Positive Discrimination and Gender Equality

Positive Discrimination and Gender Equality Positive discrimination is sometimes used to help enforce gender equality in the working place. Basic questions to be answered before analyzing the concept of positive discrimination deal with the necessity of action. What does the gender situation look like in the working place? Is there actually a need for action, for positive discrimination? Looking at employment statistics gives a direction in finding answers to such questions. Only 57.2% of the women aged 15-64 in the European Union were working 2006 while 71.6% of men were. The difference in unemployment was not so large with 9.0 % of women being unemployed compared to 7.6% of men in 2006. However, the share of part time workers in total employment shows significant differences. Of the working women 31.4 % worked only part time in 2007 while the male percentage was considerably lower with only 7.8 %. The pay gap between womens and mens earnings, another important factor to measure equality which indicates the difference in average gross hourly earnings as a percentage of mens average gross hourly earnings, was at 15 % in 2006 in the EU. All these figures show that a gender gap exists in working life. The qualitative aspect of employment illustrates the inequality even more obviously. Womens share among managers in enterprises and administrations in the European Union for example was only at 32.6 % in 2006 (all figures from the Commission of the European Communities 2008). These statistics show clearly that gender equality is by far not reached. In order to strengthen equality within the working place positive discrimination measures are introduced in different forms and places according to the legal framework. Whether such measures are indeed helpful tools in enforcing gender equality will be the main topic of this paper. In order to be as precise as possible the discussion will concentrate on the situation in Europe. The basic ideas and arguments however should be universally valid. After introducing the concept of positive action an illustrating example from Norway concerning gender quotas on company boards will be presented. Thereafter the general arguments in favor and against positive discrimination will be discussed before concluding with the legal limits of the concept within the European Union. 2. Positive Discrimination What is positive discrimination? First of all, when discussing positive discrimination, the terminology needs to be clarified. Within this discussion several terms sometimes used as synonyms sometimes used with a different meaning can be found. The most common of these terms are positive discrimination, positive action and affirmative action. As this paper will concentrate on the situation in Europe, the terms positive action and positive discrimination will be used only. Positive action is a common European synonym of affirmative action whereas the usage of positive discrimination implies that the targets of the actions receive special favors (Bacchi C.L. 1996: X). Positive action constitutes proactive programs redressing past and present discrimination of certain group members identified mostly by race and gender (Bacchi 1996: X). Sterba defines affirmative action, which is in this case a synonym for positive action, as a policy of favoring qualified women and minority candidates over qualified men or non-minority candidates with the immediate goals of outreach remedying discrimination, or achieving diversity, and the ultimate goals of attaining a colorblind (racially just) and a gender-free (sexually just) society (in Burns and Schapper 2008: 373). Although the concept is used for several discrimination features, this paper will discuss positive action in the context of gender only. Positive action can be applied in the private and the public sector. However, the latter one is more often addressed by legal regulations (Bacchi 1996: 16). We usually find two classifications of positive action: soft options that increase the possibility of promotion and recruitment for the underrepresented group, for example through training, and hard or strong options that target promotion and recruitment of the underrepresented gender, for example through quota requirements (Bacchi C.L. 1996: 16). This paper will concentrate on the latter form of positive action and refer to it as positive discrimination. Example: Gender quotas on company boards in Norway When looking at different positive discrimination measures in Europe, one regulation stands out: the legislation on representation of both sexes on company boards in Norway. The country has come up with a law forcing companies to constitute their boards in a way that both sexes are represented by at least 40%. This implies not only for state-owned companies but also for public limited companies listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange, in other words, companies in the private sector (Norwegian Government Ministry of children, equality and social Inclusion 2005). As positive discrimination usually takes place in the public sector the Norwegian initiative is quite an astonishing regulation. Also the harsh enforcement is remarkable. If companies fail to fulfil the requirement of the 40% quota, they can actually be dissolved (Norwegian Government Ministry of children, equality and social Inclusion 2005). As for the reason for such a policy the Norwegian government argued that balanced representation is a question of democracy. Furthermore it stated that making use of all the resources in a country is necessary and that the Norwegian women are equally qualified as men. Ultimately, the government believed increased diversity in the board rooms to lead to higher successes of the companies (Norwegian Government Ministry of children, equality and social Inclusion 2005). Critics of the quota claimed that the owners should decide upon the recruitment and not a quota. Furthermore they emphasized that attitudes cannot be changed by legal enforcement. Also, they pointed at the risk of not finding enough qualified women (Criscione 2008). However, another reason for the