Gender Inequality and Women in

the Workplace
Women have made great strides in the workplace, but inequality
persists. And in this US presidential election season, the issue of equal
pay is yet again a hot-button topic. The latest data from the United
States Census Bureau shows that women only make 79 cents to every
dollar a man earns.

Such inequality is hardly unique to the United States, however. In the

following Q&A, Mary Brinton—sociology professor at Harvard University
and instructor of Inequality and Society in Contemporary Japan—
answered a few questions about how the United States compares to
other postindustrial countries on gender inequality, as well as how
gender equality can help solve declining birth rates.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE FOR

GENDER EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE TODAY?
It is important to incorporate men into the theoretical framework. Let’s
talk about how workplaces need to adapt to the “whole person,” both
women and men.

There is not a problem with female achievement. Women have caught

up with men in terms of education. In fact, in the United States and a
number of other countries, women now actually surpass men in
educational achievement.
The problem arises when young adults try to balance work and family,
and women end up carrying nearly all of the caregiving responsibilities.

If women put many more hours into these household activities than
men, this greatly disadvantages women in the workplace. It is unrealistic
to expect gender equality if workplaces demand that women be
available all the time.

YOUR RESEARCH FOCUSES ON DECLINING FERTILITY

RATES IN POSTINDUSTRIAL COUNTRIES. HOW DO
FERTILITY RATES CONNECT WITH GENDER EQUALITY IN
THE WORKPLACE?
A fertility rate—meaning birth rate—of 2.1 is necessary for a country to
naturally replace its population. Since the 1980s, fertility rates have
steadily declined around the world. In the United States, the fertility rate
is 1.9. In Southern Europe and East Asia, rates are now below 1.3.

In Japan, for example, entrenched attitudes about women in the

workforce and as mothers are likely contributing to the low birth rate.
The cultural emphasis on being the ideal mother, along with a corporate
culture that demands long work hours, makes motherhood very difficult
for women with careers.

It’s interesting to note that the countries with high female labor force
participation rates tend to have higher birth rates. The postindustrial
countries that have made it possible for women (and men) to balance
work and family typically have replacement-level birth rates. Increased
gender equality—both in the workplace and at home—is an important
part of the solution to declining birth rates.

IN YOUR RESEARCH ON JAPAN, YOU DESCRIBE A

“DEMOGRAPHIC TIME BOMB.” WHAT IS THIS?
Japanese women are getting more education and want to have a career.
But within the home, gender equality is not on pace with workforce
equality. Woman end up doing a “second shift” of housework and
childcare when they return home from work. The result is that many
women are waiting longer to get into a partnership. They are choosing,
instead, to focus on their career. And when they do get married, they
have fewer children.

Japan’s population is projected to drop by one-sixth by 2020, and by

2025, 40 percent of the population will be 65 years of age or older. This
means skyrocketing health care and pension costs as the population
ages. The reduced number of young, homegrown workers entering the
workforce and paying into the pension systems could undermine Japan’s
economy.

WHAT CAN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES DO TO

INCREASE GENDER EQUALITY?
Gender stereotypes are hard to break and, like it or not, we are all prone
to engaging in stereotyping at one time or another. It’s important to
study our biases and quantify inequality, such as the work being
conducted here at Harvard, so that we can understand how to effect
change.

In both Japan and the United States, public policy is an important part of
increasing gender equality in the workplace and at home, but not all of
it.

As a society, we need to continue to encourage people to go beyond

stereotypes and recognize the contributions that each individual, male or
female, can make to the workplace and to relationships at home.
-----
Gender Inequality and Women in the US
Labor Force
Gender pay gaps persist around the world, including in the United States. According to public information
collected by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), the global gender pay gap ranges from
3 percent to 51 percent with a global average of 17 percent (ITUC 2009).

Highlights in the US

Equality in pay has improved in the US since 1979 when women earned about 62 percent as much as
men. In 2010, American women on average earned 81 percent of what their male counterparts earned
(BLS 2010; DOL 2011).

