Gender inequality

Gender inequality refers to unequal treatment or perceptions of individuals based on their gender. It arises from differences in socially constructed gender roles as well as biologically through chromosomes, brain structure, and hormonal differences.[1] Gender systems are often dichotomous and hierarchical; gender binary systems may reflect the inequalities that manifest in numerous dimensions of daily life. Gender inequality stems from distinctions, whether empirically grounded or socially constructed. (On differences between the sexes, see Sex and psychology.)

Natural sex differences

There are natural differences between the sexes based on biological and anatomic factors, most notably differing reproductive roles. Biological differences include chromosomes, brain structure, and hormonal differences.[1] There is a natural difference also in the relative physical strengths (on average) of the sexes.[2][3]

In the workplace

Income disparities linked to job stratification

Main article: Gender pay gap

Wage discrimination exists when workers are equally qualified and perform the same work but one group of workers is paid more than another. Historically, wage discrimination has favored men over similarly qualified women.[4]

Income disparity between genders stems from processes that determine the quality of jobs and earnings associated with jobs. Earnings associated with jobs will cause income inequality to take form in the placement of individuals into particular jobs through individual qualifications or stereotypical norms. Placement of men or women into particular job categories can be supported through the human capital theories of qualifications of individuals or abilities associated with biological differences in men and women. Conversely, the placement of men or women into separate job categories is argued to be caused by social status groups who desire to keep their position through the placement of those in lower statuses to lower paying positions.[5]

Human capital theories refer to the education, knowledge, training, experience, or skill of a person which makes them potentially valuable to an employer. This has historically been understood as a cause of the gendered wage gap but is no longer a predominant cause as women and men in certain occupations tend to have similar education levels or other credentials. Even when such characteristics of jobs and workers are controlled for, the presence of women within a certain occupation leads to lower wages. This earnings discrimination is considered to be a part of pollution theory. This theory suggests that jobs which are predominated by women offer lower wages than do jobs simply because of the presence of women within the occupation. As women enter an occupation, this reduces the amount of prestige associated with the job and men subsequently leave these occupations. The entering of women into specific occupations suggests that less competent workers have begun to be hired or that the occupation is becoming deskilled. Men are reluctant to enter female-dominated occupations because of this and similarly resist the entrance of women into male-dominated occupations.[6]

The gendered income disparity can also be attributed in part to occupational segregation, where groups of people are distributed across occupations according to ascribed characteristics; in this case, gender. Occupational gender segregation can be understood to contain two components or dimensions; horizontal segregation and vertical segregation. With horizontal segregation, occupational sex segregation occurs as men and women are thought to possess different physical, emotional, and mental capabilities. These different capabilities make the genders vary in the types of jobs they are suited for. This can be specifically viewed with the gendered division between manual and non-manual labor. With vertical segregation, occupational sex segregation occurs as occupations are stratified according to the power, authority, income, and prestige associated with the occupation and women are excluded from holding such jobs.[6]

As women entered the workforce in larger numbers since the 1960s, occupations have become segregated based on the amount femininity or masculinity presupposed to be associated with each occupation. Census data suggests that while some occupations have become more gender integrated (mail carriers, bartenders, bus drivers, and real estate agents), occupations including teachers, nurses, secretaries, and librarians have become female-dominated while occupations including architects, electrical engineers, and airplane pilots remain predominately male in composition.[7] Based on the census data, women occupy the service sector jobs at higher rates than men. Women’s overrepresentation in service sector jobs, as opposed to jobs that require managerial work acts as a reinforcement of women and men into traditional gender roles that causes gender inequality.[8]

Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, by sex, race, and ethnicity, U.S., 2009.[9]

Scholars disagree about how much of the male-female wage gap depends on factors such as experience, education, occupation, and other job-relevant characteristics. Sociologist Douglas Massey found that 41% remains unexplained,[6] while CONSAD analysts found that these factors explain between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of the raw wage gap.[10] CONSAD also noted that other factors such as benefits and overtime explain "additional portions of the raw gender wage gap".