objection was the danger of losing power. The Director of Norways Professional Boards Forum, Elin Hurvenes, stated The outrage was not only about opening boardroom doors to women it was about pushing men out the same doors (in Criscione 2008). When the law came into force in 2006 the affected companies had two years to adapt to the regulation without being penalized, until since 2008 they must comply with it (Norwegian Government Ministry of children, equality and social Inclusion 2005). And they do so, as no company was dissolved so far. While women on corporate boards made up only 6 % in 2002, they reached more than 40% by the beginning of 2009 due to the quota (Winsnes RÃ ¸dland 2009). Supporters of the initiative argue that the companies had no problems in finding enough qualified women. Furthermore they suggest that the recruitment process in general has become more systematically both for finding men and women (Lindstad 2009). A study undertaken by the Institute for Social Research in Oslo stated that there is no embarrassment among women because of to the quota. The women know they would not be on the company boards without legal enforcement but at the same time they know exactly they have the qualifications for i t (Lindstad 2009). Arguments for and against As seen with the Norwegian argumentation, supporters of positive discrimination believe that diversity adds to success and that using all human capital is vital (Norwegian Government Ministry of children, equality and social Inclusion 2005, Bekkemellem 2006). This view is supported by a study of the US non-profit organization Catalyst which found out that companies who have three or more women on the board perform better on profits and sales (Criscione 2008). Furthermore supporters argue that it is only fair and democratic to let women reach positions of power because they are equally qualified as men (Norwegian Government Ministry of children, equality and social Inclusion 2005, Lindstad 2009). Missing qualification is one of the main arguments of the opponents of positive discrimination. They believe that the economy suffers from favouring women who are not qualified enough (Burns and Schapper 2008: 372). Additionally they bring forward the argument that through positive discrimination gender plays a role again, the opposite of which is supposed to be the goal of gender equality. They argue that such measures are not fair and lawful as they create another form of discrimination based on gender (Burns and Schapper 2008: 372). This view is also manifested in the terminology of positive discrimination and the sometimes used term reverse discrimination (Burns and Schapper 2008: 372). Moreover the legitimacy of favouring the rights of a group, namely the women, at the expense of the right of an individual, namely a man, is questioned (Burns and Schapper 2008: 373). Some criticism argues that it is not fair to let individuals suffer for past discrimination that was committed by others (America 1986: 73). Opponents are also against quotas in the private sector, because they suggest that the owners of companies should decide whom to appoint and that legal enforcement cannot change attitudes (Criscione 2008). They point at the perception of women as well and suggest that positive discrimination might result in negative reactions from the potential or intended beneficiaries (Taylor-Carter, Doverspike and Alexander 1995: 285). This reaction was at least not the case in Norway. As mentioned above, women felt no embarrassment due to the quota (Lindstad 2009). Another reason for objecting positive discrimination is often forwarded by the supporters of it to emphasize that the criticism is not justified: only because men are not willing to give up their power positions they fight so aggressively against positive discrimination (Criscione 2008; Burns and Schapper 2008: 374). Furthermore, supporters question the fact that recruitment is really based on qualification when men are appointed (Burns and Schapper 2008: 377). Some see the reason for appointing mainly men in the fact that the employers are male as well. Thus, they tend to favour candidates that are like them and to avoid differences, which means appointing someone from the different sex (Burns and Schapper 2008: 377). If this thesis holds, positive discrimination could result in appointing women to higher posts naturally in the long run, because women are then already included in the decision-making process as well. A final argumentation is as simple as this statement by the former Minister of Children and Equality in Norway, Karita Bekkemellem: So why then regulate this policy area by a new law? Because we realized, that the wanted development in Norway did not go fast enough! We do not have the patience to wait another 100 years! (Bekkemellem 2006). In other words, supporters believe positive discrimination measures are better than waiting until balanced representation will naturally arise. Legal limits to positive discrimination No matter whether positive discrimination is indeed helpful or not, the concept needs legal enforcement in order to be a powerful tool. While Norway for example goes very far with implementing positive discrimination measures as could be seen in the example concerning equal representation in board rooms, the situation looks somewhat different for other countries within Europe. The usage of positive discrimination policies is at the same time supported and restricted by the legal framework of the European Union. The Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions states that there shall be no gender discrimination (The Council of the European Communities 1976). However, the directive contains an article that gives some room for positive action measures. Article 2.4 states: This Directive shall be without prejudice to mea sures to promote equal opportunity for men and women, in particular by removing existing inequalities which affect womens opportunities [] (The Council of the European Communities 1976). The judgement of the European Court of Justice in the case of Eckhard Kalanke, who was denied promotion because of favouring a woman who