Women’s participation in the U.S. labor force climbed during the 1970s and 1980s, reaching 60 percent in
2000. However, in 2010 this figure has declined to 46.7 percent and is not expected to increase by 2018
(DOL 2011).

The Great Recession of 2007-2010 affected men and women differently. Men lost more jobs than women
in the recession but also experienced a steadier recovery. One in five women are working part time
because they cannot find full time work while at the start of the recession less than one in ten women
were doing so. Despite these developments, the overall unemployment rate for women is lower than
men’s and they are also less likely to be among the long-term unemployed.

Women are 50 percent more likely to work in the public sector. Women surpass men on education
attainment among those employed aged 25 and over: 37.1 percent of women hold at least a bachelor’s
degree compared to 34.9 percent for men (DOL 2011).

Where are Women Employed?

In 2010, there were approximately 65 million women in the labor force and 53 percent of these women
were concentrated in three industries a) education and health services, b) trade, transportation and
utilities and c) local government (BLS 2011a).

Women were overrepresented in several industries and underrepresented in others. For example, in
2010, women represented 79 percent of the health and social services workforce and 68.6 percent of the
education services workforce. However, women represented only 43.2 percent of the professional,
scientific and technical services sector and 8.9 percent of the construction sector (DOL 2011).
Low Wage Households

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a recent report shows that in 2010 women constituted 59
percent of the low-wage workforce. Less-educated women were more likely than less-educated men to
work part-time—on average, 29 percent of women and 15 percent of men worked part-time in 2010. Also,
according to the GAO report, single woman households had the lowest total annual income of all
households, averaging about $27,000. Fifty-seven percent of the household income (or about $15,000)
came from their personal wage and salary earnings. The remaining $12,000 came from other sources,
such as government benefits and other household members’ earnings. Without income from these other
sources, the low-wage single mother households would be well below the poverty level of $22,314 (or
$10.73 per hour, full-time) for a family of four (GAO 2011).

Women and Corporations

In terms of women in leadership positions, in 2009 only 24 percent of CEOs in the US were women and
they earned 74.5 percent as much as male CEOs (BLS 2010 p.9).

The Harvard Business School, in conjunction with Catalyst, recently released a research report regarding
the level of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of Fortune 500 companies with respect to the amount
of women on the companies’ Boards of Directors and serving as Corporate Officers. Of the Fortune 500
companies, in 2007, companies with three or more women on the Board of Directors averaged 28 times
more money in philanthropic donations than those with no women, according to the report. Also,
companies with 25% or more women in leadership positions as Corporate Officers averaged 13 times
more philanthropic donations than those with none (Catalyst and HBS 2011).

--------------

The Film Industry’s Problem Of Gender

Inequality Is Worse Than You Think

If you know your Oscars trivia, you can probably answer this question: Who
was the first female filmmaker to win the Academy Award for Best Directing
and when? If you answered Kathryn Bigelow on March 7, 2010, you’d be right.
To date, Bigelow is the very first — and only — woman in history to win the
best director award at the Oscars for the war film The Hurt Locker (2008).

Most people would be surprised to learn that gender segregation plays out at
different levels of the film industry, where behind-the-scenes and onscreen
inequality runs rampant. Consider all movie speaking roles. Women filled just
28.7 percent of these roles in films theatrically released during 2014. Further,
in a script analysis of 2,000 films by Polygraph, it was found that women were
generally given less dialogue to say in such roles.

Let’s take a look at gender inequality in filmdom.

The “Celluloid Ceiling”

You may be familiar with the “glass ceiling” metaphor used to describe
barriers to workplace advancement for women and minorities. In the film
industry, glass barriers and pervasive stereotypes of women persist. This
systematic underrepresentation of women in creative positions in Hollywood is
called the “celluloid ceiling.”

