The documentary True Justice tells about the inferiority of the judicial system in the United States. The US criminal justice system is far from perfect and is often seen as unfair to poor people and people of color. Justice should be concerned with the protection of citizens and not lawlessness, as is currently the case. Lynching and segregation have no place in todays society, much fewer befitting police officers and the criminal justice system.
Its unfair to kill an innocent person based on skin color alone. Our system can execute innocent people for turning a blind eye (Kunhardt et al., 2019). Just the thought of it is terrifying, and there are cases of dishonestly condemned and murdered people who are innocent everywhere. It is also horrifying how long this can continue in the United States and worldwide. These cases speak of the terrible quality of lawyers, and thus the court becomes a legal lynching. Show trials last long, giving the defendant hope, but in the end, they still lead to execution (Kunhardt et al., 2019). These horrors should be considered not a state problem but a problem of the whole nation as they can affect anyone.
It is difficult to imagine the dishonest condemnation of a loved one who is pure and innocent. In the current century, such inequality in racial and national uniforms looks wild. A person should not feel in danger because of the color of his skin. It must be fought; otherwise, it may be too late to act, as such incidents still occur daily across the country. There are many cultural and ethnic groups in the US, and they should all feel safe, not fearful, when they see a police officer, but now, that is far from reality. The biggest reason for prejudice is that centuries ago, white people said that black people were different from them (Kunhardt et al., 2019). This attitude adopted several centuries ago has a significant impact on many peoples minds, coupled with human xenophobia.
People in such a situation need more help and support than anyone else. This problem can be solved only by uniting; increasing the punishment for false convictions will not help. Changing the very consciousness of people working in law enforcement agencies is necessary. It is essential to explain to people early on that all people are equal, so it will be possible to eliminate prejudices and raise a generation of the future tolerant of everyone. Recently, the country has been embraced by the BLM movement, which carries just such an idea, giving hope for a brighter future in a country with no racial inequalities. The only advice that can be given is that people need to realize and understand that every citizen is an equal part of society; as an organism, that is the only way to a bright future.
Reference
Kunhardt, G. (Producer, Director), Kunhardt, T. (Producer, Director) & Kunhardt, P. (Producer, Director). (2019). True Justice: Bryan Stevensons Fight for Equality [Film]. HBO; Kunhardt Films.
The number of women in the workplace continues to increase. A lot of women keep on joining occupations that were previously reserved for men. Notwithstanding the increase in womens involvement in the workplace, a lot still needs to be done to guarantee equality. The study indicates that women come across challenges in an attempt to get promotions. The majority of women hold positions that cannot help them get promotions.
Furthermore, the notion that women do not dedicate themselves to organizations deprives them of a chance to get leadership positions. Today, occupational inconsistencies are perceptible across employment levels. Women are underrepresented in most professional levels. Moreover, women are underrepresented in many industries. Women encounter many challenges in the workplace. They range from wage gap, sexual aggravation, ego clashes, gender prejudice, to inability to strike a work-life balance. Notwithstanding most organizations having policies that proscribe sexual nuisance and other kinds of discrimination, male workers continue to commit the crimes. In some organizations, managers promote vices.
Womens involvement in the workplace has numerous reimbursements to countries. It helps to raise the gross domestic product of a state. Moreover, an increase in the number of women in the workplace contributes to improving the economies of developing nations. On the other hand, the contribution of women in workplaces impacts child-rearing negatively. It also affects the learning program of children. Presently, numerous laws defend the rights of women in the workplace. The rules aim to encourage fairness in the workplace.
Introduction
In the past, it was hard to find women in the workplace. Gini (1998) maintains that women were supposed to stay at home and take care of the family. For decades, religious beliefs and cultural practices prevented women from joining the workforce. Besides, women were not allowed to pursue education. Consequently, they lacked the requisite experience to accede to the workforce. Gini (1998) alleges that women could not take the high status and well-paying careers. In the twentieth century, the situation changed as people transitioned from labor-intensive jobs to office careers that did not entail a lot of work. Besides, women started pursuing higher education.
Thus, they could easily join workplaces that were previously a reserve for men. Today, there are many women in the workplace. In spite of women entering the labor force, they encounter numerous challenges that include inequality. According to Gini (1998), restrictions on womens access and participation in the workforce include the wage gap, the glass ceiling, and inequities most identified with industrialized nations with nominal equal opportunity laws (p. 9).
In spite of an increase in womens participation in the workplace, organizations are yet to guarantee equal representation amid genders. This article will discuss the womens participation in the workplace, the challenges that they encounter, legislation that protect the interests of women in the workplace, and women in the workplace leadership.
History of Women Participation in the Workplaces
Before the 19th century, a majority of the women engaged in agricultural activities. The industrial revolution witnessed in the early 19th century led to the transformation of workplaces across the world. Most people who resided in urban areas started working for salaries. Many women engaged in the most difficult jobs like coal mining. In the middle 19th century, a high number of women in the United States started working in textile industries (Fletcher, Jordan, & Miller, 2000).
Some women worked as hawkers. Inequality in remuneration was prevalent during this period. Many employers preferred to recruit women because they were easy to manipulate compared to men. Pregnant women were supposed to remain in workplaces until they deliver. In 1891, the United States government enacted a law that gave pregnant women the right to take early maternity leave. A census conducted in 1870 in the United States revealed that 15% of the countrys workforce comprised women (Fletcher et al., 2000). Many women worked as teachers and dressmakers.
In the early 20th century, women were regarded as societys guardians of morality (Fletcher et al., 2000, p. 249). Society did not view women as employees or moneymakers. Instead, the public expected them to remain at home and take care of children. Only men were supposed to work and provide for the family. Fletcher et al. (2000) posit that the First World War facilitated the involvement of women in the workforce in the United States.
The increase in demand for goods in Europe led to the United States allowing women to partake in the workplaces. Initially, most women worked in factories. With time, they started to work as secretaries and salespeople. In the 1920s more women made their way into the workforce. The Second World War resulted in the creation of countless jobs for women. Many American women joined the military.
According to Fletcher et al. (2000), the quiet revolution that started in the late 1970s led to an increase in the number of working women. Many women started pursuing university and college education. As a result, they got an opportunity to join occupations that were deemed a reserve for men. Many women began working as physicians, dentists, and lawyers. The quiet revolution continues up to date. Many women continue to join the labor force in different occupations. They no longer work only as secretaries and teachers. Instead, they continue to occupy professions that were previously dominated by men.
Women Participation
At the international level, the participation of males and females in the workplace has declined significantly over the last twenty years. Nevertheless, in some regions, the degree of womens involvement has gone up, thus reducing the gender gap (Raber, 2008). Despite the changes, the level of womens participation in the workplace is still small. According to Raber (2008), a significant share of women is yet to join the workplaces.
A majority of women in Africa and Asia work as farmers. On the other hand, most women who are in paid occupations work as hawkers. According to Raber (2008), some features of womens roles in the workplace have improved over the years. For instance, today, many women work as medical professionals. Over 30% of medical professionals comprise women. Initially, women used to work as nurses. Today, many women work as physicians (Raber, 2008).
Tzannatos (2008) contends that in many cases, the chances of women to prosper in the workplace depend on their line of profession. The contexts in which women operate influence their growth. For instance, in the medical field, it is difficult for women to become medical consultants. Most women opt to serve in the field of primary care. Mcilwee and Robinson (2003) aver that the prospects accessible to women depend on the choice of work, the degree of wages, maternity rights, job flexibility, and the extent of fairness in the recruitment procedures. The perceptions about the professions that women should embrace and other stereotypes exacerbate these factors.
Research shows that women have small chances of advancing in their careers. In most organizations, a small share of women is promoted from one level to next. Besides, the representation of women across occupational levels is wanting. Men are at least 15% more represented than women (Mcilwee & Robinson, 2003). It implies that women encounter barriers to advancement in workplaces. Figure 1 in the appendix represents employees progress by gender.
Mcilwee and Robinson (2003) argue that womens participation in the workplace is age-dependent. A lot of women aged between 20 and 24 are either working or searching for employment. The level of involvement keeps on varying as women grow old. In 1978, most married women did not participate in the labor force. Instead, they stayed at home and took care of the children. However, today, the trend has changed. A lot of married women play critical roles in workplaces. The increase in casual and part-time jobs has enabled women to participate in the workforce. Over 46% of women in the United States work as either casual or part-time workers (Mcilwee & Robinson, 2003).
Changes in the labor market have impacted womens contribution to the workplace. Today, a lot of women work as managers, personal and community service employees, and professionals. Tzannatos (2008) maintains that women hold over half of the professional jobs. The professional occupations have grown tremendously such that they account for the highest proportion of careers that women hold. Today, a big number of women no longer serve in administrative and clerical occupations. The two professions were previously considered a reserve for females. Figure 2 in the appendix shows the percentage of women who serve in different jobs.
