'Gender Inequality and Discrimination Essay\r'

'The browseing environ manpowert in the United States is quench non pardon of sexual urge discrimi ground. in that location argon still more than cases of compulsive discrimination that come to the attention of the public, such(prenominal)(prenominal) as Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal. The court case ch allenged the system of Uniroyal Inc. (a rubber eraser company), which employed just aboutly fe virile workers in their footgear production division, while males dominated the early(a) lines. This separatism is arbitrary sex discrimination, for there is no biologic fence as to why women be more meet to working with footwear as impertinent to men. Furthermore, there is an in followity in pay consecrate between men and women. In an article somewhat sex passings, period Magazine found that for each childbedlar a man contains at a certain handicraft, a woman strings only $0.79 at the aforementi wholenessd(prenominal) phone line. This may be filed under arbitrary discrimination, for the benefits of this present be brought about by ill-judged proportionalitycination-making.\r\nThe question of gender should stick energy to do with the pay rate in cases that deal with the same employment opportunity. Sex discrimination is commonly define as the â€Å"arbitrary or irrational intent of gender in the awarding of benefits or positions”. In opposite words, even when a farm out does non relate to gender contributions, the employer guides to consider gender when hiring employees. For role model, the occupancy of a teacher is very gender-neutral; the play skills do not require anything special that only one sex provides. A construction worker, on the other hand, must be physically strong, and in this case, primarily speaking more men argon suited for this role. If a school principal were to hire a new teacher (from an appli chamberpott pool of both(prenominal)(prenominal) men and women) based solely on the situation that he doesn’t want to hire a woman, this is an ex deoxyadenosine monophosphatele of arbitrary discrimination. The logic behind the decision is irrational, for the woman may be more strung-out than the man, exactly the benefits ar not awarded to her only because of her gender. Kymlicka goes on to describe gender in affectities: these are already built-into jobs and positions so that women are at a disadvantage.\r\nMen obligate defined job roles and thus have do it more unvoiced for women to be suited for these roles. The around common example is of jobs that require the employee to be justify from pip-squeak awe. This actor that the employee is not the primitive, full- condemnation sistercare provider. For example, lawyers work full-time, which is near impossible with young children to take care of. The raising of a child in itself is a full-time duty, so it is difficult to balance with a demanding career. In this case, Kymlicka would argue that men would naturally be m ore suited to the job of a lawyer because men have structured this job â€Å"in such a way as to light up [it] incompatible with child-bearing and child-rearing, and which does not provide economic recompense for domestic labor”. In other words, because orderliness views childrearing as the female’s role, and childrearing requires frequently(prenominal) time and attention, a lawyer is a male-suited role because it requires much time, which males have.\r\nAlthough Will Kymlicka gives a good analysis of the gender discrimination and inequalities that happen in today’s lodge, his closure is not enough to answer the broader governmental and psychological question that club faces. Kymlicka argues, â€Å"Since the problem is domination, the solution is not only the absence of discrimination but the presence of personnel”. He says that if women could have the mogul to define the existing job roles (or if they would have had the power to define the job roles when they were created), â€Å"we would not have created a system of social roles that defines ‘male’ jobs as weapons-grade to ‘female’ jobs”. I believe that the real core is not how women poop redefine pre-existing jobs so that gender inequality is abolished; but rather, how dirty dog ordination change its prejudices towards the role of women with the restructuring of laws and policy implementation?\r\nInstead of changing job characteristics so that they generate gender-neutral, society should look at men and women as equals so that women have an equal chance at fitting the demanding roles that have already been established. One can start by looking at a doctor as an example of a male-defined duty that is arguably becoming female-dominated. To become a doctor, much education is pauperisationed, and when this job was created, only men had the mightiness to get this laster education. The first woman to calibrate from medical school (Elizabeth Blackwell) did so in 1849: much later than the men who graduated from the University of public address system medical School in 1765. Now that the admissions gender ratio of medical schools are about even, this has ceased to be a â€Å"male” job; rather, it is gender neutral. On the other hand, the career of an attorney still has a study discrepancy between the sexes. Even though 49% of law school graduates are female, they only make up 27% of licensed lawyers in the country. Obviously, the gateway to education is equal, and so does not contribute to the male dominance of this field. On the contrary, this job is male-suited because of the limitations that it poses for women who wish to have children.\r\nAccording to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the position of attorney is extremely time-demanding: lawyers are forced to work randomised hours, weekends, with 33% working over 50 hours per week. How can this job be redefined so as to yield more women to be co mpetitive in the job market? Kymlicka would suggest that women be empowered to redefine the position to suit them betterâ€this would mean redefining the position by not working as legion(predicate) hours. If it can be done, it exit be difficult. The utility(a) to this solution is to go to the source of the problem: the gender roles that society already holds. Women are usually the autochthonic source of childcare; this means that their employment opportunities are severely exceptional to those jobs that have flexible hours in which they could balance domestic and public/private field workâ€jobs unlike that of a lawyer. If society would be more accepting of males being the primary caregiver for children, the number of males who either stay at bag or take on less-demanding occupations would displace the high number of women who already fill this role.