There exists an “inclusion crisis,” from C-level officers to behind-the-scenes

employees, says Stacy L. Smith, PhD, associate professor at USC Annenberg
School for Communication and Journalism and director of the Media,
Diversity, & Social Change Initiative. For instance, only 16 percent of all
directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors, and
cinematographers working on the top 100 domestic grossing films of 2015
were women.

In a comprehensive report titled “The Status of Women in the U.S. Media

2014,” Martha M. Lauzen, executive director of the Center for the Study of
Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University, is quoted as
saying: “The film industry is in a state of gender inertia. There is no evidence
to suggest that women’s employment has improved in key behind-the-scenes
roles over the last 16 years.”

An Old Boys’ Club

Hollywood is largely a male-dominated industry, but not because there’s a

shortage of talented, well-trained, highly educated women. In fact, the gender
gap in college enrollment at top film schools is minuscule. For example,
females represent 51 percent of graduate students at the NYU Tisch School
of the Arts and 46 percent at the USC School of Cinematic Arts, cites an LA
Weekly article.

Then what’s sidelining women after they graduate from film programs? An “old
boys’ club,” as suggested in UCLA’s 2015 Hollywood Diversity Report:
Flipping the Script. Among the findings: An overwhelming majority of film
studio heads were white males, and the same was true for senior
management. These networks typically wield influence and power to help
others like them. People not like them must find a way to get around a barrier
to advancement opportunities, but the barrier never goes away.

Art Imitating Life

Mirroring reality, female characters in film have hit the “concrete ceiling.”
Women are seldom shown in leadership positions and lucrative careers.
A global study that analyzed gender roles in popular films distributed between
January 1, 2010, and May 1, 2013, found that females held only 13.9 percent
of senior executive positions, while no females were depicted as partners in
law firms.

Women in cinema are overrepresented in traditionally female-dominated

occupations, such as teachers, pink-collar workers, and waitresses, and
underrepresented in high-level occupations, such as doctors and engineers,
according to an article in AAUW Outlookmagazine titled “The High Cost of
Hollywood’s Gender Bias.”

The gender divide also extends to film crews. In a sample of the 2,000
highest-grossing domestic films for each year between 1994 and 2013,
women occupied a majority of traditional (female-dominated) positions, such
as jobs in costuming (68.8 percent) and casting (66.5 percent) departments.
In contrast, women represented about 17 percent of crew members in music,
around 9 percent in special effects, and only 5 percent in camera/electrical,
according to a report titled Gender Within Film Crews.

Unequal Pay for Equal Work

If you watched the 2015 Academy Awards, you may have caught actress
Patricia Arquette, winner of the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for Boyhood,
deliver her compelling acceptance speech, which, in part, called for pay
equity. Arquette is joined by other celebrities, including Jennifer Lawrence,
Jessica Chastain, Kerry Washington, Emma Watson, and Beyoncé, who have
spoken out about the persistent gender pay gap, says a People article.

In the United States, women working full time, on average, made 79 cents for
every dollar earned by men in 2015, representing a gender pay gap of 21
percent, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. In
Hollywood, that gap is far worse for women. UsingForbes salary
statistics, Betsy Woodruff, writing in Slate, found: “The men on Forbes‘ list of
top-paid actors for that year [2013] made 2½ times as much money as the
top-paid actresses. That means that Hollywood’s best-compensated actresses
made just 40 cents for every dollar that the best-compensated men made.”

Grassroots Advocacy Sparks a Federal Investigation Into the Industry’s

Hiring Practices

Thanks to the grassroots efforts of a league of celebrity women and female

filmmakers and those of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of
Southern California and the ACLU Women’s Rights Project, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched a probe into gender
discrimination in Hollywood. “If the EEOC determines that a pattern of
discrimination exists, it could take legal action against the studios or talent
agencies, or seek a solution through mediation,” says a Los Angeles
Times article.