Women in Workplace Leadership
According to Hoobler, Lemmon, and Wayne (2011), an increase in the number of women in the workplace has led to them fighting for leadership positions. Research shows that a majority of the highly learned women who decided to leave their jobs in the 1990s to take care of kids are reporting back to work. It underscores the reason why there has been an increase in the number of women who serve as chief executive officers.
The economic crisis witnessed in 2008 proved that women could do well as organizational leaders. Today, at least 13 of the American companies led by women perform exemplarily. Their shares have the highest value in the market. Hoobler et al. (2011) claim that despite the rise in the number of women leaders in the workplace, more needs to be done.
Hoobler et al. (2011) identify two factors that prevent women from participating in leadership in the workplace. According to Hoobler et al. (2011), a small number of women hold positions that can enable them to ascend to leadership. Many women who serve at the management level are responsible for managing lines. In other words, they serve in positions that focus on critical operations. At the vice president level, a majority of the women hold staff duties.
On the other hand, many men assume the line roles in almost all levels. Hoobler et al. (2011) maintain, Line functions are close to the companys core operations and provide critical preparation for top roles (p. 153). The lack of many women who serve in the line roles deprives them of an opportunity to hold top spots in the institutions.
According to Tzannatos (2008), the perception that women cannot fully commit themselves to work inhibits their upward mobility. Many people believe that women cannot assume leadership positions because they take caregiving responsibilities at home. Many organizational leaders use the family-work conflict predisposition to evaluate males and females. As a result, it becomes hard for organizations to promote women. Tzannatos (2008) alleges that there are many unmarried women with no children or dependants in the workplace. In spite of these women having limited responsibilities, they hardly assume the leadership positions.
Tzannatos (2008) claims, Just being female seems to signal to male and female managers that a woman will let the outside responsibilities interfere with her job performance, or perhaps she will someday (p. 559). In other words, many women fail to assume leadership positions because they are viewed as not dedicated to their work. Even though there have been some improvements since 2012, the number of women in senior positions is still low. Figure 3 in the appendix shows gender representation in the corporate pipeline.
Occupational Disparity
Savery (2006) attributes job selection to the standard wage differentiation between men and women. Savery (2006) argues that a majority of the careers that recruit a high number of women pay reduced wages. On the other hand, male-dominated occupations are known to offer good salaries. A study conducted in 2014 found that there were over 73 million employed women in the United States. They represented 47% of the countrys total workforce (Turner, 2016).
In spite of many women joining the workforce, occupational disparities still exist. According to Savery (2006), there is an uneven representation of genders not only across industries but also occupations. The percentage of women in certain professions is little. Today, less than 15% of the computer network architects and electrical and electronic engineers are female) (Savery, 2006, p. 14). On the other hand, over 90% of the kindergarten teachers, and speech and language interpreters are women (Savery, 2006). Nonetheless, both males and females are equally represented in some occupations. Savery (2006) posits, The number of men and women who work as artists and biological scientists is almost the same (p. 15).
Work-related inequalities differ with industries as well. In 2014, over 75% of people who worked in the health services sector and education were women (Turner, 2016). The high percentage of women in these industries was a result of their overrepresentation in professions naturally related to these sectors like nursing and teaching. Turner (2016) posits that women in other professional groups are also overrepresented in the health services industry and education. Turner (2016) posits, About 20% of women in business, management, and financial jobs work in the health services industry as well as the education sector (p. 1158).
Challenges that Women Encounter
Wage Disparity
A lot of research accounts for the percentage of women in the workplace. Some research focuses on womens qualifications and issues related to the pay gap. However, limited studies account for how women feel in the workplace or how they do in their daily operations. The studies do not account for the challenges that women face in the workplace. A survey conducted by the Thomson Reuters Foundation in liaison with the Rockefeller Foundation identified the challenges that women face in the workplace (Savery, 2006).
Most women identified gender wage disparity as one of the challenges that they grappled within their day-to-day business. Indeed, in the United States, the pay gap is a major concern among women. According to Turner (2016), women earn less than men despite being in the same job group. In the United States, the wage gap between men and women increases with age. As women grow old, the pay gap between them and their male counterparts widens.
According to Turner (2016), most employers have a notion that a woman cannot remain in an organization for long. They believe that women are bound to quit jobs after they bear children or get married. Consequently, they decline to offer good wages to women. Some women earn low wages as they cannot go for challenging occupations. Many women opt to take jobs that are less demanding to enable them to have adequate time with children. Parenthood deprives women of the opportunity to work in occupations that offer high wages.
Work-Life Balance
Delina and Raya (2013) define work-life balance as an employees perception that multiple domains of personal time, family care, and work are maintained and integrated with a minimum of role conflict (p. 281). Work-life balance is a major challenge to many employees, particularly married women. Today, a majority of the occupations demand long working hours. As such, it becomes hard for women to work and take care of their children and families.
Delina and Raya (2013) hold that women have a distinct trait that makes them do everything perfectly. A study by the European Labor Relations Observatory found that a lot of women encounter difficulties in balancing between their professions and domestic duties. A majority of American women cite work-life balance as their primary concern in the workplace. The women rank this challenge ahead of short maternity leave, access to childcare, and flexible working hours. In China, a lot of women have neglected their responsibilities as mothers to earn a living. They cannot find a balance between taking care of their children and working.
According to Delina and Raya (2013), the inability to strike a balance between work and life makes it difficult for women to advance their careers. Additionally, it becomes hard for many women to succeed in their responsibilities in the workplace. A lot of women opt to sacrifice their health to strike a balance between work and life. They spend a better part of the day working either at home or at workplaces. They do not get adequate sleep.
Harassment
Most women in the Group 20 nations cite sexual harassment as a major challenge in workplaces. At least 30% of women experience sexual harassment in one way or another (Fitzgerald, 2004). Unfortunately, a majority of the women do not report the cases of sexual harassment to their leaders. Sexual harassment arises in different ways. They include inapt comments, soliciting sexual favors, kissing or hugging, and unwanted touching among others.
Cases of sexual harassment are rampant in the United Kingdom. Research shows that at least 52% of working women undergo sexual harassment in the workplace (Fitzgerald, 2004). An analysis of sexual harassment at workplaces shows that young women are highly susceptible to the vice. Fitzgerald (2004) claims that authority dynamics contribute to sexual harassment. Senior employees sexually harass young women because they fear them. Additionally, a majority of young women are not in senior positions. Thus, their male counterparts do not fear them.
As per Fitzgerald (2004), older women also suffer from sexual harassment. Nonetheless, a majority of older women are accustomed to such behaviors. Many do not consider sexual harassment as a major challenge. A study shows that women who work in the hospitality and manufacturing industries are at a high risk of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald, 2004). In spite of some organizational leaders emphasizing zero tolerance for sexual harassment, they do not take stern measures to curb the vice. In some instances, organizations cannot curb sexual harassment because leaders are the main perpetrators of the crime. Figure 4 in the appendix shows incidents of sexual harassment.
Gender Bias
Many women cite gender bias as a serious challenge that they face in the workplace. Most corporate offices have endeavored to stem gender bias. Nevertheless, government agencies and private organizations are yet to curb the problem. In most organizations, women are denied the opportunity to work in certain areas. For instance, many organizations decline to assign women to occupations that require hard physical work or regular travel. The agencies believe that women are not fit for such jobs. According to Issacharoff and Rosenblum (2007), some companies use troubling questions when interviewing women for job positions.
For instance, some companies require women to give details about family planning and marriage life (Issacharoff & Rosenblum, 2007). The good news is that some major organizations like the United Nations have raised concerns regarding gender bias in the workplace. Some companies that provide maternity leave to women decline to retain their positions. Once a woman returns to work, she is forced to change a career post. Such a situation affects a womans ability to offer efficient services. Some women are even forced to undertake training to change their roles.
Ego Clashes
According to Macmillan and Gartner (2007), most men do not feel well reporting to female managers. Macmillan and Gartner (2007) maintain, An alpha male will feel his ego is crushed when he has to report to a female manager (p. 951). In most cases, women feel like they have offended men whenever an altercation arises. A woman will try to humble herself despite her position. A majority of women who work as managers cite ego clashes as significant challenges that they face occasionally.
They claim that handling their colleagues is a difficult task. One requires having unique communication skills to understand and relate to all employees. Whenever a woman becomes assertive, the workers claim that she is bossy. It becomes hard for a woman to issue instructions or manage the subordinate staff. Macmillan and Gartner (2007) argue that internationalized misogyny makes it difficult for women managers to control workers, particularly men.
Effects of Women Participation in the Workplace
Positive Impacts
According to Kravitz (2003), womens contribution in the labor force has both positive and negative repercussions. Women facilitate organizational growth. Research shows that women discharge duties with a lot of keenness. As a result, they help an organization to overcome possible costs that arise due to carelessness among employees. A study carried out by a consultant firm; Catalysts found that organizations that have a high number of women in leadership positions perform well financially (Kravitz, 2003).
Besides helping an organization to grow economically, womens participation in the labor force contributes to boosting the gross domestic product of a country. In the United States, economists argue that allowing many women to participate in workplaces can help to raise the gross domestic product of the country by nine percent (Kravitz, 2003).
