The Dynamics and Implications of Gender Equality

Introduction:

Internationally, gender inequality is prevalent in many areas of life, including

education, employment, medical care, laws and violence. There are overt examples
of inequality, such as a large discrepancy in pay between men and women, and
more subtle examples of inequality, such as different interview questions asked of
women than men.
To understand gender we have to look beyond gender norms and examine roles and
stereotypes as a wide set of practices that reflect the gendered nature of power. This
includes looking at the economic and political spheres of our social life.
Gender inequality remains an everyday reality for the world’s women and girls. It can begin right at
the moment of birth and continue throughout the course of a woman’s life.

Despite critical advances over the course of recent history, women in all countries and across all
socioeconomic levels in society can face various forms of unfair treatment, including discrimination,
harassment, domestic violence and sexual abuse. Other forms of abuse that are particularly prevalent in
certain countries or cultural contexts include forced marriage, honor killings, deprivation of education,
denial of land and property rights, and lack of access to work and to health care.

Women may experience human rights abuses at different points in their working lives, including
during recruitment, hiring, promotion and termination processes, as well as in daily interactions with
colleagues and supervisors.

Outside of the workplace, women are often particularly vulnerable to the social and environmental
impacts of business activities. For example, in many developing countries, women and girls are
primarily responsible for fetching and hauling water. When company operations contaminate local
sources, it is they who carry the burden of walking, often for hours, to the nearest substitute, which can
prevent them from working or going to school.

Gender Equality
Gender equality -Equal rights and opportunities for girls and boys help all children
fulfil their potential. Gender equality, also known as sexual equality or equality of
the sexes, is the state of equal ease of access to resources and opportunities
regardless of gender, including economic participation and decision-making; and
the state of valuing different behaviors, aspirations and needs equally, regardless of
gender. Gender equality is the goal, while gender neutrality and gender equity are
practices and ways of thinking that help in achieving the goal. Gender parity, which
is used to measure gender balance in a given situation, can aid in achieving gender
equality but is not the goal in and of itself. Gender equality is more than equal
representation; it is strongly tied to women's rights, and often requires policy
changes. As of 2017, the global movement for gender equality has not incorporated
the proposition of genders besides women and men, or gender identities outside of
the gender binary.

Gender Dynamics
Gender Dynamics means the relationships and interactions between and among
girls, boys, women and men.
Gender dynamics are informed by sociocultural ideas about gender and the power
relationships that define them. Depending upon how they are manifested, gender
dynamics can reinforce or challenge existing norms.

A. Equality of opportunities
Equality of opportunity is a political ideal that is opposed to caste
hierarchy but not to hierarchy per se. The background assumption is that a
society contains a hierarchy of more and less desirable, superior and inferior
positions. Or there may be several such hierarchies. In a caste society, the
assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is fixed by birth. The
child acquires the social status of his or her parents at least if their union is
socially sanctioned. Social mobility may be possible in a caste society, but the
process whereby one is admitted to a different level of the hierarchy is open only
to some individuals depending on their initial ascriptive social status. In
contrast, when equality of opportunity prevails, the assignment of individuals to
places in the social hierarchy is determined by some form of competitive process,
and all members of society are eligible to compete on equal terms. Different
conceptions of equality of opportunity construe this idea of competing on equal
terms variously.
Equal opportunity, also called equality of opportunity, in political
theory, the idea that people ought to be able to compete on equal terms, or on a
“level playing field,” for advantaged offices and positions. Proponents of equal
opportunity believe that the principle is compatible with, and indeed may justify,
inequalities of outcome of some sort, but there is considerable disagreement over
precisely to what degree and what kind of inequalities it justifies and how it does
so.