So can the industry’s problem of entrenched gender inequality be fixed? It

can, according to Geena Davis, Oscar-winning actress, advocate, and founder
and chair of the nonprofit Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media. In a
recent NBC News article, she said: “When the needle moves on onscreen
representation for the first time in seven decades, that will be historic. It’s the
one area of great gender disparity that can be fixed instantly. We can
absolutely fix it overnight, the next TV show — the next movie can be gender
balanced.”

Breaking the celluloid ceiling must start where the ceiling is — at upper
echelons, where senior management sets the “tone at the top.” Studio
executives should make gender balance a priority and drive it through all
levels of their organization. If successful, mainstreaming gender equality could
be one of Hollywood’s greatest stories ever told.

-------------

Gender Equality: We Need New

Solutions
Big business has a duty, and a responsibility, to support women's workforce participation. That's the
message I delivered to 1,250 young leaders from 190 countries at the annual One Young World Summit
in Johannesburg. And in the spirit of the Summit, I needed to share my solutions to make it happen – not
just talk about the problem.
I was one of six speakers chosen to talk about how we turn gender equality rhetoric to reality. At first I
struggled thinking about how I could be relevant when I was talking to people from countries where
women still can't vote, work, go to school, or even drive. My life experience is from Australia and Hong
Kong, where, on the whole, these rights for women and girls are protected by law and largely upheld.

But gender inequality still exists throughout society in Australia and Hong Kong, especially during
women's professional careers. Women can still expect:

 17.5 percent less pay in Australia and 20% less in Hong Kong
 to experience some form of sexual harassment or discrimination – over 28% of women in
Australia
 to be overlooked for promotions or opportunities because of subtle gender bias about leadership
aptitude.
 to take a career break or a less ambitious job because affordable childcare isn't readily available
in Australia, or because of traditional cultural expectations in Hong Kong where almost a quarter
of women stop working when they get married.

For too long, women have been trying to fix these things themselves: by working harder to balance work
and home, undertaking extra training, attempting to break through the glass ceiling.

My message to the young leaders of the world is this - if we are really serious about creating a fairer and
productive future for young women we need to stop fixing the women and start working on the men.

Big businesses, which are overwhelmingly run by men, have significant power to change outcomes for
women around the world. Companies like GE operate in 130 countries, Citi operates in 160. That's 160
opportunities to support gender equality. And they should want to. Gender equality is an economic
imperative – research shows it improves company performance. Investors link it with a higher return on
investment. TheIMF estimates the global economy misses 27% of GDP growth per capita due to the
gender gap in the labor market.

We need to educate leaders on the case for greater female participation, and challenge gender bias,
stereotypes and traditional views. We need more male champions. We need to reframe the way we think
about women and working and stop placing limitations on their desires and abilities to pursue ambitious,
successful careers. And we need new solutions.

Parental leave models

We can't have equality in the workplace until we have equality at home. Businesses should adopt more
innovative parental leave models that encourage active fathering and tackle the stigma of parental leave,
to support both men and women to care for children. And encourage women to return.

Child care
Businesses can help women access affordable quality child care – in many countries this is the difference
between women working, or not. They can fund childcare, help find places or even build adjoining child
care centres.
Measuring gender inequality
Businesses should measure gender inequality in their organisation, set targets and evaluate managers on
meeting those targets. What gets measured, gets done.

Sponsorship
Business leaders should seek out and sponsor female talent and recruit others to do the same. Men have
top-level sponsors who advocate for them and open doors. Whereas, women often have mentors who
provide advice and support. If every powerful man in this world pulled 1 woman up with him, the number
of female leaders would rise rapidly.

Share and learn from one another

Businesses should share best practice, debate solutions and learn from one another.

I learnt at One Young World that the battle for gender equality is not restricted to one country. It is a
global battle. Businesses operating globally have the ability to lift women's workforce participation,
supporting human rights and much needed economic growth.

My call to action? I told delegates to go home and challenge their companies. To find out how their
employers are supporting women in the workplace – at home and abroad – and ask yourself and them
what can they do better?