According to Kravitz (2003), womens participation in the workplace helps organizations to attract and retain talents. Many women do not prefer to work in male-dominated workplaces. Therefore, companies that do not hire women to miss the opportunity to attract and exploit vast skills that women have. In developed economies, womens participation in the workplace can help to mitigate the adverse effects that result from a shrinking workforce. Kravitz (2003) maintains that women spend a significant share of their income to educate children. Thus, the participation of women in the workplace could help to boost economies of the developing countries. According to the International Labor Organization, womens involvement in the workplace contributes to reducing the degree of poverty in developing countries.
Negative Impacts
Women must instill good discipline in their kids. Their participation in workplaces denies them an opportunity to spend adequate time with children. It becomes hard for women to monitor, supervise, and reprimand their children. As a result, children develop bad morals while some even engage in delinquencies. Kravitz (2003) argues that the increased participation of women in the workplace can lead to a rise of a generation that is short of good morals.
Many women claim that it has become difficult to access quality child care. The demand for child care has led to facilities that look after kids raising their fees. Women spend a significant share of their income on child care. Womens participation in the workplace affects the learning program of many children. According to Kravitz (2003), some schools adjust their teaching programs to enable children to have time with their parents. For instance, some American schools have programs that provide for short summer holidays and extended school days.
Laws that Protect Women
Incessant inequalities in the workplace have led to countries enacting legislation to protect women. Besides, there has been the creation of international organizations that fight for the rights of women in the workplace. According to Novkov (2004), the International Labor Organization enacted a law to protect women who work as domestic workers, particularly immigrants. Some of the legislations that protect women include the Equal Remuneration Convention, Maternity Protection Convention, and Discrimination Convention (Novkov, 2004).
The Equal Remuneration Convention aims at harmonizing salaries and wages. The legislation prohibits organizations against offering higher wages to men than women in the occupation. On the other hand, the Maternity Protection Convention that was passed in 2000 seeks to ensure that women do not lose jobs after they go for maternity leave (Novkov, 2004). In the past, many women could lose their jobs after going for maternity leave. Some women were forced to change their careers when they returned to work.
The Discrimination Convention aims to ensure that organizational leaders do not discriminate against women. Before the enactment of the agreement, some organizations declined to hire women for no apparent reason. Some occupations were exclusively meant for men (Novkov, 2004). Thus, it was hard for women to secure positions in those professions. The Discrimination Convention gave women a chance to join occupations of their choice.
Conclusion
The population of women in the workplace continues to increase. Today many women have joined occupations that were once a reserve for men. Despite the increase in female participation in the workplaces, a lot of women are yet to accede to the labor force. Research shows that women encounter difficulties in getting promotions. Most women hold positions that cannot elevate them to leadership positions. Additionally, the general perception that women cannot devote themselves to an organization deprives them of an opportunity to assume leadership roles.
The occupational disparity is apparent across the employment levels. Women are underrepresented in most professional levels. Besides, they are underrepresented in some industries. Women encounter a myriad of challenges in the workplace. They include wage gap, sexual harassment, ego clashes, gender bias, and inability to strike a work-life balance. In spite of most organizations having policies that prohibit sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination against women, male employees continue to perpetrate the crimes. In some organizations, leaders encourage vices. Research shows that womens participation in the workplace has numerous benefits.
It helps to boost the gross domestic product of a nation. Additionally, an increase in the population of women in the workplace contributes to boosting the economies of developing countries. Conversely, the participation of women in workplaces impacts the childs upbringing negatively. It also affects the learning program of a child. Currently, numerous laws protect the rights of women in the workplace. The laws seek to promote equality in the workplace.
Recommendations
Presently, many women have advanced their education and skills. Thus, they can handle occupations that require a lot of experience. For organizations to curb occupational disparity, they should come up with policies that encourage women to take even the most challenging jobs. Additionally, the International Labor Organization should encourage corporations to promote fairness regarding wages and promotions. Organizational leadership should give women a chance to work in posts that can elevate them to management positions. It will help to raise the number of female leaders in the workplace.
References
Delina, G., & Raya, P. (2013). A study on work-life balance in working women. International Journal of Commerce, Business and Management, 2(5), 274-283.
Fitzgerald, L. (2004). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1070-1076.
Fletcher, J., Jordan, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Women and the workplace: Applications of a psychodynamic theory. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 60(3), 243-261.
Gini, A. (1998). Women in the workplace. Business and Society Review, 99(1), 3-17.
Hoobler, J., Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. (2011). Womens underrepresentation in upper management: New insights on a persistent problem. Organizational Dynamics, 40(1), 151-156.
Issacharoff, S., & Rosenblum, E. (2007). Women and the workplace: Accommodating the demands of pregnancy. Columbia Law Review, 94(7), 2154-2221.
Kravitz, D. (2003). More women in the workplace: Is there a payoff in firm performance? Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(3), 148-163.
Macmillan, R., & Gartner, R. (2007). When she brings home the bacon: Labor-force participation and the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of Marriage and family, 61(4), 947-958.
Mcilwee, J., & Robinson, J. (2003). Women in engineering: Gender, power, and workplace culture. New York: State University of New York Press.
Novkov, J. (2004). Constituting workers, protecting women: Gender, law, and labor in the progressive era and new deal years. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Raber, M. (2008). Women in the workplace. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 9(4), 21-36.
Savery, L. (2006). Men and women in the workplace: Evidence of occupational differences. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 11(2), 13-16.
Turner, M. (2016). Women in the workplace. Journal of Economic Issues, 16(4), 1157-1159.
Tzannatos, Z. (2008). Women and labor market changes in the global economy: Growth helps, inequalities hurt and public policy matters. World Development, 27(3), 551-569.
Appendixes
Figure 1: Employees progress by gender.Figure 2: Percentage of women in different occupations.Figure 3: Gender representation in corporate pipeline.Figure 4: Incidents of sexual harassment.
If the principle is that all men are created equal, why is it that society favours when one gender is expected to conform to a certain stereotype, and the other gender is, in turn, expected to conform to another? Why is it that society continues to conform to these stereotypes, whether they be gender, race, culture, etc, while simultaneously striving for social freedom? The rights of women are diminished when the rights of men are threatened. In order to achieve absolute gender equality, all must participate and cooperate to prove effectiveness and success. Society must acknowledge the fact that men are imprisoned by gender stereotypes, and when the time of liberation arrives, things will change for women as a result. Equality, a universal birth-given right, should not be treated as a privilege but appreciated as an experience that all deserve. These notions of gender equality and social freedom are, in all aspects, explored in both Emma Watson’s HeForShe speech, and Rowan Blanchard’s speech for the UN Women’s annual conference. Through the utilisation of language techniques, the idea of requiring participation from all in order to achieve social freedom and gender equality is conveyed.
Society must acknowledge the fact that men are imprisoned by gender stereotypes, and when the time of liberation arrives, things will change for women as a result, much like a domino effect. It is essential that both sides of the conversation participate and strive for the universal right of equality. This notion is conveyed through. By utilising ethos and high modality, Emma Watson provides the audience with a straightforward, yet powerful solution to gender inequality. Due to the fact that society places pressure on women to be submissive, it consequently pushes pressure on men to be dominant, leading to toxic masculinity. Watson’s confident and assuring tone in both her voice and literary choices place emphasis on the simplicity and efficacy of how this vicious cycle can end. Men need to stop being rewarded for aggression and punished for weakness so women can be liberated, and in turn, achieve social freedom for all. This same idea is enunciated in. Rowan Blanchard incorporates the use of metaphor and inclusive language, resulting in an empowering pathos tone. Wanting to see men deconstructing their toxic masculinity while liberating women to stand up for themselves, the use of inclusive language in this call to action enables the audience to feel that they are a component of the issue, thus feeling obligated to participate as part of the solution. The metaphor “imprisoned” illustrates how social conformity and expectations trap and restrict individuals from being a more true and complete version of themselves. As an alternative to defining people by stereotypes, everyone can be liberated if they are instead defined by their actions.
Equality, a universal birth-given right, should not be treated as a privilege but appreciated as an experience that all deserve. The world fought and eradicated racism, colonialism and apartheid together, and now the world must fight gender inequality. It is not something we want, but something that we all deserve to experience as a right. In the quote. Watson expresses her desire to see women and men have the same opportunities, whether it be a social, political, or economical aspect. By basing this quote in first-person, Watson reveals her opinion on women’s rights which has been formed from anecdotal experiences. The audience is able to acknowledge that Watson is speaking through her own views, and that it even affects a privileged person like herself, which in turn, emphasises how widespread this issue is and urges the responder to take action. Similarly, Blanchard expresses this notion in. By having the same opportunities, both men and women can strive to reach their full potential. The utilisation of direct addressment conveys that absolutely everyone, including the responder, deserves to be freed from the implicit expectations of society. The issue of gender inequality is shown to be an issue where everyone is affected in some way. Additionally, gender equality is shown to be a right that is deserved by all. While gender inequality is a problem for men and women, the fight for equality is a fight for both, and will be a victory for both.