Fairness And Equality

Many believe that equal opportunity requires that advantaged positions be
subject to open competition. (This view is sometimes captured by the slogan,
“Careers open to talents.”) The idea there is that jobs and limited educational
places should be open to all and that the selection procedures for them should
be designed to identify the best-qualified candidates. In practice, that appears to
be an efficient way of allocating jobs so as to maximize productivity and of
distributing prized educational places to those who are likely to gain the most
from them. But, even if it is a necessary condition of equal opportunity, it cannot
be a sufficient condition. If it were, equal opportunity would permit differences in
people’s social circumstances—such as the economic class, family,
or culture into which they were born—to have too deep an impact on their
prospects. The ideal would be compatible with, for example, a society in which
those born into a lower economic class have radically different prospects from
those born into a higher economic class as a result of the way that the different
resources at their disposal influence their access to the qualifications required
for success. The solution, it might be thought, is to suppose that equal
opportunity requires not only open competition for advantaged positions but also
fair access to qualifications. The resulting position is often called fair, or
substantive, equal opportunity, in contrast to the formal equal opportunity
provided by open competition on its own.
The American political philosopher John Rawls defended a version of fair
equal opportunity. He argued that advantaged positions should be open to all,
not only formally but also in such a way that each person has a fair chance of
attaining them. He treated that idea as equivalent to the claim that those with
the same level of talent and ability, and the same willingness to use them,
should have the same prospects of success, regardless of factors such as class,
race, and sex. Implementing fair equal opportunity would require counteracting
the effects of differences in class, race, sex, and the like, and it would have
substantial implications for the design of a system of public education, including
the tax regime required to fund it. Some have worried that even the provision of
high-quality public education would be insufficient to guarantee fair equal
opportunity, on the grounds that differences between families, such as the
different values they attach to education and the different resources they have
available to them, could continue to prevent those with the same level of talent
and ability, and the same willingness to use them, from having the same
prospects of success. Some went so far as to argue that implementing fair equal
opportunity in an uncompromising way and without regard to other values
would require abolishing the traditional family.

Luck Egalitarianism
The ideal of equal opportunity does not necessarily lead to equality of
outcome, since its aim is consistent with allowing people’s life prospects to be
influenced by their values and choices. From that standpoint, the underlying
motivation of the ideal of equal opportunity, properly understood, is to
counteract the effects of people’s different natural and social circumstances
while permitting inequalities of condition that emerge as a result of their choices.
On that basis, some scholars have argued that inequalities arising from
differences in choice are not only just but necessary, to give personal
responsibility its due. That view is sometimes described as luck egalitarianism.
Luck egalitarianism maintains that, while inequalities are unjust if they derive
from differences in people’s circumstances—because circumstances are a matter
of brute luck—they are just if they are the product of people’s voluntary choices.
Luck egalitarianism is thus a combination of two different claims: first,
that justice requires the neutralization of the effects of differences in people’s
circumstances, and, second, that it is just to require people to bear the costs, or
allow them to enjoy the benefits, of their voluntary choices. In making those
claims, luck egalitarianism invokes a distinction between choice and
circumstance, or between brute luck and “option luck.”
Luck egalitarianism has its critics, however. Given the social forces to which
each person is subject, the distinction between choice and circumstance, or
between brute luck and option luck, is not always easy to draw in a plausible
way. But even if a satisfactory way of drawing those distinctions could be found,
there is still the worry that luck egalitarianism is too harsh in the way that it
holds people responsible for their foolish or reckless behaviour. It seems to imply
that those who end up needy as a result of their own imprudence can justly be
forced to bear the costs of their choices. So people who choose to smoke in full
knowledge of the risks involved and develop lung cancer may have
no entitlement to the health care that they need but cannot afford.
Uncompromising luck egalitarians may insist that they have no objection to
voluntary schemes to help those with self-inflicted needs but that they regard the
forcible extraction of taxes to help those who are responsible for their plight as
sanctioning the exploitation of the prudent. Others, however, may concede that
luck egalitarianism should be supplemented with a further principle of justice,
 such as, for example, a principle holding that the needy—that is, those whose
condition falls below some threshold—are entitled to support regardless of how
their needs arose.

Critics of Equal Opportunity

Although there is widespread agreement that equal opportunity is a
requirement of justice, there are also critics of the principle. Dissenters on the left
argue that equal opportunity is simply a way to legitimate inequalities of wealth and
income that are inherently unjust. Another challenge comes from libertarians, who
argue that employers are entitled to fill vacant positions within their workforce with
whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. According to that view, the
entitlement of employers to decide who should work for them on whatever basis
they choose is grounded in their property rights.

B. Equality of outcomes

Achievement of equality in the broader, more results-oriented, redistributive

sense, based on the insight that equality of opportunity and equal treatment may
not be enough to redress the historical oppression and disadvantage of women.

See also: substantive gender equality.

In some cases, equal opportunities can actually have a negative impact on

women’s well-being, if women expend time and energy to take advantage of them
with no result. In order to ensure that development interventions result in equality
of outcome for women and men, it is necessary to design them on the basis of
gender analysis. ‘Equal’ treatment therefore does not mean ‘the same’ treatment,
but implies that persons who are in situations which are alike should be treated
alike, and that persons who are in different circumstances should be treated
differently.