was equally qualified, shows limits to implementing such measures. The Court declared that a measure automatically favouring an equally qualified woman is illegal (The European Court of Justice 1995). Another case brought some clarification of what kind of actions are legal. In the case of Helmut Marschall a regulation was held lawful that suggested preferential treatment in the case of equal qualification unless reasons specific to an individual [male] candidate tilt the balance in his favour (European Court of Justice 1997). With such a savings clause, which indicates no automatic or unconditional favouring, positive discrimination is lawful. It can be derived that measures of positive discrimination within the European Union are allowed only with strong limitation. It is thus not reasonable to describe positive discrimination as a perfect tool to enforce gender equality. Positive discrimination cannot be forced upon. Regulations need to contain a savings clause and such a clause allows for avoiding the promotion and recruitment of women. 3. Conclusion In conclusion it needs to be affirmed that positive discrimination can help enforce a more gender balanced distribution in the areas where implemented as seen with the example from Norway. In such cases it helps to create the intended result. However, legal limits constrain the concept of positive discrimination. Within the European Union it is a tool that can be used only with equal qualifications of the candidates and a savings clause that leaves room to avoid positive discrimination. Therefore another aspect to be considered concerns the attitudes of society. Without changing them, positive discrimination constitutes only a tool to affect the result. Real gender equality where gender plays no role in appointments is not reached through it, as positive discrimination is another form of discrimination based on gender. Nevertheless, there might be other effects than just creating a result when considering the long run. By accustoming people to a balanced gender distribution, attitudes might be changed in the long run and furthermore the decision-making process might be influenced by women resulting in equal treatment. Whether positive discrimination is fair and beneficial depends on the personal point of view. Taking all the arguments and limits into account it can be concluded that positive discrimination is definitely not a perfect tool. It is the tool with the quickest results though and can thus be described as an adequate tool if the wish for balanced gender re presentation is judged to be more important than the objections against positive discrimination. However, discussing it we should not neglect the necessity of changing attitudes by strengthening the conscience for gender equality in public, for example through the media. Furthermore, the lighter forms of positive action like increasing training measures might be of importance as well (Rees 1992: 130). In the long run this could destroy the argument of women being not qualified enough. Additionally, the question of reconciliation of work and family life should play a major role in the discussion of gender equality and the efficiency of positive discrimination. Taking into consideration the constraints imposed by family life tasks and looking for options and measures to help overcome these could prove to be of great significance.

Keats’ Fear and Tichborne’s Acceptance: Death Essay -- Poetry Analysis

Death is inevitable. Chidiock Tichborne and John Keats in their poems â€Å"Tichborne’s Elegy† and â€Å"When I have fears that I may cease to be† convey death in opposite ways. Tichborne through his poetic style, shows an acceptance of his death, as a result of reflecting on a life fulfilled, but unrecognized. While Keats, expresses a fear of death, where he contemplates that he will not be able to experience love or fame. Both these poets have lead lives that varied from each other in ways that are most revealed through their use of form, metaphors, repetition, punctuation and rhyme schemes. Moreover, both poets express and explore deep rooted human emotions such as, nostalgia, pain, love and a feeling of insatiability. Although â€Å"Tichborne’s Elegy† and â€Å"When I have fears that I may cease to be† share a common theme because each speaker contemplates the inevitability of his death, their perceptions differ mainly as a result of thei r circumstances. John Keats explores his fear of death in â€Å"When I have fears that I may cease to be† in the form of a Shakespearean Sonnet. The poem contains three quatrains that interlock his primary fears together, leading to a couplet that expresses his remedy and final thoughts. His primary fears are expressed with respect to the abab cdcd efef gg rhyme scheme of the Shakespearean Sonnet, with each fear contained in each rhyming quatrain. His first fear, in the first quatrain is dying without living up to his full potential as a writer, when he states, â€Å"Before my pen has glean’d my teeming brain†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (2). This line indicates that he has not expressed through his pen, all that is on his mind, and leads into the second quatrain with the use of a semicolon which suggests that the next part of the poem is connecte... ...eats as well, when he refers to â€Å"†¦the shore of the wide world†¦Ã¢â‚¬  it symbolizes the world of his experiences, which he ponders on. It is only by deeper inspection of these symbols can a clear idea of what the poets are expressing be understood. By comparing both these poems, it is evident that although death is the focus of both these poems, Tichborne has accepted it, while Keats fears it, but has found a way to resolve his fears. Works Cited " Hatzitsinidou , Evangelia . "Fates(Moirae)-the spinners of the thread of life." Greek-Gods.Info- Greek Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Greece. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2010. . Vendler, Helen. "The Poem as Life, The Poems as Arranged Life." Poems, Poets, Poetry: An Introduction and Anthology. Third Edition ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2009. 18,68. Print.