The work is universal; this issue binds everyone as humanity, regardless of race, gender, or status. Inequality does not discriminate. Gender equality, an all-encompassing idea, promotes social, economical, and political equality and has a greater chance of success if it welcomes more people into its struggle, by defeating gender stereotypes and acknowledging that both genders are affected. Watson and Blanchard eloquently express their ideas of gender equality through the use of literary techniques which illustrate both the issue and solution, whilst engaging the responder into participation. These lines encapsulate the notion of social roles. Instead of teaching males to disown their nurturing side and females to disavow aggression, both should be empowered to become catalysts for lasting change, tackling this universal human issue. In order to achieve absolute gender equality, all must participate and cooperate to prove effectiveness and success.
How would you feel if you were the only different person and felt the need to be someone you aren’t just to fit in? Unfortunately, many people feel and think like that due to people around them giving them unpleasant and hateful looks. We live in a society where this kind of problem isn’t rare. In fact, it’s more common than we think. Knowledgeable students, who do you think were the slaves in the slave trade. I nust want you to know who participated in the slave trade: Dutch, French, spanish, portugese, brittish, arabs and a few west africans plyed s prominent role in the atlantic slave rade. However, it was mostly black Africans that were being traded. This brings me to the point that:
Equality within ethnicity is what all politicians talk about in this day and age, but i feel as though nobody is taking it into action.Let me explain what I am trying to say. Have you seen any articles that mention the fact that equality within ethnicities is completely equal, because I know I haven’t,. Statistics show that the ethnicity that has been stopped and searched the most is Black African, Black Caribbean and Black other, with the number of 118. Keep in mind that this is calculated by per 1000 people. Just think about the amount of innocent people that have been stopped and searched due to their skin colour or ethnicity. I think that, as well as many other people, that this is nowhere near equal. Yes there are other ethnicities that have been stopped and searched, but why is it that it’s always the Black people that seem to be ‘guilty’ all the time. Simply disgusting. Disgusting because we call ourselves equal.
It is understandable that it is hard to change. Even if you don’t want to change, you need to. We need to change. All of us, for the better. The amount of things that we have done that have harmed people of other ethnicities. . Ethnicity inequality has to change, or we will be guilty for the death of thousands of other innocent people. Blood, cruelty and abuse is what people have faced in the past, and I cannot guarantee you that there is nobody on the face of this earth that isn’t secretly suffering due to being mistreated. We cannot say that nobody is suffering, because then we’d be lying. Not only to ourselves, but to the people that are suffering.
Finally, a solution. We can change whatever is happening, because who do you think makes the decisions in this world? Certainly not animals, or global warming would’ve been stopped by now.
In this essay, I will argue that liberty and equality possess the ability to stifle the other if elevated to excess, meaning a balance must be achieved between the two concepts for a society to properly function, as the absolute domination of either would result in a system that is devoid of justice. For the purposes of this argument, I will discuss the contrasting positions of Robert Nozick, whom posits in ‘Anarchy, State, and Utopia’ that any state beyond the ‘minimal state’ will inevitably violate citizens’ rights on account of being overly invasive, and Philip Pettit, whom posits in ‘Freedom as Antipower’ that measures must be taken to remove the threat of arbitrary interference among citizens for freedom to be realized. To further examine the conversation regarding the balance of liberty and equality, I will assess the methods through which these authors attempt to realize their visions of ensured justice, with Nozick perceiving justice as a series of ‘acquisition and holdings’ that dictate ownership and Pettit perceiving justice as ‘antipower’ that mitigates being at the mercy of another’s decision-making. I believe that Pettit makes a more compelling argument, as an adoption of Nozick’s worldview, including its radical implications, does little to correct dominative inequality through a means that results in those involved having mutually benefitted, while Pettit’s proposals present greater possibilities for a prolonged balance of liberty and equality between involved parties.
The concepts of liberty and equality are crucial in maintaining a prolonged sense of just governance by a state, each representing an element of individual satisfaction that ought to be preserved for the prosperity of citizens, though this is complicated by the narrow balance that must exist between them. For both authors discussed, Nozick and Pettit, there is a concern that an imbalance of the two concepts would culminate in a reduction of justice. If the plight of equality is emphasized as more important than individual liberties, then these liberties would be disturbed, which Nozick warns against when arguing against a so-called central distribution, claiming there can be “no person or group entitled to control all the resources, jointly deciding how they are to be doled out…what each person gets, he gets from others who give to him in exchange for something” (Nozick, 1393). An excess of efforts toward realizing equality would demean the holdings of individuals and create a situation where one entity unjustly possesses resources that are distributed according to subjective views of entitlement. To surrender such an unwieldy task to a potentially unaccountable body would represent an abhorrent concession of liberty, as the gradual submission of citizens to the state creates too much of an opening for inequality and mismanagement of resources. As there are issues with liberty being trounced upon in the pursuit of equality, it is similarly perilous to take the reverse option, and forgo equality to enshrine every available liberty. Individual liberties cannot be preserved despite any failings of equality, as inequitable distributions of resources facilitate a system of those with much exercising undue power over those with little. Pettit warns against the endangerment of justice that comes from an unchecked imbalance of influence, explaining that it is “always a difference in resources or a difference in the preparedness to use resources – a difference in effective resources – that enables one agent to interfere arbitrarily in the affairs of another” (Pettit, 589). While certain individuals may possess a greater holding of resources, it is necessary to find balance between liberty and equality, as the zealous exaltation of liberty would take all volition from the dominated and leave them at the mercy of their dominators’ better angels. Although the circumstances surrounding ownership of resources might be just, the subjugation of any individual by another that can interfere with impunity is fundamentally unjust, being a robbery of liberty that is abetted by inequality. There are pitfalls to emphasizing liberty or equality above its counterpart, which would ultimately create a disastrous system where neither exists, so, for the preservation of both values, it is necessary to strike a balance in the application of the two.
The balance that ought to exist between liberty and equality is subject to multiple interpretations, for which many distinctions are grounded in the meaning of the terms for the philosopher discussing a solution. In his libertarian vision, Nozick sees liberty as being cherished rights that the state must be restricted from impeding, which informs his advocacy for a minimal state that has a narrow sense of authority, and only enforces equality insofar as it relates to protection from unjust acquisitions or violence. At the beginning of his argument, Nozick establishes his view on the sanctity of liberty, boldly emphasizing that “individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them…strong and far-reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do” (Nozick, 1391). To realize this vision and keep the state from trampling the rights of its constituents, Nozick expands his philosophy outward, and articulates the methods through which a sense of fairness is maintained: a view of justice as acquisition and holdings. The system of acquisition and holdings is built upon the basis that individuals are entitled to anything that they acquired lawfully, whether that be an unclaimed possession that they legally took or an already claimed possession that was voluntarily transferred to them by the previous owner. In viewing the world in this way, Nozick removes the necessity of a state to interfere beyond the purpose of ensuring that the principle of justice is kept (and offering provisions for collective defense) because every person is only entitled to that which they acquired properly according to the guidelines of acquisition and holdings. Through this lens, Nozick believes that all controllable inequality is vanquished, noting that impermissible violations are protected against by the state, which are when “people steal from others, or defraud them, or enslave them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from competing in exchanges” (Nozick, 1395). Among the listed betrayals of equality is the prevention of allowing one to live as they choose, which, alongside the theory of justice maintained by a minimal state, implies that Nozick believes equality to be freedom from external forces that violate entitlement to justly acquired resources. With justice conceived as acquisition and holdings, Nozick suggests the balance of liberty and equality ought to be a continued ability to live unaffected by the state within the broad regulations provided, and that any interference beyond this is an invasive betrayal of inalienable rights.
Just as Nozick has a personal interpretation of liberty and equality which influences his meditations on the balance that should exist between them, Pettit has a theoretical understanding of these terms which reinforces his vision of their maintenance. In drawing contrast between the contemporary view and his own, Pettit decries the apparent revision of liberty, seen as only lost when actual interference has occurred, as a disruption of the promise for an individual to live upon their own terms, and seeks to reconceptualize the value of freedom. The author attempts to outline the weaknesses in seeing freedom as noninterference through the employ of relationships (such as husband and wife, or employee and employer) that might be devoid of abuses of power, yet represent an inherent loss of liberty in that one party is functionally superior, and explains that “if liberty is opposed to subjugation in the first place, then, even in the absence of actual interference, these relationships are often going to represent paradigms of unfreedom” (Pettit, 598). To expand upon the failure that he perceives with the contemporary definition of freedom, which is implied as an undue sacrifice of liberty for the assumption that those with the ability to dominant will graciously choose to act benevolently, Pettit argues that freedom should be expressed an ‘antipower’. As a concept of equality, antipower is concerned with the elimination or reduction of factors that allow an individual to arbitrarily interfere with the affairs of another and seeks to empower the potentially dominated with a means of punitive actions that protect their liberty. In viewing the concept of liberty this way, Pettit makes the concession that circumstances between individuals will inevitably provide some parties with an opportunity to reign over the other with impunity, yet his vision for restoring justice is focused upon gifting the lesser party with a counterbalance that would place the contrasting roles in a mutually beneficial position. Although Pettit does not seem to believe it is feasible to remove all instances of inequity, he attempts to develop a system that functions fairly, defending his conception of balance by saying, “under the conception of freedom as antipower, I am free to the degree that no human being has the power to interfere with me: to the extent that no one else is my master, even if I lack the will or the wisdom required for achieving self-mastery” (Pettit, 578). Rather than dismiss equality altogether by accepting the possibility of infringements upon freedom and appealing to the hope of noninterference as the correction of this, Pettit believes that balance between liberty and equality can only be sustained through the provision of defensive action being given to all parties. With justice conceived as the allocation of antipower, Pettit demands that individuals within relationships be equitably equipped with the means of defending against the arbitrary domination of their counterparts, and that an allowance of such interference weakens the promise of unimpeded rights among all.