Equality of outcome or results requires the creation of an enabling social

environment by addressing the ideology and cultural constructs that create
hierarchies within gender relations. Positive measures have been proved as a
necessary measure to guarantee equality of outcome. The equality of outcome
approach is sometimes also referred to as ‘equality of results’ and ‘substantive
equality’

Equality of Opportunity is partly motivated by the plausibility of treating

individuals equally and partly motivated by the unattractiveness of giving each
person the same, or Equality of Outcome. Equality of Outcome requires that
individuals have some share of goods, not merely a chance to obtain them without
the hindrance of some obstacles. A focus on outcomes with respect to literacy
among young children may seem appropriate, since it is important that children
actually become literate rather than have an opportunity to read, which could be
missed. But a focus on outcomes may seem less plausible in other cases, such as
equalizing the results of standardized tests. It is a further worry about Equality of
Outcome that it might stifle individuality leading to uniformity of character, of
preferences or of ability.
 Equality of Opportunity distinguishes itself from Equality of Outcome in two
main cases. In cases involving goods that cannot be distributed equally, Equality
of Opportunity specifies a fair way of distributing unequal outcomes. For example,
there may be ten children for every place at a charter school. Unless we are happy
to waste school places, Equality of Outcome can’t help us decide here, so we need
another principle. Equality of Opportunity may help us to decide to run a lottery
where each child has an equal chance of getting a place. In cases involving
individual choices, such as voluntary gambling, Equality of Outcome condemns
inequality resulting from win or loss as wrong or unfair. Equality of Opportunity,
however, is often understood as allowing for these inequalities and many consider
this to be a decisive advantage of focusing on opportunity. If a person chooses to
act in ways that diminish her prospects for admission at a good college, it may
seem wrong to compensate her at the expense of other candidates. “Why should
other conscientious students be worse off to ensure that she is admitted?” critics
will claim.

However, in some cases, it may be impossible for individuals to collectively

realize the outcomes that they have equal opportunity to secure. In these cases,
Equality of Opportunity may seem unfair. This is the case with scarce goods, such
as jobs or college places at elite institutions. For example, imagine that only 1,000
doctors can be appointed in one year. If there are 10,000 applicants then each
has, insofar as the relevant obstacles are removed, an equal opportunity, but not
all can in fact realize that opportunity with effort and hard-work, even if they
would also be considered qualified enough to do the job well. These opportunities
are competitive and in those cases we might prefer equal outcomes to having some
people realize the opportunity at the expense of others. To address this concern,
we might understand Equality of Opportunity as requiring that, with certain effort,
and overcoming only relevant obstacles, any person, and any number of persons,
can, independent of the actions of others, realize the good that they have an
opportunity to secure.

C. Psychological differences of the sexes

Sex differences in psychology are differences in the mental functions and

behaviors of the sexes, and are due to a complex interplay
of biological, developmental, and cultural factors. Differences have been found in a
variety of fields such as mental health, cognitive
abilities, personality, emotion, sexuality, and tendency towards aggression. Such
variation may be innate or learned and is often very difficult to distinguish. Modern
research attempts to distinguish between these causes, and to analyze any ethical
concerns raised. Since behavior is a result of interactions
between nature and nurture researchers are interested in investigating how biology
and environment interact to produce such differences, although this is often not
possible.
A number of factors combine to influence the development of sex differences,
including genetics and epigenetics; differences in brain structure and
function; hormones, and socialization.

Psychological traits
  Development of gender identity
 Childhood play
 Sexual behavior
 Intelligence
 Memory
 Aggression
 Personality traits
 Empathy
 Emotion
 Ethics and moral orientation
 Mental health
 Cognitive control of behavior

Gender Differences

There are differences between men and women, but most scientific studies show
that gender differences in psychological characteristics are small. Men and women
do not have radically different brains, personality traits, cognitive skills, or
behaviors. There are some differences on average, but men and women are not the
black versus white opposites that many people believe. (Even the phrase opposite
sex encourages this view.)

There have been numerous media reports about just how different men and women
are. The former president of Harvard, Lawrence H. Summers, said that women are
not naturally inclined toward science. The media report that adolescent girls have
extremely low self-esteem. A best-selling book claims that Men Are From Mars,
Women Are From Venus. However, men and women are not from different planets,
or even different continents here on Earth. The size of most gender differences is
more consistent with men being from Minnesota and women being from Iowa.