The glass ceiling effect is also considered a possible contributor to the gender wage gap or income disparity. This effect suggests that gender provides significant disadvantages towards the top of job hierarchies which become worse as a person’s career goes on. The term glass ceiling implies that invisible or artificial barriers exist which prevent women from advancing within their jobs or receiving promotions. These barriers exist in spite of the achievements or qualifications of the women and still exist when other characteristics that are job-relevant such as experience, education, and abilities are controlled for. The inequality effects of the glass ceiling are more prevalent within higher-powered or higher income occupations, with fewer women holding these types of occupations. The glass ceiling effect also indicates the limited chances of women for income raises and promotion or advancement to more prestigious positions or jobs. As women are prevented by these artificial barriers, from either receiving job promotions or income raises, the effects of the inequality of the glass ceiling increase over the course of a woman’s career.[11]

Statistical discrimination is also cited as a cause for income disparities and gendered inequality in the workplace. Statistical discrimination indicates the likelihood of employers to deny women access to certain occupational tracks because women are more likely than men to leave their job or the labor force when they become married or pregnant. Women are instead given positions that dead-end or jobs that have very little mobility.[4]

In Third World countries such as the Dominican Republic, female entrepreneurs are statistically more prone to failure in business. In the event of a business failure women often return to their domestic lifestyle despite the absence of income. On the other hand, men tend to search for other employment as the household is not a priority.[12]

The gender earnings ratio suggests that there has been an increase in women’s earnings comparative to men. Men’s plateau in earnings began after the 1970s, allowing for the increase in women’s wages to close the ratio between incomes. Despite the smaller ratio between men and women’s wages, disparity still exists. Census data suggests that women’s earnings are 71 percent of men’s earnings in 1999.[7]

The gendered wage gap varies in its width among different races. Whites comparatively have the greatest wage gap between the genders. With whites, women earn 78% of the wages that white men do. With African Americans, women earn 90% of the wages that African American men do.

There are some exceptions where women earn more than men: According to a survey on gender pay inequality by the International Trade Union Confederation, female workers in the Gulf state of Bahrain earn 40 per cent more than male workers.[13]

Professional education and careers

The gender gap also appeared to narrow considerably beginning in the mid-1960s. Where some 5% of first-year students in professional programs were female in 1965, by 1985 this number had jumped to 40% in law and medicine, and over 30% in dentistry and business school.[14] Before the highly effective birth control pill was available, women planning professional careers, which required a long-term, expensive commitment, had to "pay the penalty of abstinence or cope with considerable uncertainty regarding pregnancy."[15] This control over their reproductive decisions allowed women to more easily make long-term decisions about their education and professional opportunities. Women are highly underrepresented on boards of directors and in senior positions in the private sector.[16]

Additionally, with reliable birth control, young men and women had more reason to delay marriage. This meant that the marriage market available to any one women who "delay[ed] marriage to pursue a career...would not be as depleted. Thus the Pill could have influenced women's careers, college majors, professional degrees, and the age at marriage."[17]

Studies on sexism in science and technology fields have produced conflicting results. Corinne et al. found that science faculty of both sexes rated a male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than an identical female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant.[18] Williams and Ceci, however, found that science and technology faculty of both sexes "preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles" for tenure-track positions.[19]

Customer preference studies

A 2009 study conducted by David R. Hekman and colleagues found that customers who viewed videos featuring a black male, a white female, or a white male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19 percent more satisfied with the white male employee's performance.[20][21][22][23][24]

This discrepancy with race can be found as early as 1947, when Kenneth Clark conducted a study in which black children were asked to choose between white and black dolls. White male dolls were the ones children preferred to play with.[25][26]

Gender discrimination in the medical field

Although the disparities between men and women are decreasing in the medical field, gender inequalities still exist as social problems. Recently qualified female doctors in the U.S. make almost $17,000 less than their male counterparts. The pay discrepancy could not be explained by specialty choice, practice setting, work hours, or other characteristics.[27]

At home

Gender roles in parenting and marriage

Sigmund Freud suggested that biology determines gender identity through identification with either the mother or father. While some people agree with Freud, others argue that the development of the gendered self is not completely determined by biology, but rather the interactions that one has with the primary caregiver(s).