---------------

Six ways to fix gender

inequality at work
Switzerland is one of the world’s most successful economies, scoring highly in areas
from innovation to institutional excellence. So why is our record less stellar when it
comes to gender equality? Switzerland’s performance in the World Economic
Forum’s Global Gender Gap 2014 Report is a case in point. We came first in the
Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, but only 11th in terms of closing the gender
gap. A closer look reveals an even starker contrast between economic success and
gender bias. In the wealthy canton of Zurich, for example,women earn on average 24%
less than men. In the financial sector, one of Switzerland’s signature industries, the
difference is an astonishing 32%. To make matters worse, Swiss women are more at
risk of poverty than men.

Entrenched traditions are part of the problem. Perhaps surprisingly, women’s

independence is still a relatively recent phenomenon in Switzerland. Until 1985, Swiss
women could not open a bank account or go to work without their husbands’
permission. Many young women today saw their fathers having to sign off on their
mothers’ career decisions. The consequences are still felt today: 75% of female
teenagers in Switzerland choose their apprenticeships from a narrow range of only 11
stereotypically feminine occupations, such as hairdressing or as dental assistants. The
same proportion of male teenagers choose from a range that is more than twice as
wide. Popular “masculine” jobs, such as car mechanic or IT specialist, also offer more
opportunities for career development.

If we want Swiss society to truly embrace gender equality, we have to start at school.
We need to teach both girls and boys to aim for ambitious careers, demand better pay
and learn to negotiate. We need to encourage girls to picture themselves as future
breadwinners. It should be natural for a girl to think about becoming a carpenter when
she grows up, and for a boy to want to be a nurse.

For companies, there are six concrete ways of promoting gender equality at every stage
of the hiring process and career progression:

1. Rethink job interviews. The question: “What do you think your salary should be?”
should be abolished altogether, as women consistently ask for less than men. Instead,
interviewers should provide a fair and transparent salary range and ask applicants to
position themselves within it.

2. Make gender equality part of training and education. Young people should be
supported in choosing jobs that are future-oriented and promising, regardless of their
gender.

3. Be proactive about welcoming women. Companies should clearly state that they want
to hire, support and promote women. Salaries and promotions should be monitored and
evaluated on a regular basis to ensure equal treatment.

4. Make flexibility and work-life balance a part of the wider company culture. Too often,
employees have to specifically ask to work part-time or work from home, which can be
awkward. Companies should instead offer a broad range of different options.

5. Don’t limit your talent pool. Companies should aim for a 50-50 gender split in all their
teams – right up to the executive floor. Offering practical support such as childcare, is
part of this, as is the right attitude. It should not be a career killer for a man to ask for
extended leave because he wants to look after his children.

6. Use the power of networking. Networking, mentoring and coaching opportunities can
help women build confidence and develop their careers.

Young people today have a very different view of what a great career means. Many
want equality in their private and professional lives, and see a healthy work-life balance
as crucial to their happiness. This presents a huge opportunity for redefining gender
roles. The challenge is to address this in all sectors – business, education, research and
politics. When it comes to gender equality, we all have to work together. Only then can
we provide the next generation with the very best support for shaping their own path in
life and contributing to Switzerland’s continued success – regardless of gender.

Author: Helena Trachsel is the Head of the Office for the Equality of Men and Women of
the Canton of Zurich

Image: Swiss Economy Minister Doris Leuthard is silhouetted against a Swiss national
flag as she speaks during the party’s convention at the cable car station on the top of
Saentis mountain (2,502 metres above sea-level) in eastern Switzerland, September
15, 2007. REUTERS/Miro Kuzmanovic

----------------------------

The issue of gender inequality is one which has been publicly

reverberating through society for decades. The problem of inequality in
employment being one of the most pressing issues today. In order to examine
this situation one must try to get to the root of the problem and must
understand the sociological factors that cause women to have a much more
difficult time getting the same benefits, wages, and job opportunities as their
male counterparts. The society in which we live has been shaped historically by
males. The policy-makers have consistently been male and therefore it is not
surprising that our society reflects those biases which exist as a result of
this male-domination. It is important to examine all facets of this problem, but
in order to fully tackle the issue one must recognize that this inequality in
the workforce is rooted in what shapes future employees and employers--
education. This paper will examine the inequalities in policy, actual teaching
situations, admission to post-secondary institutions, hiring, and job benefits
and wages. It will also tackle what is being done to solve this problem and what
can be done to remedy the situation.

