut down engines on the ground or to manually shut down or restart engines if an engine failure occurs during a flight. Aviation experts say a pilot would not be able to accidentally move the fuel switches that feed the engines. But if moved, the effect would be immediate, cutting off engine power. There are independent power systems and wiring for the fuel cutoff switches and the fuel valves controlled by those switches, according to U.S. aviation safety expert John Cox. WHERE ARE THE FUEL SWITCHES LOCATED? The two fuel control switches on a Boeing 787, in Air India's case equipped with two GE engines, are located below the thrust levers. The switches are spring-loaded to remain in position. To change one from run to cutoff, a pilot has to first pull the switch up and then move it from run to cutoff or vice versa. There are two modes: 'CUTOFF' and 'RUN'. WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FATAL AIR INDIA FLIGHT? According to the flight recorder, a few seconds after takeoff, switches for both engines transitioned to 'CUTOFF' from 'RUN' one after another with a time gap of one second. As a result, the engines began to lose power. One pilot was heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he cut off the fuel. "The other pilot responded that he did not do so," the report said. The report did not identify which remarks were made by the flight's captain and which by the first officer. The first officer was at the controls of the 787 and asked the captain why he moved the fuel switches into a position that starved the engines of fuel and requested that he restore the fuel flow, the source briefed on U.S. officials' early assessment told Reuters. Both switches were flipped back to 'RUN', according to the preliminary report, and found in the 'RUN' position at the crash site. When fuel control switches are moved from 'CUTOFF' to 'RUN' while the aircraft is in flight, each engine's control system automatically manages a relight and thrust recovery sequence of ignition and fuel introduction, the report said. "No sane pilot would ever turn those switches off in flight," especially as the plane is just starting to climb, U.S. aviation safety expert John Nance said. (Reporting by Abhijith Ganapavaram in New Delhi and Dan Catchpole in Seattle; Editing by Jamie Freed)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store