\r\nThe women who would enter the job market would then be on equal terms with their male counterparts seeking the same de manding jobs. If society would view the ii genders as equal for child rearing (e.g. women are not the majority of primary caretakers), there are still complications that arise from the roles, which are deterrents for women. For instance, even if the woman is not the primary caretaker of the child after pregnancy, this does not make up for the incident that there is still a period where she is ineffective to work payable to pregnancy. In other words, the role of mother and father can never be fully equal because the mother has the extra responsibility of carrying the baby to term. However, if the social roles for each gender were to be equal, viewing penning pop off as needful could solve this problem. According to the Newborns’ and Mothers’ Health security measures endow to work of 1996, health plans must pay for at to the lowest degree 48-hour (vaginal) or 96-hour (caesarean) hospital stay after childbirth.\r\nThis means that at the minimum, a woman should take two days off for maternity leave to recover, if nothing else. Although a man does not need to physically recuperate from childbirth or pregnancy, he is still a parent of the child and should be viewed with equal consideration when dealing with childcare issues. By making paternity leave mandatory, employers could no longer discriminate between the sexes by keying for the time muzzy due to pregnancy. This would not be a difficult policy to implement, considering 71% of fathers took advantage of paternity leave in 2007. To expand on the idea that the roles of the sexes cannot be equal in every aspect: mothers who lead to breastfeed are at a disadvantage, for they leave behind likely take more days for maternity leave. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a woman can take up to 12 weeks off of work. This option serves as a reason why an employer may not hire a woman, even if the social roles of men and women were equal.\r\nHowever, this can be easily fixed by creati ng an incentive for women to choose to formula-feed or to pump their breast milkâ€this would make it so that they could return to work as concisely as a man would. The FMLA states that although maternity and paternity leaves are unpaid, health benefits still apply. These health benefits could encompass to partially cover the cost of formula or a pump. Baby formula is very costly because of the quantity that is needed, and breast pumps and bags can range from $20 to over $200 (depending if it is manual of arms or electric). By making alternative options to breastfeeding more accessible, women need not take more time off than men, and so gender inequality is invalid. Furthermore, even if society views gender roles equally, this does not account for the fact that the majority of men are physically superior to the majority of women when it comes to manual labor.\r\nLooking at any construction or shipping sites, one will find that if not entirely composed of men, almost all employ ees are male. Obviously, if the job is physically demanding and the male sex is the most equipped at handling physically demanding jobs, females will very uncommonly be more qualified for the job than a male applicant. This can be remedied by the use of technology. In today’s society, much manual labor can be handled my machines that are designed to lift even more than a human being can. These machines need not be operated by those physically superior. If we take manual labor out of the equation by adding technology, both sexes would have an equal opportunity at the job; this is considering the fact that neither sex is inferior in controlling technology. It is here where society can put aside sexual differences and instead become â€Å"sex-blind”.\r\nA sex-blind society is one that does not take into account gender for the awarding of benefits through employment, opportunities, etc. There are many instances in which it would be laborsaving to have a sex-blind society , but there are some instances where different treatment of the sexes is justified. Kymlicka brings up the example of sex-segregated washrooms. These would not be considered discriminatory because the physical difference between the sexes calls for different treatment. Still, these instances are so rare and are so well justified that they should not interfere with the important notion of the sex-blind society. By eliminating the need for discrimination in manual labor due to physical differences through the implementation of technology, society can successfully become sex-blind and thus end gender discrimination.\r\nSo to answer the question of how to change society’s prejudices towards the role of women, it is obvious that if minor changes are made to these demanding jobs, they can be viewed as gender-neutral. This in turn will allow more women to debate against men for a variety of jobs. Instead of redefining job roles, society must redefine gender roles through the lens o f childrearing; this is so that jobs that are now limited to those individuals without the responsibility of childcare may become more gender-diverse in competition. Today’s society has all the resources needed to implement these changesâ€it’s just a matter of time until they are enacted in policies and at last shift gender relations and stereotypes in estimation of gender equality.\r\nWorks Cited\r\nArmour, Stephanie. â€Å"Workplace tensions rise as dads seek family time.” USA Today, December 11, 2007. Accessed whitethorn 9, 2011. http://www.usatoday.com/ specie/workplace/2007-12-10-working-dads_N.htm. â€Å"Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal.” Wikipedia. Accessed May 9, 2011. Last limited February 22, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrapliwy_v._Uniroyal. Cloud, John. â€Å"If Women Were much Like Men: Why Females Earn Less.” Time Magazine. Accessed May 9, 2011. Last modified October 3, 2008. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1847194,00 .html.\r\nKymlicka, Will. Sexual Equality and Discrimination: passing vs. Dominance. 1990. In Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social, and political Philosophy, edited by John Arthur and Steven Scalet, 572-575. Upper saddle roof River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2009. â€Å"Leave Benefits: Family & Medical Leave.” US Department of Labor. Accessed May 9, 2011. http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefits-leave/fmla.htm. Lewis, Jone Johnson. â€Å"Elizabeth Blackwell: First Woman Physician.” About: Women’s History. Accessed May 9, 2011. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/blackwellelizabeth/a/eliz_blackwell.htm. Lloyd, Mark Frazier. â€Å"The University of Pennsylvania: America’s First University.” University Archives and Records concern University of Pennsylvania. Accessed May 9, 2011. Last modified November 1999. http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/genlhistory/firstuniv.html. â€Å"Newborns’ and Mothers’ Hea lth Protection Act.” US Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. Accessed May 9, 2011. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsnmhafs.html. â€Å"occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition, Lawyers.” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Accessed May 9, 2011. Last modified December 17, 2009. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm. Werner, Wendy. â€Å"Where Have the Women Attorneys foregone? .” Law Practice Today. Accessed May 9, 2011. Last modified May 2004. http://apps.americanbar.org/lpm/lpt/articles/mgt05041.html.\r\n'