The late 1960s brought on the first real indication that feminist groups
were concerned with the education system in North America. The focus of these
feminist groups captured the attention of teachers, parents, and students. At
first the evidence for inequality in schooling was based on no more than
specific case studies and anecdotal references to support their claims but as
more people began to show concern for the situation, more conclusive research
was done to show that the claims of inequality were in fact valid and definitely
indicated a problem with the way that schools were educating the future adults
of society. One of the problems which became apparent was the fact that the
policy-makers set a curriculum which, as shown specifically through textbooks,
was sexist and for the most part still is.

Textbooks are one of the most important tools used in educating students
whether they are elementary school storybooks or university medical textbooks.
It is therefore no surprise that these books are some of the most crucial
information sources that a student has throughout their schooling. Many studies
have been done examining the contents of these books to reveal the amount of
sexism displayed in these educational tools. The results clearly show that
gender inequality definitely runs rampant in textbooks some of the sexism subtle
and some overt. To begin with, it is apparent that historical texts show a
distorted view of women by portraying them unfairly and inaccurately and
neglecting to mention important female figures, instead opting to describe their
sometimes less influential male counterparts. Elementary and secondary school
textbooks are also guilty of gender bias.

In elementary and secondary school textbooks, sexism takes many forms.

Boys predominate in stories for children; they outnumber girls 5 to 2. When
girls are present in texts, they are almost always younger than the boys they
are interacting with, which thus makes them foils for the boys' greater
experience and knowledge-- a situation commonly referred to as the ‘ninny
sister syndrome.' Girls are shown to be far more passive than are boys and to
engage in fewer activities. In fact, sometimes grown women are portrayed who
rely on small boys (often their young sons) to help them out of difficulty.
(Fishel and Pottker 1977. p. 8)

Surprisingly it is not only these hidden forms of sexism that appear in

textbooks.

One study found sixty-five stories that openly belittled girls (two were
found that belittled boys). Another study pointed out an instance where Mark, of
the Harper & Row ‘Mark and Janet' series, states: ‘Just look at her. She is just
like a girl. She gives up.' Male characters said, in another story, ‘We much
prefer to work with men.' This type of material on the treatment of girls would
seem to have little social or educational value, and its widespread use is
difficult to understand. (ibid, p.8)

In the long run, the ideas put in students heads through textbooks,
perhaps through the lack of female role models, can affect the choices they make
in the future with regards to employment.