Marx, Weber, and Rousseau

The establishment of modern society is tied closely to the common line of thought expressed by modern thinkers like Marx, Weber, and Rousseau. These men all had complicated ideas in regards to the formation of modern society, but they all addressed certain aspects of that development. They all focused their studies on human nature and specifically, how human beings came to live out some of the goofy ideas that are now commonplace. Among those was the important premise of personal property. Modern human society places a great deal of importance on gaining things and this is something that is certainly not new. In fact, it has been around since very early on. Even more important than the material possessions is the actual strife to gain these things, which human beings seem to take great solace in. The overriding characteristics of modern human society can be closely tied to the theories presented by these famed thinkers. They hold similar ideas on how society developed as a result of the acquisition of personal property, and from those ideas, one can quickly gather insight about the overall development of modern society. Marx had his own ideas on personal property that have become something of a resource guide for other thinkers and government formers alike. Karl Marx is a highly misunderstood figure among the American public, because most people are quick to associate him and his ideas to communist ideals. Even though many of his theories were eventually used to found communist nations, it cannot be denied that Marx was a brilliant economist and well rounded thinker. Marx had his own particular opinions on personal property and the accumulation of wealth and he was not shy about sharing those ideas with other people. Marx found capitalistic society to be something that was destined to fail for a few reasons. In his writings, he indicated the price based competition in business would force small businesses out of the mix and would eventually lead to lower wages for people, as big business controls the activity. Marx was not completely right about a lot of his theories in regards to modern society, but he did hit the nail on the head on a few things. Marx had strong feelings on the issue of private property as it relates to the development of a society. He was always of the opinion that human nature was a drastically shifting thing, but it stood strong on a few different foundations. Human beings might change their feelings on a lot of things, but according to Karl Marx, they would never stop with the striving to work hard for their possessions. Work, to Marx, was a much more important aspect of society’s underlying nature than the actual possessions that come as a result of that work. That is why much of Marxism is based upon the theory of work. People in society can not survive without it, even if they have the possessions that they desire. According to Marxism, people will always want to acquire more things than they already have. That is why work is so important to the development of society, in addition to acquiring things in society. Though Marx and fellow thinker Max Webber do not completely agree on the issue of personal property, they do share many of the same underlying beliefs on its role in the development of modern society as it is known today. While Karl Marx held onto the belief that possessions were not the end all for people in modern society, Max Weber felt strongly that they were an important part of what he referred to as The Spirit of Capitalism. Anyone who has studied the thoughts of Max Weber knows that much of his theory is based upon religious things. To him, they played an important role in the shaping of modern society in addition to the economic factors that were so prevalent. That creates a very interesting paradox in his line of thinking. Most of the time, the pursuit of material possessions did not go along with the pursuit of religious purity, but that thinking had to change when modern society was considered. People, on the whole, could pursue both things and they did that in modern society. The Spirit of Capitalism is the most important ideal in Weber’s book and it possesses the basic premise of a pursuit. People did not just desire the goods and the economic wealth; they desired the pursuit of such ventures. That particular wording of the theory brings it closer in line to what Karl Marx wrote about in his literature. It is interesting to consider that over time, Weber’s theory evolves from what he originally thought. As he becomes much deeper in his research of certain aspects of capitalistic society, he understands that religion does play a role in forming how people go after their economic goals, but it is not the only thing. Overriding that religious aspiration is the fact that modern society is a highly competitive place that will chew up people and spit them out if they are not careful. At some point, instinct takes over and individuals have to look out for their own good as opposed to doing the right thing and keeping with Protestant values while going after economic gains. An interesting comparison can be drawn between Weber and Marx when one considers their theory on the development of the modern world and how material possessions played a role in that. According to Weber, the most important way that possessions had an impact was that they caused people to do things that they normally would not do. Weber thought that the desire to work for material possessions took people completely out of their element. In a way, society changed the way that people worked and the way that people dealt with their friends and their family. Human beings, by nature, only want to do just enough to get by and just enough to have the things that they need. When personal possessions are out there to be had, people change their ways, though. Marx believed this to be true, as well, though he does not apply the basic religious principles in his thinking that Max Weber is so quick to apply. On the other hand, Marx always held on to the idea that material possessions changed the way people viewed the world. When faced with the prospect of having to make one’s own success in a capitalist society, people had the tendency to change their world view and make it meet their current situation. For some, this created a false sense of security and a false