In this essay, I have argued that justice cannot survive in a system which does not possess a balance between the values of liberty and equality, as an excess of liberty being sacrificed to achieve equality will warp the possibility of equality into an inaccessible shell of itself, and an excess of equality being sacrificed will undermine the liberty of vulnerable citizens to the benefit of the powerful. To accomplish this, I have focused upon the theories of Robert Nozick, who sees equitable justice as a series of acquisition and holdings which shields liberty from the invasive inclinations of the state, and Philip Pettit, who sees liberty as being risked unless justice is conceived as provisions of antipower which ensure equality as freedom from unjust threats of domination. Overall, I find myself in greater agreement with Pettit, as I believe that Nozick’s restrictions on the influence of the state fail to create a sustainable model for prolonged equality among the citizenry, as those that have come to legally possess greater holdings will merely create an oligarchical upper-class across several generations of transfers. Even if taken to its radical conclusion, such as being applied in the case of displaced native peoples being given reparative concessions according to historical wrongdoing, there seems to be too great of an incentive for generational wealth to compound to an exorbitant degree. By contrast, Pettit’s distribution of protective countermeasures would theoretically ensure that societal trends toward the degradation of individual liberties are curbed, while still maintaining the practical understanding that inequality in some form is bound to exist, so it is more pragmatic to seek a balance of varying inequities, rather than attempting to eliminate every form of inequality altogether. The critics of Pettit’s work might assert that his suggestions do not go far enough to reduce inequitable relationships, though I believe that his is the correct position, as it focuses on keeping the mechanisms of antipower within the hands of the potentially dominated, instead of enabling an excess of interference on the part of the state, which could ultimately produce solutions that are less effective than if citizens were given the freedom to act in their own best interest. As such, I believe that Nozick’s minimal state of acquisition and holdings is too lenient in its attempt to preserve justice, and Pettit’s proposal for the reconceptualization of freedom as antipower most effectively treads the necessary balance of liberty and equality that allows a society to function properly.
Bibliography
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York, Basic Books, 1974.
Pettit, Phillip. “Freedom as Antipower”. Ethics, vol. 106, no.3, April 1996, pp. 576-604. Web. 30 October 2019.
Martin Luther King Jr. is a prominent name that stands for the ending of racism, discrimination, and segregation of African Americans in the United States. On April 3, 1968, he spoke passionately about his support for the striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee in the speech “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop.” King proves his stance through the use of rhetorical devices such as a looming rhetorical question, a compelling metaphor, and an appeal to pathos. The author’s purpose is to encourage African Americans of this segregated country to persevere in order to seek absolute freedom and be proud of their heritage. He establishes a hopeful, bittersweet, yet aggressive tone with his audience of desperate African Americans and Civil Rights Activists.
King initializes his presence in the Mason Temple by posing several rhetorical questions to persuade the audience on the topic of racial segregation, he asks these questions not for an answer, however, for an intended affect. The first rhetorical question comes from the Almighty God who asks, “Martin Luther King, which age would you like to live in?” This initial question allows the audience to ponder what the world has become. King follows this question with some of the most monumental times in history such as the Renaissance, the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, and the inaugural address of Franklin D. Roosevelt and proceeds to say despite these amazing events he would rather be standing in front of this church preaching his beliefs to this audience because he believes he is making an impact. This question contributes to the hopeful, aggressive tone because King can see the light at the end of the tunnel and is willing to do the unthinkable. King introduces another rhetorical question that states, “Now, what does all this mean in this great period of history?” King uses this as an opportunity to push his call to action onto the audience he asks them to unite in a troubling time in order to capture that sense of equality they have been fighting for.
Within King’s speech lay a series of metaphors to draw a comparison between the shared similarities and to relate one thing the audience is familiar with something almost foreign. One metaphor introduced is, “And there was the fact there was a certain kind of fire that no water could put out.” He compares the known fact that water always puts out fire to the idea that no amount of discrimination and racist acts will stop African American from fighting for liberty because it is within them and grows like a flame with every small achievement. This is a powerful metaphor because it appeals to the classical elements that are indestructible. However, there is a larger metaphor displayed throughout which is the title “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” which means not literally but he has seen the light and has hope that equality is coming soon for the black community, not only has he been to the mountaintop, but he has “seen the Promised Land” which is the glorious salvation and liberty of African Americans everywhere.
Throughout his speech King pulls on the heart strings of his audience and appeals to pathos to strengthen and build his argument. He states in his speech that after having a close encounter with death and being hospitalized, “They allowed me to read some of the mail that came in, and from all over the states and the world, kind letters came in. I read a few, but one of them I will never forget. I had received one from the President and the Vice President. I’ve forgotten what those telegrams said. I’d received a visit and a letter from the Governor of New York, but I’ve forgotten what that letter said. But there was another letter that came from a little girl, a young girl who was a student at the White Plains High School. And I looked at that letter, and I’ll never forget it.” This letter simply said that the young, white female was grateful that he survived and it made King realize what would not have happened if he had passed away. He uses this letter to grab the audience of all races by the heart and force a realization that not everyone will make it to tomorrow, so today is the time for change and to end segregation, discrimination and everything inbetween. Additionally, King finalizes his speech when he makes a reference toward his own death, “I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountaintop. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But, I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!” King knows that death is in his future, but he is not afraid because he can see the light of a new country. This makes the audience realize how intense he is for equality and this quote is even more meaningful due to him being murdered the day after this speech where he alluded to his own death.
This speech by Martin Luther King Jr. was effective in achieving the key purpose of showing his support for the ending of segregation, discremination, and all racist acts through the use of a looming rhetorical question, a compelling metaphor and an appeal to pathos to capture the audience’s heart and grab their attention. He clearly shows his support for the strike in Memphis, Tennessee and encourages them to seek the promised land.
Slavery stands as a dark chapter in human history, particularly concerning the United States. The institution of slavery had a profound impact on the nation, shaping its social, economic, and political landscapes. This essay will delve into the impact of slavery, explore the reasons behind its occurrence in the United States, and question how the government and people allowed such a dehumanizing system to persist.
Impact of Slavery
The impact of slavery on the United States was far-reaching and multifaceted. Firstly, it had severe consequences for enslaved individuals who endured unimaginable suffering, physical abuse, and the denial of basic human rights. Families were torn apart, and generations were subjected to a life of servitude. Moreover, slavery had profound economic implications, primarily benefiting the Southern states, which relied on the labor-intensive cultivation of crops like cotton, tobacco, and sugar. The wealth generated through slave labor fueled the growth of industries and financed infrastructure development.
However, the repercussions extended beyond the enslaved population and the economy. Slavery permeated society, perpetuating racial prejudices and divisions that continue to affect the United States today. The legacy of slavery has left deep scars, contributing to systemic racism, inequality, and the ongoing struggle for social justice.
Why did slavery happen in the United States?
To understand why slavery emerged in the United States, one must consider a combination of factors. Firstly, the Atlantic slave trade, driven by European powers, brought enslaved Africans to the American colonies, laying the foundation for a racialized system of forced labor.
Economic motivations played a significant role as well. Slavery provided a cheap workforce that enabled the expansion of agriculture in the South, making it profitable for landowners and plantation owners. Additionally, the perpetuation of slavery was justified through pseudo-scientific theories that asserted the inherent inferiority of people of African descent, further entrenching racial prejudices.
How could the United States’ government and people let this happen?
The persistence of slavery in the United States was facilitated by various factors. Politically, the Founding Fathers were aware of the contradiction between the principles of liberty and the existence of slavery but chose to compromise for the sake of unity during the nation’s early years. The Three-Fifths Compromise, for instance, gave Southern states disproportionate representation in Congress, strengthening the institution of slavery.
Additionally, economic interests and fear of upsetting the delicate balance between Northern and Southern states played a significant role in allowing slavery to continue. Attempts to abolish or limit slavery faced fierce opposition, with politicians from slaveholding states using their influence to protect their economic interests.