According to the non-Freudian view, gender roles develop through internalization and identification during childhood. From birth, parents interact differently with children depending on their sex, and through this interaction parents can instill different values or traits in their children on the basis of what is normative for their sex. This internalization of gender norms can be seen through the example of which types of toys parents typically give to their children ("feminine" toys such as dolls often reinforce interaction, nurturing, and closeness, "masculine" toys such as cars or fake guns often reinforce independence, competitiveness, and aggression).[1] On the other hand, it has been shown that rhesus macaque children exhibit preferences for stereotypically male and female toys.[28] Education also plays an integral role in the creation of gender norms.[29]

In Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, Meg Meeker emphasizes the importance of opposite-gender parental roles. She claims "fathers, more than anyone else, set the course for a daughter's life."[30]

Gender roles permeate throughout life and help to structure parenting and marriage, especially in relation to work in and outside the home.

Gender inequality in relationships

Gender equality in relationships has been growing over the years but for the majority of relationships, the power lies with the male.[31] Even how men and women present themselves is divided along gender lines. A study done by Szymanowicz and Furnham, looked at the cultural stereotypes of intelligence in men and women, showing the gender inequality in self-presentation.[32] This study showed that females thought if they revealed their intelligence to a potential partner, then it would diminish their chance with him. Men however would much more readily discuss their own intelligence with a potential partner. Also, women are aware of people’s negative reactions to IQ, so they limit its disclosure to only trusted friends. Females would disclose IQ more often than men with the expectation that a true friend would respond in a positive way. Intelligence continues to be viewed as a more masculine trait, than feminine trait. The article suggested that men might think women with a high IQ would lack traits that were desirable in a mate such as warmth, nurturance, sensitivity, or kindness. Another discovery was that females thought that friends should be told about one’s IQ more so than males. However, males expressed doubts about the test’s reliability and the importance of IQ in real life more so than women. The inequality is highlighted when a couple starts to decide who is in charge of family issues and who is primarily responsible for earning income. For example, in Londa Schiebinger’s book, "Has Feminism Changed Science?", she claims that "Married men with families on average earn more money, live longer, and progress faster in their careers," while "for a working woman, a family is a liability, extra baggage threatening to drag down her career."[33] Furthermore, statistics had shown that "only 17 percent of the women who are full professors of engineering have children, while 82 percent of the men do."[34] Women in a relationship are continuously playing the role of assistant which is "for the most part invisible."

Attempts in equalizing household work

Despite the increase in women in the labor force since the mid-1900s, traditional gender roles are still prevalent in American society. Women may be expected to put their educational and career goals on hold in order to raise children, while their husbands work. However, women who choose to work as well as fulfill a perceived gender role of cleaning the house and taking care of the children. Despite the fact that different households may divide chores more evenly, there is evidence that supports that women have retained the primary caregiver role within familial life despite contributions economically. This evidence suggest that women who work outside the home often put an extra 18 hours a week doing household or childcare related chores as opposed to men who average 12 minutes a day in childcare activities.[35] One study by van Hooff showed that modern couples, do not necessarily purposefully divide things like household chores along gender lines, but instead may rationalize it and make excuses.[31] One excuse used is that women are more competent at household chores and have more motivation to do them. Another is that some say the demands of the males’ jobs is higher.

Gender inequalities in relation to technology

One survey showed that men rate their technological skills in activities such as basic computer functions and online participatory communication higher than women. However, it should be noted that this study was a self-reporting study, where men evaluate themselves on their own perceived capabilities. It thus is not data based on actual ability, but merely perceived ability, as participants' ability was not assessed. Additionally, this study is inevitably subject to the significant bias associated with self-reported data.[36]

Structural marginalization

Gender inequalities often stem from social structures that have institutionalized conceptions of gender differences.

Marginalization occurs on an individual level when someone feels as if they are on the fringes or margins of their respective society. This is a social process and displays how current policies in place can affect people. For example, media advertisements display young girls with easy bake ovens (promoting being a housewife) as well as with dolls that they can feed and change the diaper of (promoting being a mother).