Referring to psychological gender differences as small means that the effects are
between 1/4 and 1/2 of a standard deviation (a statistical term; 1/4 of a standard
deviation is a small difference, 1/2 is moderate, and more than 3/4 is large). So
that means that gender explains less than 5% of the variation among people in most
psychological characteristics. In comparison, the gender difference in height, for
example, is almost two standard deviations, so gender explains 50% of the variation
among people in height. Yet there are many women who are taller than many men.
That said, what does research say about the differences that exist? This entry will
review four major areas of difference: cognitive abilities, personality traits and self-
esteem, attitudes, and behavior.

Gender Differences in Cognitive Abilities

Stereotypes suggest that boys are good at math and girls are good at English. There
is a small difference in verbal ability, with women a little better than men at this
skill. A meta-analysis by Janet S. Hyde and her colleagues found that boys and girls
show no differences in math ability in elementary school. By late adolescence and
early adulthood, men do better at math, but the difference is small to moderate,
explaining about 3% to 6% of the variation among people in math skills.
Spatial ability is one of these slightly larger differences; this means that men are
somewhat better at rotating figures in their heads and finding their way around
town. If the performance of men and women on spatial ability tests were graphed,
there would be two curves that overlapped a huge amount, with men’s curves
slightly ahead. This does mean that among those very talented in this area there are
many more men than women, as a small average difference creates more of a
discrepancy at the high and low ends of the curve. There is no gender difference at
all in overall intelligence.

In the mid-1990s, several popular books suggested that girls get less attention in
school and lose their academic confidence during adolescence. Although teachers
may sometimes treat boys and girls differently, girls consistently earn better grades
in high school and are more likely to go on to college. The Statistical Abstract of the
United States notes that 57% of college degrees are awarded to women, and entering
medical school and law school classes are now 50% female.

Gender Differences in Personality Traits and Self-Esteem

Gender differences in personality traits are also small. An analysis by Alan Feingold
found that women tend to score higher in anxiety and neuroticism, but they also
score higher in extraversion (linked with positive emotions). So there is some
evidence that women experience more emotional ups and downs, but these are
small differences, no more than 1/2 a standard deviation (or about 6% of the
variation among people explained by gender). Even among adolescents, self-reports
of symptoms linked with depression are only about 1/4 a standard deviation higher
among girls (less than 2% of the variance). Clinical depression has a larger sex
difference, with about twice as many women as men diagnosed with major
depression.

A great deal of attention has also been paid to gender differences in self-esteem.
There is a popular perception that girls lose their self-esteem during adolescence.
Yet the most comprehensive study of gender differences in self-esteem, by Kristen
Kling and colleagues, found that men score only 1/7 of a standard deviation higher
than women in self-esteem (less than 1% of the variance). Even among adolescents,
the difference is only 1/4 a standard deviation (less than 2%). Even this small
difference is not caused by girls’ self-esteem going down; it just doesn’t go up quite
as fast as boys’ self-esteem does during the teen years.

Gender Differences in Attitudes

There are also some small gender differences in attitudes. Women tend to be more
liberal than men on social issues. As one might expect, women are more progressive
in their attitudes about women’s roles. Women are also more tolerant of gay men
(there are no gender differences in attitudes toward lesbians). Women are more
likely to vote for Democrats than are men.

Gender Differences in Behavior

Men and women do differ in their desire for sex, as found in separate reviews by
Janet Hyde and Roy Baumeister and colleagues. Men desire more sex with more
partners. Men also masturbate more often and are more accepting of casual sex;
both of these differences exceed 3/4 a standard deviation and explain about 20% of
the variation among people. Many of these differences, of course, are much smaller
than they were decades ago. In the 1960s and earlier, men were more likely than
women to engage in premarital sex; now, however, there is virtually no gender
difference in this practice.

One of the larger psychological sex differences lies in interests. Generally speaking,
men (compared to women) are more interested in things (like cars, buildings, and
machines), and women are more interested in people (e.g., how people think, and
how their bodies work). For example, Richard Lippa found that men were more
likely to prefer professions centered on the “manipulation of objects, tools,
machines, and animals,” and women were more likely to prefer professions that
involved “activities that entail the manipulation of others to inform, train, develop,
cure, or enlighten” (note, however, that these differences could be caused by
cultural expectations, biological sex differences, or—most likely—both). This is one
reason why there are more men in fields like engineering (78% of bachelor’s degrees
in engineering go to men) and more women in fields like psychology (76% of
bachelor’s degrees in psychology go to women). However, the things versus people
distinction makes some less sex-stereotypical predictions for the future: If women
are more interested in people, women will eventually be the majority of doctors,
lawyers, and politicians.