Moreover, the pervasive nature of racism and social conditioning made it difficult for many individuals to challenge the status quo. The belief in white superiority and the dehumanization of enslaved individuals permeated society, perpetuating the system of slavery.
Conclusion
The institution of slavery in the United States had a profound impact on the nation’s history and continues to shape its present reality. It left a lasting legacy of racial inequality and social divisions, the consequences of which persist to this day. The economic motivations, political compromises, and deeply rooted racism within society all contributed to the perpetuation of slavery.
It is crucial to confront this dark chapter in American history honestly and acknowledge its enduring effects. By understanding the causes and consequences of slavery, society can strive towards a more inclusive and equitable future, where the legacy of slavery is comprehensively addressed and rectified.
In this paper, I will be discussing poverty and the policy of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). I am focusing on poverty because _____; and I am analyzing TANF because it is one of the primary ways in which the United States Federal government attempts to address poverty directly.
Overview of Poverty
Poverty is a large-scale global social problem that directly relates to the basic necessities of life and the consequent well-being of individuals. Among these needs are the rights mentioned in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which ascertains that every human being “has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family.” There are two ways to look at poverty, as absolute or relative. Absolute poverty is defined as “a measure of the minimal requirements necessary to afford the minimal standards of life-sustaining essentials- food, clothing, shelter, clean water, sanitation, education and access to health care” (Fay). Meanwhile, relative poverty is “a measurement of income inequality within a social context. It does not measure hardship or material deprivation, but rather the disparities of wealth among income groups” (Fay).
To determine the amount of people who are affected by poverty in the United States, it is necessary to first define poverty and how to measure it. The United States Census Bureau measures poverty by using poverty thresholds. These thresholds vary by the size of the household and the ages of those in the household. The Census Bureau does note that “Although the thresholds in some sense reflect a family’s need, they are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, not as a complete description of what people and families need to live.” Using poverty thresholds, the poverty rate in the United States is 10.5%, or roughly 34 million people (Semega, Kollar, Shrider, and Creamer 2019). The Census Bureau does update the threshold “annually for inflation” but using the threshold as a measure of poverty still has several limitations, including the fact that it does not take into account geographic location. (How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty). Furthermore, critics state that it “measures only monetary income… but does not include other sources of in-kind or non-cash gifts from public or private sources” (Fay).
People from many differing demographic backgrounds can be affected by poverty. However, according to the poverty threshold measure evaluated by Semenga, Kollar, Shrider, and Creamer (2019), in the United States, there are specific demographic groups that face higher poverty rates. Among these disadvantaged, marginalized groups are women (11.5%), people under 18 years of age (14.4%), individuals with disabilities (22.5%), people who are foreign born (12.6%), people who are not citizens of the United States (16.3%), those without a high school diploma (23.7%), Black people (18.8%), and Latinx people (15.7%). (How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty).
Poverty not only has extensive effects on individuals who are poor, but also on society as a whole. Its nature as a wicked problem connects it to a lack of access to many basic needs. Those who live in poverty are at risk of poor health due to increased stress, inadequate nutrition, food insecurity, and often lack of access to medical resources and healthcare. Children living in poverty often attend underfunded schools and face difficulties in obtaining an education. People living in poverty also face housing insecurity and the possibility of homelessness. They often receive lesser-quality of vital services, which can impact their well-being in many ways. High poverty rates can also have effects on communities by being a factor in rising crime rates.
There are two major perspectives on poverty in the United States. The first one, which is arguably the more dominant perspective, is that poverty is an individual failing. People in poverty are seen as not working hard enough or wanting the government to support them. The other perspective which views poverty as the failure of a capitalistic system is increasingly gaining support.
History of Poverty
Poverty was first identified as a social problem by churches and other religious institutions who saw it as a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. In policy, poverty was first identified as a problem with the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601. The history of poverty. The history of addressing the problem of poverty, especially the Poor Laws of 1601, greatly affects welfare policy approaches to poverty in the United States and is part of what drives policy to distinguish between the worthy and unworthy poor. Mary Richmond and the Charity Organization Services (COS) and Jane Adams and Settlement Houses were two social work approaches to poverty that took root in the United States during the 19th century, and they continue to influence different approaches to poverty today. The COS “emerged from a concern for making almsgiving scientific, efficient, and preventative” and their “guiding philosophy was that pauperism could be eliminated through investigating and studying the character of those seeking help by educating and developing the poor” (Franklin). Settlement Houses took a different approach and their founders “chose to live and work among the poor as neighbors, seeking to bring their education and goodwill to bear on the problems. They defined problems environmentally and engaged in social melioration’ (Franklin).
Historically, poverty has been viewed through the religious lens as an individual moral failing.
Several human rights are impacted by the social problem of poverty. Articles 25 and 26 of the (UDHR) are impacted by this problem. Article 25 states that every individual
has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
The well-being of an individual is directly impacted by poverty because it is difficult for those in poverty to meet their basic needs and maintain their health without some type of assistance. Education is also another right stated in Article 26, “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory” (UDHR). In the context of the United States due to the way in which school districts are zoned by the taxes paid locally, poverty directly affects the quality of education students receive. Students who live in zoned areas that are economically poorer attend schools that are less adequately funded, which impacts their accessibility to opportunity.
Different economic, political, and cultural values and interests have conjoinedly influenced the perception of poverty. American cultural values of individualism and interests have influenced the perception of poverty by putting the burden of poverty on the individual and attempting to ignore large-scale structural issues. Political values and interests have been influenced by economic values and lobbyists who “buy” politicians. Furthermore, the political ideology of neoliberalism also contributes to how we perceive poverty. Economic values, interests, and capitalism have influenced the perception of poverty by reducing individuals to their work output, making a distinction between the worthy poor (those who work) and the unworthy poor (those who do not work).
The perspectives on poverty continue to be varied, with some placing emphasis on the individual and others placing emphasis on the environment of that individual. However, in social work specifically, the perspective has changed from historically blaming those living in poverty for their poverty to an understanding of structural and institutionalized discrimination and oppression that makes it difficult for the poor to economically mobilize. Among the many possible ideas and events that may have caused or contributed to these changes are Jane Addams and Hull House, the development of core social work values, an emphasis on human rights within the profession, and the increasing income inequality within a capitalist system, especially within the United States.
Many different groups have been influential in the response to poverty. As seen with the Poor Laws and subsequent welfare laws and reform, government leaders do have a lot of power when it comes to responding to the social problem of poverty. Religious leaders and private religious organizations also contribute to the alleviation of poverty through services. The wealthy often become philanthropists and some feel a moral obligation to help the poor (yet others do it to get a tax deduction). Social work, in particular, has responded to poverty in several ways. As mentioned earlier, Jane Adams and Mary Richmond were two social workers who contributed greatly to the formation of two different approaches to poverty in social work. Today, both of their approaches are drawn upon, but modern social workers tend to favor Jane Addams’s view of poverty as a result of the environment in which people live to embrace more of a strengths perspective instead of viewing poverty as an individual failing, as Mary Richmond does.
Analysis and Evaluation of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
TANF is a United States welfare policy whose function is to assist poor families. However, none of their four directly relate to addressing the problem of poverty. The first goal to “provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives” is the only goal that appears to put a focus on the families receiving assistance (What is TANF?). TANF’s three other goals are to “end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families” (What is TANF?) are aligned with the idea of having to give out less assistance, not to lift families out of poverty.
Because TANF is a federal block grant given to individual states, each state chooses its own eligibility requirements. However, there are some limits that the Federal government imposes including barring “most legal immigrants until they have been in the county for at least five years” as well as undocumented immigrants (Policy Basics). There are also time limits imposed and the states “cannot provide federal TANF funds for longer than 60 months to a family that includes an adult recipient; however, states can exceed the 60-month limit for up to 20 percent of their caseload based on hardship” (Policy Basics). There are also work requirements that are imposed on recipients.
Due to TANF’s lax goals, it can offer several different kinds of benefits, depending on specific state policies. These benefits often come in the form of cash benefits, but they can also include job training, childcare, transportation assistance, home energy, housing, and food (Government Benefits). Unfortunately, TANF benefits are not sufficient to meet people’s needs. In fact, “In almost every state, they [TANF benefit levels] leave a family of three below half of the poverty line” (Policy Basics). In “every state, benefits are at or below 60 percent of the poverty line and fail to cover rent for a modest two-bedroom apartment” and 33 states have “benefits levels at or below 30 percent of the poverty line” (Safawi and Floyd 2020). This lack of ability to ensure that basic needs are met is one of several gaps in the current policy. Other gaps include a lack of response to the intersections between the structural nature of racism, other forms of discrimination, and poverty. It distinguishes between the worthy and unworthy poor by immigration status and a work imperative. TANF limits the amount of time in which families can access these benefits, which can hurt many people and impact their ability to meet their needs. It simply seeks to throw people into jobs, instead of looking to place them in jobs where they can apply their strengths and grow. TANF also fails to empower people to economically mobilize.