The politics of NGOs

Non-governmental organizations (NGO's) have the ability to create change. Certain NGO's, such as the Kiva (organization) promote female entrepreneurs. Currently, Kiva distributes loans to approximately 400 more women than men. However, even when women work at NGO's in order to create a voice and a space for women's empowerment, there are still gender discrepancies amongst the women. For example, in Uttar Pradesh in India, there is a NGO where women work. Marginalized because of their caste and religion, this organization has the opportunity to provide a voice to the voiceless and expose the issues that are happening. However, women from a higher caste still have issues eating the food of women from a lower caste.[37]

Gender stereotypes

Main article: Gender stereotypes

Cultural stereotypes are engrained in both men and women and these stereotypes are a possible explanation for gender inequality and the resulting gendered wage disparity. Women have traditionally been viewed as being caring and nurturing and are designated to occupations which require such skills. While these skills are culturally valued, they were typically associated with domesticity, so occupations requiring these same skills are not economically valued. Men have traditionally been viewed as the breadwinner or the worker, so jobs held by men have been historically economically valued and occupations predominated by men continue to be economically valued and pay higher wages.[6]

Biological fertilisation stereotypes

Bonnie Spanier coined the term hereditary inequality.[38] Her opinion is that some scientific publications depict human fertilization such that sperms seem to actively compete for the "passive" egg, even though in reality it is complicated (e.g. the egg has specific active membrane proteins that select sperm etc.)

Sexism and discrimination

Gender inequality can further be understood through the mechanisms of sexism. Discrimination takes place in this manner as men and women are subject to prejudicial treatment on the basis of gender alone. Sexism occurs when men and women are framed within two dimensions of social cognition.

Discrimination also plays out with networking and in preferential treatment within the economic market. Men typically occupy positions of power within the job economy. Due to taste or preference for other men because they share similar characteristics, men in these positions of power are more likely to hire or promote other men, thus discriminating against women.[6]

In television and film

The New York Film Academy took a closer look at the women in Hollywood and gathered statistics from the top 500 films from 2007 to 2012; for their history and achievements, or lack of.

With only a 5:1 ratio of men working in films than women, the 30.8% of women having speaking characters, who may or may not have been a part of the 28.8% of women who were written to wear revealing clothing compared to the 7% of men who did, or the 26.2% of women who wore little to no clothing opposed to the 9.4% of men who did the same.[39]

Hollywood actresses get paid less than actors. Topping the Forbes' highest paid actors list, of 2013, is Robert Downey Jr. with $75 million yet Angelina Jolie tops the highest paid actresses list with only $33 million,[40] tying with Denzel Washington ($33 million) and Liam Neeson ($32 million) who were the last two of the top ten highest paid actors list.[41]

During the 2013 Academy Awards, 140 men were nominated for an award but only 35 women were nominated, however, no woman was nominated for directing, cinematography, film editing, writing (original screenplay), or original score that year. But ever since the Academy Awards first opened in 1929, only 7 women producers have won the Best Picture category (all women who have been co-producers with men), only 8 women have been nominated for Best Original Screenplay, and Lina Wertmuller (1976), Jane Campion (1994), Sofia Coppola (2004), and Kathryn Bigelow (2012) were the only 4 women to be nominated for Best Directing, with Bigelow being the first woman to win for her film The Hurt Locker.

77% males make up the Academy Awards' voters.[39]

Variations by country or culture

The Gender gap index world map for 2013.[42]

Gender inequality is a result of the persistent discrimination of one group of people based upon gender and it manifests itself differently according to race, culture, politics, country, and economic situation. It is furthermore considered a causal factor of violence against women. While gender discrimination happens to both men and women in individual situations, discrimination against women is an entrenched, global pandemic. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, rape and violence against women and girls is used as a tool of war.[43] In Afghanistan, girls have had acid thrown in their faces for attending school.[44] Considerable focus has been given to the issue of gender inequality at the international level by organizations such as the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the World Bank, particularly in developing countries. The causes and effects of gender inequality vary by country, as do solutions for combating it.