Actual teaching situations are also prone to sexism. For the most part
teachers do not try to be sexist but, for sociological reasons, can not help it.
For the sake of this paper, it will be assumed that these situations occur
mostly in co-educational schools, but single sex schools are in no way immune to
the same problems. A perfect example of society's male-dominance interfering in
education unintentionally is when teachers assign projects to their students.
The teachers may hand out lists of acceptable topics ranging, in a history class
for example, from fashion to transportation. The teachers then give the students
a choice as to which topic they would like to do the project on. The underlying
problem with this is that girls tend to choose what could be considered more
"feminine" topics while the boys will choose the more "masculine" ones. "Offered
to the pupils as free choice, such selections are self-perpetuating, leading to
the expected choices and amplifying any differences there may have been in
attitudes." (Marland 1983, p. 152) The reason for this could be that society,
through the media and other modes of communication, has pre-conceived notions as
to what issues are "male", "female", or unisex.
 Another example of how females are prone to gender inequality in the
classroom is during class discussion and also what the teacher decides to talk
about in the class. Classroom behaviour is a major focal point for those who
identify examples of inequality. There are many differences in the way that
females and males present themselves at school. It is apparent that in classroom
situations males talk more, interrupt more, they define the topic, and women
tend to support them. It is generally believed in our society that this is the
proper way to act in classroom situations, that males have it "right" and
females don't, they are just "pushovers" and don't have enough confidence. This,
however is a big assumption to make. Some research has been done in this field
that could, however, begin to refute this stereotype. It is frequently assumed
that males use language which is forceful confident and masterful (all values
which are regarded as positive). Females on the other hand, it is assumed, use
language that is more hesitant, qualified, and tentative. One can look at the
example of the use of tag questions, which are statements with questions tagged
onto the end such as "I'm going to the store, all right?" It is obvious that if
the above assumptions about the use of language were true, this hesitant, asking
for approval type of question would be more frequently used by women. ". . .
studies were carried out to determine whether women used more tag questions than
men. It was found that they did not. Betty Lou Dubois and Isabel Crouch (1975)
found that men used more tag questions than women." (ibid p. 100) The end of
high school brings about more obstacles for women on the way to achieving
equality in the workplace. One of the most important steps in achieving a high
paying, high status job is post-secondary education.

It is apparent that even

today women are being encouraged to follow certain educational paths. This is
shown very simply by the fact that even here at the University, men vastly
outnumber women as both students and faculty members in such programs as Applied
Science, while women greatly outnumber men in the programs of nursing and
concurrent education. Women have historically been encouraged to enter into what
could be considered "caring professions" such as nursing, teaching, and social
work. This is shown very crudely in the book Careers for Women in Canada which
was published in 1946 and written by a woman. The book devotes almost 200 pages
to pursuing careers in such fields as catering, sewing, being a secretary,
interior decorating, the arts, teaching, and nursing while it only allocates 30
pages to medicine, law, dentistry, engineering, optometry, and more combined.
The following quote clearly illustrates the beliefs of the more liberal people
of that time. "Some women have specialized in surgery. There can be no doubt but
that a capable woman may operate very successfully on women and children, though
it is doubtful whether a man would call in the services of a female surgeon
except in an emergency. (Carriere 1946, p. 234) Although much has improved since
the 1940s, the enrollment numbers in university programs clearly indicate that
women still have a long way to go before gender is not an issue.

After choosing
a career path, women enter the workplace with a disadvantage. They have the same
financial responsibilities as men with regards to supporting families and
themselves and much of the time they have an even heavier burden because there
are many women in today's society who are single mothers. Given that there is no
question that the need for money is identical it can, therefore, be concluded
that there is a major problem with the wage structure in today's jobs. The wage
gap clearly shows that society as a whole puts more value on the work of males
than on the same work done by females.

The facts that have been displayed above showing that education is itself a sexist institution perhaps
explain why there is this inequality once schooling is finished. The fact that textbooks show males as
being more successful than females, that teachers set assignments which reinforce gender stereotypes
and sex roles, the fact that "masculine" behaviour is reinforced while "feminine" behaviour is condemned,
and the fact that women
are encouraged to choose certain career paths all validate the claim that the
gender inequality in employment situations can be directly related to the way
that children are educated.

------------------------------

How Gender Equality Provides Solutions For

Most Of The Problems We Face Today As A
Society
The 1960s ushered in a new age of enlightenment. The cultural revolutions of that
period – driven by anti-war, civil rights, counterculture, feminist and LGBT movements –
endorsed an inclusive society and an egalitarian world view. Together, they ushered in
a new, modern age where the rhetoric has considerably shifted from the narrow,
relatively conservative views of the past to more liberal perceptions.

It can thus be said with a high level of certainty that the world today views race, gender
and sexuality through a more accepting lens. There is a growing acknowledgement –
even appreciation – of diversity and difference. This is mirrored in policy frameworks of
21st Century governments, economic incentives by corporations, programmes by
multinational organizations like the UN etc.

