The Oppression of Women - Report Example

Why females earn less as compared to their male counterparts? Introduction U.S. women earned only 77 per cents from the ‘male dollar’ in 2011, according to up-to-date statistics. (This number drops to 65% for women of African – American race and 58% for Latinos.) To stress the necessity for change, since the year 1996 the National Committee for Pay Equity, an advocacy- body umbrella group, marked April 20 as the Equal Pay Day. Some notable signs of progress include; the first bill president Barack Obama approved into law as President aimed the United States pay gap in gender, and the Senate is in view of a bill meant to address fundamental gender discrimination in the work place. However, the question still remains: Why has this measure taken so long? Almost half a century elapse since the illegalization of less payment of wages to women than men on the grounds of their gender occurred yet, the question which still remains unanswered includes; why do women still get less than men counterparts? In an attempt, to explain the differences in pay between men and women, this paper look on the factors which have led to reduced women payments as compared to their male counterparts, and how globalization is affecting the matter(Rehman Sobhan, 2001). Literature review Employment industry does not tell the whole fact file. Women earned less than the counterparts in all 25 occupation and 20 industries groups surveyed by Census Bureau in 2007. It was astonishing that the trend persisted even in fields that their numbers exceeded the male. For instance, female secretaries earned 83.4% as much as the male secretaries. Those who preferred male-dominated fields earned less as well: female truck drivers, for example, earned just 76.5% of weekly pay of the male counterparts. Possibly, the most compelling, and perhaps disapproving data of all to propose that gender has an impact comes from a study in 2008, in which Kristen Schilt, a University of Chicago sociologist and New York University economics scholar Matthew Wiswall studied the wage lines of people who undertook a sex change. The results: even when monitoring for factors such as education, men who changed to women earned, averagely, 32% less after they took surgery. Women who converted to men, conversely, earned 1.5% more (Abdi, 2006). Cynics, who deem the 77% estimation to be too optimistic, besides, note that the figures just count women working full-time (equivalent to 35 or more hours a week, for a full year) failing to consider women’s decision, whereby they opt to take a leave of absence when starting a family or maybe work part-time to rear their kids. According to a 2008 study by IWPR (the Institute of Womens Policy Research) conducted over a 10 year period, a full 54% of women in the key earning age range between 26 and 59 go through a minimum of one full calendar year without earning nothing at all, related to just 16% of men(Bartlett, 2003). These choices make a relative difference: over that span of time, female workers earn only 38% of what men earn, making the wage-gap twice larger the census figure. (Plus despite the earnings premium which comes with superior education, women of bachelors degrees earn a lesser amount of over 10 years than men holding high school diplomas or lesser, according to the IWPR annual study). However, no matter how interpretation of the numbers occurs, there are a few persistent percentage points that cannot be disregarded. Advocates and economists alike speculate that these remain to be the products of slippery reasons particularly discrimination - conscious or not (Brennan, 2003). Discussion The answer on this matter depends on whom one is asking, and so does the dimension of the gap. Some people say 77% is overly ugly. The biggest reason being, that it does not account for individual dissimilarities between workers. Once a person regulates aspects like education and experience, as Francine Belau notes, who, along with economist Lawrence Kahn, his fellow Cornell, published a1998 wage gap study (Heide, 2004) it makes it harder for women to compete. In the study, womens earnings raised to 81% of mens. Element in industry, occupation and whether they fitted to a union - they jump to 91%. That is partly because women have a tendency to cluster in lower-paying jobs. The most-educated ribbon of women, for instance, gravitates toward the nursing and teaching fields. Men with equivalent education achievements become business executives, scientists, lawyers and doctors — jobs that pay considerably more (Kirp, 2011). Still, workers do not choose their diligence in emptiness. "Why do you contemplate male-dominated industries remain sex-segregated?" Wonders Terry ONeill, the president of the NYO (National Organization for Women) (Rehman Sobhan, 2001). "Frequently, women are not welcome there." Real or alleged, discrimination in certain areas could discourage women from looking for employment there. Scarcity of role models might, sequentially, influence the next cohort of girls to fall toward lower-paying jobs, creating an unfortunate succession. In most jobs present in the market, the gap between men and women’s earnings constricts appreciably when an individual accounts for factors like experience and career path. However, at the best of the income scale the jobs paying more than100, 000 dollars, and the salary gap between similarly qualified men and women remains still vast (Rehman Sobhan, 2001). That is the takeaway from an enormous trove of data produced by PayScale, a company that follows self-reported salary statistics and facts. Millions of Web-surfers stake their payment data with PayScale.com, with the goal of discovering if their pay is akin to that of other corresponding workers with similar credentials