Asia

One example of the continued existence of gender inequality in Asia is the "missing girls" phenomenon.[45]

India

India ranking remains low in gender equality measures by the World Economic Forum, although the rank has been improving in recent years.[42][46] When broken down into components that contribute the rank, India performs well on political empowerment, but is scored near the bottom with China on sex selective abortion. India also scores poorly on overall female to male literacy and health rankings. India with a 2013 ranking of 101 out of 136 countries had an overall score of 0.6551, while Iceland, the nation that topped the list, had an overall score of 0.8731 (no gender gap would yield a score of 1.0).[47] Gender inequalities impact India's sex ratio, women's health over their lifetimes, their educational attainment, and economic conditions. It is a multifaceted issue that concerns men and women alike.

The labor force participation rate of women was 80.7% in 2013.[48] Nancy Lockwood of Society for Human Resource Management, the world's largest human resources association with members in 140 countries, in a 2009 report wrote that female labor participation is lower than men, but has been rapidly increasing since the 1990s. Out of India's 397 million workers in 2001, 124 million were women, states Lockwood.[49]

India is on target to meet its Millennium Development Goal of gender parity in education before 2016.[50] UNICEF's measure of attendance rate and Gender Equality in Education Index (GEEI) capture the quality of education.[51] Despite some gains, India needs to triple its rate of improvement to reach GEEI score of 95% by 2015 under the Millennium Development Goals. A 1998 report states that rural India girls continue to be less educated than the boys.[52]

United States

The World Economic Forum measures gender equity through a series of economic, educational, and political benchmarks. It has ranked the United States as 19th (up from 31st in 2009) in terms of achieving gender equity.[53] The US Department of Labor has indicated that in 2009, "the median weekly earnings of women who were full-time wage and salary workers was…80 percent of men’s";[54] The Department of Justice found that in 2009, "the percentage of female victims (26%) of intimate partner violence was about 5 times that of male victims (5%)".[55] "The United States ranks 41st in a ranking of 184 countries on maternal deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, below all other industrialized nations and a number of developing countries"[56] and women only represent 20% of members of Congress.[53]

Impact and counteractions

Gender inequality and discrimination is argued to cause and perpetuate poverty and vulnerability in society as a whole.[57] Household and intra-household knowledge and resources are key influences in individuals' abilities to take advantage of external livelihood opportunities or respond appropriately to threats.[57] High education levels and social integration significantly improve the productivity of all members of the household and improve equity throughout society. Gender Equity Indices seek to provide the tools to demonstrate this feature of poverty.[57]

Poverty has many driving factors, two of which, are lack of jobs and more importantly the gender gap or gender wage inequality in America. Women are more likely to be living in poverty and the wage gap is one of the most concerning causes. "Nationally, women who hold jobs full time, year round earn, on average, just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. For women of color, the wage gap is larger. On average, African American women earn 64 cents and Latinas earn just 54 cents for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men."[58]

Despite acknowledgement by institutions such as the World Bank that gender inequality is bad for economic growth, there are many difficulties in creating a comprehensive response.[59] It is argued that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) fail to acknowledge gender inequality as a cross-cutting issue. Gender is mentioned in MDG3 and MDG5: MDG3 measures gender parity in education, the share of women in wage employment and the proportion women in national legislatures.[57] MDG5 focuses on maternal mortality and on universal access to reproductive health.[57] However, even these targets are significantly off-track.[59]

Addressing gender inequality through social protection programmes designed to increase equity would be an effective way of reducing gender inequality.[59] Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute argue for the need to develop the following in social protection in order to reduce gender inequality and increase growth:[57]

However, politics plays a central role in the interests, institutions and ideas that are needed to reshape social welfare and gender inequality in politics and society limits governments' ability to act on economic incentives.[59]

It is interesting to note that NGO's tend to protect women against gender inequality and Structural violence. During war, the opposing side targets women, raping and even killing them. This could be because women are associated with children and killing them prohibits there being a next generation of the enemy.[60]

Another opportunity to tackle gender inequality is presented by modern Information and communication technologies. In a carefully controlled study,[61] it has been shown that women embrace digital technology more than men, disproving the stereotype of "technophobic women". Given that digital information and communication technologies have the potential to provide access to employment, education, income, health services, participation, protection, and safety, among others (ICT4D), the natural affinity of women with these new communication tools provide women with a tangible bootstrapping opportunity to tackle social discrimination. In other words, if women are provided with modern information and communication technologies, these digital tools present to them an opportunity to fight longstanding inequalities in the workplace and at home.