TANF’s policy does not necessarily respond to the oppression of specific racialized groups such as Black and Latinx people. “Fifty-five percent of Black children live in states with benefits below 20 percent of the poverty line, compared to 40 percent of white children” (Policy Basics), and “Black children are also more likely than white children to live in states where benefits are the lowest” (Sawafi and Floyd). TANF also fails to respond to the needs of undocumented people and most immigrants who have been living in the United States for less than five years, which violates a human rights perspective.
The transfer from the entitlement program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), to TANF, a state block grant did have several unintended consequences. AFDC had unintended consequences of work and marriage disincentives (Bitler and Karoly), TANF was created, in part, as a response to these disincentives. However, TANF did not just combat these unintended consequences, but it also created more. The block-grant format of TANF empowers states to choose what to do with TANF funds, but many states have misused TANF funds, “creating potentially devastating long-term consequences for children growing up in families with little or no cash income to meet basic needs” (Schott, Pavetti, Floyd). Due to TANF’s work priority, job preparation programs and college are disincentivized, which limits future economic mobility for TANF recipients. The work priority also has the potential to disproportionately harm families with physical or mental disabilities. Time limits for TANF also have unintended consequences and they can prevent economic aid from reaching families (even though they are still in need of it), which impacts children’s well-being despite best efforts by their parents.
Overall, the economic and employment outcomes of TANF have been poorly measured but, “In recent years, Congressional leaders… have expressed interest in updating TANF to better capture information on how well… [it] supports employment outcomes for program participants” and the state work participation rate will be replaced with “an outcomes-based performance measurement system that would evaluate states on how well they did in assisting TANF recipients in achieving employment, earnings, and credential attainment goals” (Desjardins, Kaleba, and Wilson). The current way in which TANF functions does not support economic mobilization or long-term positive outcomes. However, the move towards
Shifting TANF to an outcomes-based accountability system- where states are rewarded based on how successfully they are assisting TANF participants in getting the skills and credentials necessary to compete in today’s labor market- would significantly improve TANF’s ability to reach its goal of promoting work (Desjardins, Kaleba, and Wilson). While TANF provides a basic safety net for many families, it does not rights-based perspective and its outcomes are not what they should be. This shift in policy towards a focus on outcomes-based functioning has the potential to change the actual outcomes of the TANF program. Child outcomes in TANF are not necessarily the best. One of the premises on which TANF is based is that higher incomes contribute to better child well-being, but a work requirement does not necessarily lead to higher income (Bitler and Karoly).
Overall, TANF is not effective in solving the specific social problem of poverty, and this is partly because its main goal is not to help people economically mobilize, but rather to lower the amount of assistance it has to dole out.
From the initial creation to the groundbreaking ideas that led to the creation of our great nation more specifically during the late 18th century and throughout the early 20th century, the ideas of liberty, equality, and power have echoed throughout as key to the fundamental and structural ideals on which our country was built upon. The Revolutionary Period, the Civil War, and the Jim Crow era brought with each a new and different way of interpreting what was meant by liberty, equality, and power. The choices and understandings of what each would be defined as during each period would bring with it significant changes and effects that would change history. The revolutionary period had a much more significant focus on the aspects of equality and liberty. An example of this is during the Revolutionary period, with the interpretation and creation of the Declaration of Independence. This period gravitated towards the overall ideas of liberty, equality, and power of the whole nation rather than just that of a single group of people or particular groups of people like the Jim Crow era did. The Civil War era had a large issue that no one wanted to address but as a result of power as well as equality this was slavery. The meanings of liberty equality and power had evolved from the revolutionary period. The new issue or better yet new emphasis on how to deal with the issue of slavery highly combated the ideas of the once focus on the overall nations, liberty, equality, and power, the new shift was towards a smaller group. It was no longer a focus on the free nation but on the small group that held all the power and limited the power as well as liberties and equalities of those seen as lesser people. As these issues continued into the reconstruction era following the Civil War era, the Jim Crow era began to arise and bring about once again the continued issue of inequality and lack of equality and liberties of a particular group of people. As African Americans were no longer owned by others as slaves there was still subject to issues of equality as well as liberty and power as segregation inhibited freedom and created more issues for African Americans during the Reconstruction era. As times and periods changed so did the meaning of Liberty, equality, and power. The understanding of each changed much like that of the people, politics, as well as the issues of the times.
Depicted as a list of grievances the Declaration of Independence set the precedence of the framework and reasons as to why the United States felt the need to be apart from Great Britain and be a nation of her own. It was the need to have Liberty, Equality, and Power that was greatly the topic of discussion throughout the Revolutionary period. As it is often repeated, “all men are created equal…” Jefferson wrote this to emphasize the point that we all were created with the same opportunities. More specifically no one was born better than another person. This statement had gone against the inherited powers much like that known as the English monarchy. For men like Jefferson at the time, however, even though he had said that AMACE, that was not necessarily the case for Slaves as at this time they were not viewed as citizens or even people but rather as property. The first sense of liberty for the United States was seen in 1781 when the Articles of Confederation were ratified leading the way to the beginnings of the United States’ first central government. In this document, however, the power was not given directly to this new centralized government but rather it was the states that possessed all the power. Since all the power was left to the states this made for an interesting dilemma when passing laws and when the discussion was reared towards the topic of slavery and outlawing it in the North but it remained a functioning institution in the South. As it was not the best form of law the Articles of Confederation failed leaving the decision on what to do about the issues of no longer having a written form of government. It was then that several white males decided to create a new document that outlined and was called the Constitution. As the men had created this as it had been stated Jefferson and others had owned slaves which would lead to the creation of the three-fifths compromise. With the creation of the compromise, there would later be the creation of no liberties, equality, or power for slaves of the time. Over time new inventions such as the cotton gin lead to greater output by slaves during the late 18th century. By the time Jefferson had become president slave importing was outlawed, this was not a disadvantage to slave owners as the population of slaves had grown domestically so much that importing was no longer a necessity. As was earlier stated we see that the nation was able to gain liberty, equality, and power from Great Britain but in turn, as we gained these qualities there was then a dispositional denial of these ideals to certain members of society and our very nation.
DIvison between the North and the South arose as the ideas of whether slavery was to be an institution that should be enforced by all, some or none came into question. The South which was focused on the use of slaves for agriculture dreaded and refused to allow the idea that slaves could be citizens and be free. As for the North as the industry began to boom and grow the need for slaves had dissipated and the institution had begun to disappear almost entirely. The call to action as to whether slavery should remain was with the Louisiana Purchase which would lead to the expansion out west. Leading into the beginning of the civil war in the late 1800s there was a rise in the abolitionists. Several people began to show how slavery was a creation of evil, which led to the forefront of the political issues of the times. The issue of liberty and equality was focused more on slavery but the power and issues were upon that of the state and the issues it faced with the power struggle with the federal government. A prime example of this power struggle was the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sanford which denied citizenship to black citizens whether free or not. It affected the rights of liberty and equality obviously but hindered the black citizen’s ability to rise from any type of oppression as well as created power issues between states and the federal government. The idea of popular sovereignty stated that the people should be able to have a voice to not be imposed by federal laws when state laws say the opposite. The Kansas-Nebraska Plan showed this concept which was significant to the beginning of the Civil War.
Over the centuries, women have been subjected to a social injustice in regards to their employment. The social-constructs of societies worldwide have allowed for women to become subservient to men by means of unpaid work, gender biases, gender inequalities, and discrimination. These biases have long placed women in a position whereas they must carry a double burden as they are expected to care for the household and raise children while attempting to thrive in their jobs. Globalization was intended to be a means to an end for many of the inequalities that women faced around the world. Unions promised fair pay and equal rights for all workers. Despite the creation of unions in the last century, women are often still seen as inferior to men in terms of pay, unions, and rights as they continue to fight for equity in the workforce and equality in the home.
History of Women and the Pay Gap
Historically, the majority of women did not work outside the home. Only recently has this changed. This rings especially true for Caucasian women. Before the 1960’s, women were highly discriminated against in the workforce. It was believed that women did not have the physical strength or mental capacity to handle the same careers as men. That being said they were not granted the same opportunities in education. That gendered job classification was relevant on every economic level. Gender segregated job opportunities, lower education rates, the creation of traditionally female industries of work, and the reduced expectations of women’s work prolonged the gender pay gap. A multitude of factors influenced the women’s movements of the 1960’s. The 1960’s followed the powerful civil rights movements of African American people which fuelled the fire that the younger generation of women was experiencing. Mixed with the change in women’s socio-cultural beliefs that followed the war, young women were raised and exposed to different ideas and social change. Following the liberating revolution, women across parts of the world began to excel in both academics and jobs that had previously been reserved for the male population. Women became lawyers, academics, engineers, scientists, and doctors. The increase in available jobs, equality, and education for women allowed for a major decrease in the gender pay gap.