and experience. The company decided to evaluate its data to tell if it could help clarify observed differences in men and women pays, a subject that has extensively intrigued women’s rights and advocates economists. (In other words, PayScale possess enormous, but not randomized, model; discussion of stipulations about their numbers occurs in the following paragraphs and how they are affecting globalization or affected by globalization. The basis of this discussion involves issues relating to pay the difference between men and women (Sass, 2008). For most careers that the company studied, they found out that the pay gap originated from external factors. Within any job, before controlling on behalf of outside factors the characteristic female worker earns only 90 % s of the characteristic male worker’s pay; after regulating for these variables, she will earn 94% of the characteristic male worker’s pay. For the jobs that pay below 100, 000 dollars, the gap narrows further (Sainsbury, Gender, Equality, and Welfare States, 2011). This implies that in most jobs wherever a wage gap subsists it is perhaps not due to evident discrimination, with bosses determining that women ought to receive imbalanced pay for equal work. Somewhat, in most jobs, the diverse career selections that men and women adopt — or possibly the diverse career opportunities available to men and women — account for sizeable pay differences, as PayScale’s director of numerical analysis Al Lee suggests. Using longitudinal studies data conducted by the United States Department of Education, Catherine Hill and Judy Goldberg analyzed 9,000 college graduates in1993 and more than 10,000 in 2000. The researchers looked at the ability to telecommute, flexibility, as well as other numerous variables including industry, occupation, whether employee worked several jobs, months at employer, hours worked in a week, and several educations- linked and personal and demographic factors, such as the number of children, marital status, and voluntary service in the previous year. The study found that pay inequities start early and get worse over time. These baffling gaps are indications of discrimination, which remains to be a serious issue for women in the work force (Rehman Sobhan, 2001). Conclusion Economic globalization has doomed that many companies currently practice the cheapest possible outputs to cut costs. Majority of them are doing this by downsizing. This implies reducing salaries and benefits, lying off staff, hiring part-time staff as instead of full – time workers, using home-based workers, lying off older staff almost to receive their pensions, and giving continuing staff increased workloads. Oppression of women occurs at a high rate because expectations dictate that women ought to be at the bottommost of the step. The garment industry is a Canadian industry that has squeezed itself with the intention of competing in the global economy. Women primarily dominate it (Heide, 2004). Downsizing ominously affects womens home lives too. Women experience increased pressure when men lose their employment. The obligation to take on extra financial responsibilities rests upon womens shoulders in such scenarios. Ensuring a curb to discrimination would help more than just only women, as per advocates who resist the classification of equal pay as zero - sum game are fast to draw attention. When Iowa introduced wage adjustments to fight pay discrimination, men accounted 41% of the beneficiaries. Still, considering that almost 40% of American women, particularly mothers, are the chief breadwinner in their families, children in America would benefit too. Womens wages have improved just half a penny to the dollar for the last four decades (Heide, 2004). In order to fight pay inequality, business organizations have to remove obstacles for women. These include; access to greater paying jobs, inaugurate measures to allow workers to balance work and family matters, such as workplace children care facilities. Women should also be guaranteed that part - time work and fulltime labor receive similar remuneration packages. This provides women with flexible working conditions (Abdi, 2006). When the womens movements stopped fighting for freedom and started working on the way to equality, targeting united Nations, the European Union and World Bank; it abandoned form of women. The anti-capitalist movement in challenging the radical inequality in society between the haves and the have – not’s plugs the way back to the battle for womens liberation, a battle to defeat global capitalism and build genuine equality in a fair and sustainable world. References Abdi, A. A. (2006). Employment And Globalization: Critical Perspectives. Cairo: Lexington Books. Bartlett, K. T. (2003). Gender and Law. New York: Aspen Publishers Online. Brennan, T. (2003). Globalization and Its Terrors: Daily Life in the West. London: Routledge. Heide, I. (2004). Gender Roles And Sex Equality: European Solutions to Social Security Disputes. New York: International Labour Organization. Kirp, D. (2011). Gender Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rehman Sobhan. (2001). Globalisation and gender: changing patterns of womens employment. Michigan: University Press. Sainsbury, D. (1999). Gender and Welfare State Regimes. London: Oxford University Press. Sainsbury, D. (2011). Gender, Equality, and Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sass, S. A. (2008). Working Longer. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Simon, R. J. (2007). Womens Roles and Statuses the World Over. London: Lexington Books. Smith, M. (209). Womens Employment in Europe: Trends and Prospects. London: Routledge. Stanny, B. (2004). Why Women Earn Less: How to Make What Youre Really Worth. New York: Career Press. Read More