See also

Notes and references

  1. 1 2 3 Wood, Julia. Gendered Lives. 6th. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2005.
  2. ↑ Maughan R J, Watson J S, Weir J (1983). "Strength and cross-sectional area of human skeletal muscle". The Journal of Physiology 338 (1): 37–49. PMC 1197179. PMID 6875963.
  3. ↑ Frontera, Hughes, Lutz, Evans (1991). "A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45- to 78-yr-old men and women". J Appl Physiol 71 (2): 644–50. PMID 1938738.
  4. 1 2 Burstein, Paul. "Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy." Edison, NJ: Aldine Transaction, 1994.
  5. ↑ Jacobs, Jerry. Gender Inequality at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 1995.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Massey, Douglas. "Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System." NY: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007.
  7. 1 2 Cotter, David, Joan Hermsen, and Reeve Vanneman. The American People Census 2000: Gender Inequality at Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2000.
  8. ↑ Hurst, Charles, E. Social Inequality. 6th. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2007.
  9. ↑ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2009. Report 1025, June 2010.
  10. ↑ CONSAD research corp. (12 January 2009). "An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women" (PDF). Retrieved 30 October 2015.
  11. ↑ Cotter, David, Joan Hermsen, Seth Ovadia and Reeve Vanneman. "Social Forces: The Glass Ceiling Effect." Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.
  12. ↑ Sherri Grasmuck and Rosario Espinal. "Market Success or Female Autonomy?" Sage Publications, Inc, 2000.
  13. ↑ Women 'earn less than men across the globe', Vedior, 4 March 2008
  14. ↑ Goldin, Claudia, and Lawrence F. Katz. "On The Pill: Changing the course of women's education." The Milken Institute Review, Second Quarter 2001: p3.
  15. ↑ Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz. "The Power Of The Pill: Contraceptives And Women's Career And Marriage Decisions," Journal of Political Economy, 2002, v110 (4,Aug),p731.
  16. ↑ Archived July 19, 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  17. ↑ Goldin, Claudia (2006). "The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women's Employment, Education, And Family". American Economic Review 96 (2): 13.
  18. ↑ Corinne; et al. (2012). "Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students". PNAS 109: 16474–16479. doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109. PMID 22988126.
  19. ↑ Williams, Wendy; Stephen, Ceci (28 April 2015). "National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track". PNAS 112 (17): 5360–5365. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418878112. PMC 4418903. PMID 25870272. Retrieved 30 October 2015.
  20. ↑ Hekman, David R.; Aquino, Karl; Owens, Brad P.; Mitchell, Terence R.; Schilpzand, Pauline; Leavitt, Keith. (2009) "An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction". Academy of Management Journal.
  21. ↑ Bakalar, Nicholas (2009) "A Customer Bias in Favor of White Men." New York Times, June 23, 2009.
  22. ↑ Vedantam, Shankar (2009) "Caveat for Employers." Washington Post, June 1, 2009.
  23. ↑ Jackson, Derrick (2009) "Subtle, and stubborn, race bias." Boston Globe, July 6, 2009.
  24. ↑ National Public Radio. Lake Effect
  25. ↑ Dweck, Carol S. (2009). Prejudice: How It Develops and How It Can Be Undone. Switzerland: Karger. doi:10.1159/000242351
  26. ↑ Clark, Kenneth B. and Clark, Mamie P. (1947). "Racial identification and preference among negro children." In E. L. Hartley (Ed.) Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  27. ↑ Lo Sasso, Anthony T.; Richards, Michael R.; Chou, Chiu-Fang; Gerber, Susan E. (2011). "The $16,819 Pay Gap For Newly Trained Physicians: The Unexplained Trend Of Men Earning More Than Women". Health Affairs 30 (2): 193–201. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0597.
  28. ↑ "Yerkes - Yerkes Researchers Find Sex Differences in Monkey Toy Preferences Similar to Humans". Yerkes.emory.edu. 2008-04-10. Retrieved 2013-05-14.
  29. ↑ Vianello, Mino, and Renata Siemienska. Gender Inequality: A Comparative Study of Discrimination and Participation. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications Ltd., 1990.