Relations Between Paid and Unpaid Work
Although social change altered the pay gap, there was one thing that women couldn’t escape: childbearing. Because women are biologically engineered to bear children, they have historically been primary the primary caregivers. This biological engineering fed into a social expectation that women should be the ones who play the primary caregiving role in the life of their children. Generally, women will be expected to make the children their priority while other many aspects of their lives suffer. The role of a caregiver goes beyond basic care of an infant or a child. It includes appointments, schooling or school meetings, feedings, cleaning, and most other forms of domestic work. Although the care or duties seem basic to most, it is a major time-consuming responsibility. Studies have shown that based on many social constructs, women are habitually expected to stay in the home and take on the housework as well, for which there is no financial compensation. Any multitude of hours that are put in to housework or raising children remain unpaid. Not by governments, or any person will the woman receive any sort of financial compensation. And the repercussions can be harsh.
Unpaid work refers to domestic duties and responsibilities, including by not exclusive to child rearing, household shopping, cleaning, and cooking. Unpaid work is a necessary and important part of the greater economic image. The responsibilities that revolve around raising children and managing a household relate to needs that include both basic survival and comfort. All of the basic household tasks can amount to a substantial amount of time. The issue is not that it takes time though, it’s what it takes time away from. The time allocated to the second duties take away time that a woman can put towards self-care, rest, furthering education, socializing, hobbies, and anything else a woman could use to further herself, her work, or her social life. All these aspects that are replaced by domestic duties can affect her work ethics, attitude at work, overall health, and the chances she will get a raise or a promotion. It is what fuels the gender pay gap. It fuels the male hierarchy, the standards set for women, the gender stereotypes, the gender expectation, and the social construct that has been a social reproduction for centuries.
Social Reproduction
The social reproduction that involves women’s work is the result of centuries of politics, economies, needs, and social formations. Many have used the biological basis as an explanation for gender inequalities. The interpretation of various religious texts and teachings have also caused social reproductions. The traditions and cultures around the world have often emphasised the importance of the male which has led to a lack of empowerment for women. With many cultures holding women in an obvious or subconscious state of gender inferiority, women have fallen victim to a system that is failing them.
History of Unions
Unions were created out of a disparity between the rights of people in two distinct social-economic classes. During this time, workers from the lower class were often left to the mercy of their employers. Workers did not have many of the same rights as they do today. The creation of unions was a result of the industrial revolution in the 19th century. Companies and employers had been putting profits before people. Workers could have their employment terminated for taking any sick leave, breaks, and for injuries they sustained while on the job. A person injured at work could be fired with no compensation. During the industrial revolution, some workers joined in unity to demand that employers be held to a standard. These workers demanded sick leave, fair wages, safer working conditions, and pensions. This was the beginning of labor unions. It was these unions that created a new social-economic category, were workers became what is now known as the middle class. The middle-class allowed for people to make better lives for themselves which in turn created a stronger economy.
Women worked hard to ensure that there would be gender equality in unions. As men returned home following WWII, women lost the high paying jobs and professions they held throughout the years of war. Women had to find different employment and were pushed back into the female-dominated fields of work. They were forced to return to long hours and low wages in positions that were regarded as non-important. These women were repressed and continued to be subjected to sexual harassment and discriminatory job opportunities. The greed of industrial capitalism led to the suffering and deaths of many women throughout the 20th century. The success of women’s movements that occurred in the 1960s’ and 1970s allowed for women to have the same opportunities as men and equal pay. Women were effectively given what they had long been fighting for: the opportunity to work in the same industries as men, with the opportunity for the same jobs as their gender counterparts. However, the social perceptions continued to leave women vulnerable to the confines of the social constructs.
Relations between women and other equity-seeking groups
Women have many commonalities with equity-seeking groups. Visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples, and people with disabilities are all amongst those who share the plight of women as they fight for equity in the working world. People with disabilities have faced many objections by potential employers. Those objections include employers fearing that they will have to make adjustments in order to accommodate a disabled employee. Visible minorities and aboriginal people have historically always taken a backseat to a potential white, male employee. The similarities do not solely involve their fights against the injustices. They also share in the benefits that have been brought forth with unions. The plight of women is similar to those of the other equity-seeking groups as these unions are intended to represent the collective bargaining that supports the most vulnerable people.
Unions have brought forward a sense of equality for all equity-seeking groups, including women. This has allowed for them to gain access to more opportunities, higher pay, and equal rights matching those of the average white male standard. Unions have been found to help close the pay gap in order to have equal work for equal pay across all people. The unions have also allowed better access to health care for all workers, as well as the opportunity for paid time off. The gender pay gap that has impacted the lives and futures of women across all continents was created from many of the problems that unions address. The reproduction rights, the rights in regards to leave, health care, wage, and work as well as career advancement that all impact women and member of vulnerable labor groups drastically. They promote an inclusive workforce for everyone. Each of these standards can have a life altering affect on the lives of women worldwide.
Challenges that equity-seeking women face in paid work and unions
In spite of their positive intentions, there are issues and challenges that unions and the idea of unions impose on women as well. Unions have been seen as political entities and some have caused issues for many workers. Unions support the premise of seniority which creates a hierarchy that is difficult for other potential or current employees to penetrate. Many hard-working people are at the mercy of the unions and employers when it comes to advancement. This is due largely to the fact that it can be difficult to demote or fire a long-time employee who may not perform well, solely due to aspects of seniority. This closes doors for hard working employees who are qualified and or over qualified for higher positions. Unions are comprised of their own internal leaderships that can include favoritism whereas employees may be subjected to the same problems they face in non-unionised sectors. Similar to any company or persons in power when it comes to employers, cronyism can also affect employees whereas their union leaders may put friends and personal associates in positions of authority before other qualified workers. Women and persons from other equity-seeking groups are subjected to the same problems but with different leadership. Unions can have their own cultures that include a strong sense of solidarity between union employees and their leaders whereas they protect each other in order to cover up union member misconduct. This can make it difficult for minorities, disabled people, and women to become part and feel like they belong in unionized settings. These same unions have also been known to lead to hostile relationships between employers and employees as a result of the higher cost for employers. Unionised employees are generally entitled to higher pay which in turn drives up the cost for management and companies. With that in mind, unions also require fees to be paid. Many people do not want to pay fees towards the union. The idea of unions being unbiased and serving the people is balanced out with the knowledge that unions, like any other managing party, are subjected to the views and opinions of their leaders.
Globalization
Globalization should in theory have benefitted women. By definition it is the freer movement of people, money, and goods across borders. It should have been aided by the newfound equalization of opportunity for women as it tore down many boundaries that restrained certain economies. Technology has allowed great advancements for women in many job sectors by reducing the disparity that was created by physical work demands as machinery was created to do much of the physical labor. The flow of capital and goods in and out of countries around the world, the free sharing of information, commodities, and increase in work should have propelled the need for gender equality in work to higher modern standards. The true impact of globalization on people and women has become a debate as there are many positive and negative factors to balance out. On one hand, globalization has allowed women to have increased independence as a result of women being able to get better jobs and subsequently having a better income. The economic empowerment that women have received as a result of globalization has created a power shift in many families and communities. The ability for a woman to gain meaningful employment allows women to become independent from men. They can create and sustain a life without depending on a man for security, housing, food, or necessities, which is a far cry from what was once the reality for women everywhere. Women have gained more rights, more positions of power, and overall more opportunity. That being said, women are still at the mercy of the patriarchal attitudes that have are prominent in most every society. The unions that were created to represent the vulnerable sectors of women in work are run by a multitude of people, who can be comprised of men with a misogynistic and patriarchal attitude. Globalization has also pushed forward an increase in need for goods, resulting in the need for cheaper labor. While unions can help their own employees, women worldwide do not have the choice to be unionised. The need for cheap labor to stabilize the increasing competition of the market for goods and services has pushed for the creation of sweat shops. Sweat shops allow companies to take advantage of people in countries with poor economies in order to compete with the cost of goods. Women, children, and minorities are often employed in these shops that work long hours for a wage that is not livable. They often violate human rights and labor rights in many countries.
Various groups that operate around the world are working towards the elimination of forced labor, child labor, and discrimination in the workplace. These groups are working against many factors in the global economic empire. The complications reside in the individual countries as they are all governed by their own laws, politics, cultures, economies, religions, and social-norms. These factors have an incredible influence on the need for jobs, cheap labor, and the ever-increasing economic competition for goods and services.
Conclusion
Despite all the social movements, unions and advancements that have occurred over the last century, women continue to struggle for equality. Social reproductions have paved the way for women to be burdened with unpaid work as it continues to affect their ability to achieve a global sense of gender equality. Globalization has both benefited women and failed them on many fronts. Women and other equity-seeking groups are still fighting to achieve a true equality as it confronts a patriarchal society. The unions are meant to support the nation-wide incentives to increase and allow women to have the same opportunities and rights as men in the workforce. The challenges that vulnerable groups face are an uphill battle against a patriarchal societies and cultures around the world. Change for women in the global workforce will depend on the globalization of unions and the worldwide support of human rights, labor rights, women’s rights, and the creation of organizations that have legal standing in order to fight for the rights of all employees. The search for equity on a global scale would likely take years to enforce as it attempts to counteract the centuries of social-constructs that created the inequality in the first place.