The purpose of this article is to make a strong pitch for gender equality. While social
equality in general accounts to good economics, gender equality is unique in that it still
faces popular opposition in several places. Most people wouldn’t endorse a policy
framework that reeked of racial bias but there are still legislations and policies in many
countries that hinder any progress on gender equality. Such discriminatory practices are
mostly prevalent in the developing world. And they almost always target women.

The links between gender equality and good economics is well-documented. It’s “good
business” to have more women in the workforce, it’s beneficial to get women educated,
it’s helpful when more women vote, it’s common sense to give equal pay for equal work.
Nations that invest in gender equality are more likely to have healthy employment rates
and poverty alleviation. Statistics clearly show that countries where the gender gap is
narrow are more developed, they have higher Human Development Indexes and they
boast of healthy GDP per capita. As Hillary Clinton famously said:
“Our goals for making peace, countering extremism, broadening prosperity and
advancing democracy depend to a very large degree on the participation and
partnership of women.”

Not only economic growth, but gender equality also contributes to social development of
a society. When women are empowered, families are empowered. Healthcare, poverty
alleviation and education facilities are enhanced. This is best exemplified in the
developing world. In India, for example, the infant mortality rate of babies whose
mothers have received primary education is half that of children whose mothers are
illiterate. Also, children whose mothers have an equal voice in family decisions have
been found to be more likely to receive proper nourishment, education, and health care
services. Celebrated writer and critic Christopher Hitchens summarized the positive
effects of gender equality thus:
“The cure for poverty has a name: it’s called the empowerment of women. If you give
women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you take them off the
animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine—
condemns them, and then if you’ll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit,
the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and
optimism will increase. It doesn’t matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia; it works—
works all the time.”

In spite of the overwhelming evidence in favour of gender equality, progress has been
either limited or even regressive. In the past 30 years, women’s labour force
participation has decreased from 57% to 55%. The wage gap is prevalent in most
developed countries in varying degrees and the most common jobs for employed
women remain unpaid, domestic, household chores while the percentage of women in
corporate or legislative professions remains woefully low. Women worldwide rarely own
land: in Sub-Saharan Africa women own 1% of the land. Lack of land rights means
women are frequently the ones left dispossessed and uncompensated. When women
do own land, their holdings are smaller than their male counterparts – between 20% and
35% on average worldwide. According to the World Bank only 5 countries in the world
have managed to reach an agreeable level of gender parity – Colombia, Fiji, Jamaica,
Lesotho, and the Philippines.

The United Nations Population Fund has the following to say about gender inequality:
“Gender inequality holds back growth of individuals, development of countries, and the
evolution of societies, to the disadvantage of men and women.”
Notice how the UN says that gender inequality hurts men and women. In many
countries of the developed world, there is a growing trend of men’s rights activists who
argue that gender equality laws have worked at a disadvantage for men. This is an
entirely different debate, and one that holds little sway in the developing world – which
houses the bulk of the global population. Several times the global debate on gender
equality is hijacked by militant feminists and men’s rights activists, resulting in conflicts
of interests and public ignorance of the issue. This needs to stop. Gender equality in the
developed world is radically different from that in the developing world. For example,
while the West is engaged in heated debate on the wage gap, the developing world is
struggling with labour participation by women that’s below 30% and parliamentary
participation that’s below 10%.

In the end, it is also a game of numbers. It defies moral ethics, common sense and
economic intuition if half of the population is subjugated and discriminated against.
Women are still the majority of the world’s poor, uneducated, violated, exploited and
underfed. While women face discrimination because of race and religion too, the most
widespread bias is based on gender. The reasons for misogyny are varied and culture-
dependent, but they are almost always because of a historically patriarchal society,
unfair laws, religious beliefs and preference of sons over daughters.
Gender equality is the biggest issue of our time, and we are faced with a historic
opportunity to right several historic wrongs and to finally balance the scales. We must
remember that gender equality is more than a feminist issue – it’s an economic issue, a
moral issue, a human issue, the most pressing social issue of our time.