  30. ↑ Meeker, Meg (2006). Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters: 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know. Ballantine Books. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-345-49939-4.
  31. 1 2 van Hooff, Jenny H. (March 2011). "Rationalising inequality: heterosexual couples' explanations and justifications for the division of housework along traditionally gendered lines". Journal of Gender Studies 20 (1): 19–30. doi:10.1080/09589236.2011.542016.
  32. ↑ Szymanowicz, Agata; Adrian Furnham (March 2011). "Do intelligent women stay single? Cultural stereotypes concerning the intellectual abilities of men and women". Journal of Gender Studies 20 (1): 43–54. doi:10.1080/09589236.2011.542019.
  33. ↑ Schiebinger, Londa. Has Feminism Changed Science. p. 92.
  34. ↑ Schiebinger, Londa. Has Feminism Changed Science. p. 96.
  35. ↑ Friedman, Ellen, and Jennifer Marshall. Issues of Gender. New York: Pearson Education, Inc. , 2004.
  36. ↑ Eszter Hargittai, What Causes Variation in Contributing to Participatory Web Sites?
  37. ↑ Sangtin Writers Collective and Richa Nagar, Playing with Fire: Feminist Thought and Activism through Seven Lives in India. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006.
  38. ↑ Schiebinger, London (2001). Has Feminism Changed Science. United States of America: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674005449.
  39. 1 2 "Gender Inequality in Film". New York Film Academy Blog. Retrieved 10/4/2014. Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  40. ↑ Forbes, Moira. "Hollywood's Highest-Paid Actresses: Where Gender Bias Reigns Supreme". forbes.com.
  41. ↑ Torrelio, Sebastian. "Robert Downey Jr. Tops Forbes’ Highest-Paid Actors List for Second Year". variety.com.
  42. 1 2 The Global Gender Gap Report 2013, World Economic Forum, Switzerland
  43. ↑ Gettleman, Jeffrey (October 7, 2007). "Rape Epidemic Raises Trauma of Congo War". New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2011.
  44. ↑ Filins, Dexter (August 23, 2009). "A School Bus for Shamsia". New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2011.
  45. ↑ Kristoff, Nicholas D. (August 23, 2009). "The Women's Crusade". New York Times. Retrieved February 16, 2011.
  46. ↑ 2011 Gender Gap Report World Economic Forum, page 9
  47. ↑ "Global Gender Gap Report 2013". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
  48. ↑ "Human Development Report for 2012". United Nations Development Project. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
  49. ↑ Nancy Lockwood (2009). "Perspectives on Women in Management in India" (PDF). Society for Human Resource Management.
  50. ↑ http://in.one.un.org/task-teams/gender-equality-and-empowerment
  51. ↑ Unterhalther, E. (2006). Measuring Gender Inequality in South Asia. London: The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
  52. ↑ Victoria A. Velkoff (October 1998). "Women of the World: Women's Education in India" (PDF). U.S. Department of Commerce. Retrieved 25 December 2006.
  53. 1 2 World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report. 2009. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  54. ↑ "Quick Stats on Women Workers". U.S. Department of Labor.
  55. ↑ "National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010". Bureau of Justice Statistics.
  56. ↑ "CEDAW 2011 website". Retrieved February 15, 2011.
  57. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nicola Jones, Rebecca Holmes, Jessica Espey 2008. Gender and the MDGs: A gender lens is vital for pro-poor results. London: Overseas Development Institute
  58. ↑ "Ohio Women and the Wage Gap" (PDF). http://www.nationalpartnership.org/. 2014 National Partnership for Women & Families. April 2014. Retrieved September 21, 2015. External link in |website= (help)
  59. 1 2 3 4 Nicola Jones and Rebecca Holmes 2010. Gender, politics and social protection. London: Overseas Development Institute
  60. ↑ Michael G. Peletz, Gender, Sexuality and Body Politics in Modern Asia. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Asian Studies, 2011.
  61. ↑ Hilbert, Martin (November–December 2011). "Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics". Women's Studies International Forum (Elsevier) 34 (6): 479–489. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001. Free access to the pdf here.

Bibliography

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Monday, February 15, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.