Why is this? We are altered by looks, no matter what. And as many would like to say that what’s on the inside is where it counts (which it does, no doubt), we has humans can’t help to be more generous in a way to the attractive men and women. Certain companies only hire people based on their looks such as Hollister, Abercrombie and Fitch, Hooters, and international model companies. Whereas the less attractive people would be totally overlooked because they are not the description of attractive male/females they were looking for.
Unfortunately the recent report tells us that only by 2095 we can achieve the full gender equality on the workplace. However, of course, we could try and shorten that time. It is obviously important to have not only males in the business world, because this way we miss out on many opportunities that women could bring to the world, due to the different perception of values. When for example men are driven by mostly material success, women tend to build up relationships and friendly environment on the workplace. However, sometimes emotions and nurturing can affect the business in a negative manner.
Women would not have felt empowered at the time because society was male driven. Stanton used the word ‘we’ to unite women because the only way that women were going to make a difference was if they could come together and become a force. Women would not feel comfortable in coming together against men because of how little power they had in society. There was always the fear of the negative that could occur if men overpowered the
An additional factor is sexual harassment in the workplace. We all are aware that men in high positions are likely to use their power to create sexual advancements to the women they oversee. I to have been a victim of this type of behavior and was not advance because I wasn’t receptive to the quid pro quo which means “one thing in return for another”! (Macionis, pg. 291) Many women just as I was are afraid of losing their job if they report sexual harassment.
Evening Things Out Affirmative action in the eyes of some can be considered to be the compromise for reparations. To others it can be looked at as an opportunity for women to be looked at as equals in comparison to their male colleagues. But those who don’t fall into either of those categories look at affirmative action as reverse discrimination or racism. There is an argument that there is truth in all of those statements, but it is more prevalent in the first two than the latter. Minorities were never given the appropriate chance they deserve, and women still can’t get the respect they deserve in the workplace.
Believing sexism will go away without putting major changes in place, is not a reality. Sexism blatantly exists in the work place. Obvious (and most common) examples of this would be: women are often paid less than their male counterparts for the same position, men often receive rapid job promotions in comparison to women and women are usually the targets of gender based harassment. Women frequently struggle with the lack of pay they receive, in comparison to their male counterparts. A woman working in the same job as a man will usually earn less, despite the fact that she may have the same or better training, education, and skills required for the job ("Study Shows Female Managers in Britain Earn Less than Men, and Equality Could Be 57 Years Away."
Good-looking raters didn't seem to care one way or the other how handsome or beautiful an applicant was, but average-looking raters did - they penalized better-looking same-sex applicants. Its just to be practical, you might want think carefully about your appearance when you interview for a position, depending on who is doing the interviewing. When your potential boss is a member of your own sex, consider a more conservative, professional look. You want your interviewer focused on your credentials, not your good looks. Its been noticed that the younger crowd worries more about their appearance than any other age group.
Should America only lose its sons in battle? No, and in a time of equality where men and women are equal in the workplace they should be equal in supporting America on the battle field. By not being equal it lowers the view on women as delicate and fragile while men are being shipped into war. Research is based on government facts and laws set by congress. These sources are accurate and used correctly to state Mrs. Quindlen’s view on women being drafted into a national crisis.
Gender Differences in Leadership by Rosaline Berry Troy University MSM 6640 Dr. Checkwa ABSTRACT With more women assuming the role of leadership in business organizations, gender differences in leadership is becoming of great interest. Are there distinctive differences in the way men and women lead? Until recently, leadership positions have been mostly held by men. Men have been stereotyped as the more effective leader. In recent years, the gender gap between men and women in leadership roles are decreasing.
Employers who engaged in unfair hiring practices attempted to justify making discriminatory hiring decisions for several reasons. Some employers believed women lacked the skills and qualifications necessary to perform nontraditional and higher-paid positions simply because of gender. Other employers who hired or promoted women into supervisory or management positions prevented those women from attaining higher-level roles, which is referred to as the "glass ceiling." The glass ceiling is a metaphor used to describe a barrier where the targeted group--in this case, women--can see the higher rungs on a career ladder but are prevented from attaining more responsible and influential positions due to discrimination based on sex and business decisions that convey the message that men are more suited to leadership roles. This is evidenced by a study in 2003 conducted by University of California-Hayward professor Dr. Richard Drogin who discovered "women make up 72 percent of Wal-Mart's total workforce, but only 33 percent of its managers."