sense of reality. When people have their world view flipped on its head, it changes the way that they deal with other people and it changes the way that they make decisions in forming a society. Marx enjoyed arguing that Capitalism and the desire for possessions changed the way governments operated and the way that nations were formed. This basic premise is not wrong, as it has certainly bared itself true in many situations over the last one hundred years and change. Another important economic thinker that cannot be left out of the equation is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He was a man who liked to come up with theories on the basic inner workings of human beings and how they think at a most basic state. His early research was on this fact and later, he came to develop ideas on the development of society. Rousseau makes a point in writings to analyze the role that personal property had on the development of human beings and as such, the development of modern society on the whole. In the beginning, man was content to operate on two basic premises. Human beings would do enough to ensure self-preservation and they would ultimately operate as a result of pity. Those were two basic ideas that eventually had to change as human beings learned to live together in a modern society. Then there was something different introduced into modern society. Someone decided that human beings must take possession of land and other things in society, as the entire dynamic had to change. All of a sudden, the things that were required for basic survival of human beings went from being just air, food, and water to being much more complicated than that. In fact, people had to learn to work in order to keep up with others in society and get the possessions that they learned to covet. That was not the whole of it, though. Human beings not only had to learn to love work in order to sustain themselves personally, they also had to learn to do enough work to sustain the whole body of society. This is an important idea and an important aspect of work that thinkers like Marx and Weber also kept in mind when they were writing down their particular policies. For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, people were not the only ones who were forced to change as a result of the introduction of private property into the equation. Society as a whole had to change to allow for the differences between human beings. Society became much more regimented and things became much more complicated than they had ever been before possessions played a role. In the early days of human society, the biggest and strongest individuals did all of the talking because they had all of the power. Now that possessions were necessary for survival, work became just as necessary. As Marx had mentioned in his writings, the desire to gain possessions was just as important as the material possessions themselves. Therefore, the smart and the shifty were now the people who were put into control. They instantly became more important than the strong folks that used to have complete control over society. That created a society that was broken down into two parts. The society that comes about as a result of private property is one that has a distinct class system. There are the haves and the â€Å"have nots†. Those with the land, money, and possessions are the ones who can impose their will on the people who are not lucky enough to have this type of control. According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it takes the rich people with the possessions a little while to figure out that they have such power, but when they do, the results are somewhat catastrophic to society as a whole. The moral implications of this type of control are also worth keeping in mind. For the first time, people with the good things in life do their best to start deceiving the people without property. This is the first time that society begins to eat itself alive for the sake of personal property gain. For all three of these theorists, the connection between personal property and human inequality is a strong one. As mentioned before, Rousseau felt that when personal property became important for human society, people began to establish classes and the smart took over where the strong had once been in control. He felt very strongly that personal property was the cause of many of the ills of society that had not originally been in place when society was first being formed. Marx, on the other hand, did not have this strong of a feeling on the matter because his research and his theories were mostly based upon economic principles. He did feel that capitalism was destined to fail because the system would eventually collapse upon itself. Instead of people simply doing enough work for their own personal survival, people started doing work to gain more things than the person next to them. This important theme is one that turned society into a cut throat one. There was now a desire for people to get ahead of their neighbor when there was no other reason to do so. Max Weber understands that the search for new possessions and the ability to work for those things is an extremely important part of the development of society. Human nature is always shifting, so this was just one thing that eventually caused people to compete with one another. In one sense, it was bound to happen, but the creation of a class system happened more quickly because work and possessions came about in the newly forming society. The development of human society cannot be considered without also looking at the development of personal property and work. As Weber, Marx, and Rousseau brought to light in their research, society took a turn when personal property was introduced into the equation. Some felt that this change was for the worst, while others felt that the change was for the good, but it cannot be argued that personal property did nothing to the formation of modern society. When people realized that work and personal property were things that they had to do in order to survive, they began to work just as hard as they ate and just as hard as they breathed. Human nature is such that people will do whatever it takes to survive. That survival moved to include work and because of that, modern society changed in a profound way that no one could easily escape.

Python Programming