Category: Gender Differences

Article Reviewed:

Monin, J. K., Manigault, A., Levy, B. R., Schulz, R., Duker, A., Clark, M. S., . . . Kershaw, T. (2019). Gender differences in short-term cardiovascular effects of giving and receiving support for health concerns in marriage. Health Psychology, 38(10), 936-947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000777

The article “Gender differences in Short Term Cardiovascular effects of giving and receiving support for health concerns in marriage”. This research was carried out on adults over fifty years of age which is referred to as middle adulthood, (Santrock, 2012. Pg. 307). The research had two hypotheses first being both spouses were giving and receiving support compared to only one spouse receiving support or none receiving any support at all whether it would decrease blood pressure and heart rate in both spouses during a recovery period. The second hypothesis is, wives would benefit more from mutual support than would husbands. Additionally, the research aimed at, ‘examining gender differences in cardiovascular reactivity, distress and closeness in response to receiving support regardless of the presence of mutuality’.

Firstly I felt that the abstract captured the objective, method, results, and conclusion in an excellent manner for anyone scheming through the first paragraph was not attention-capturing enough it would have been put differently to interest even an academic reader. It started off with a rather flat tone. However, the introduction shows that the research draws from previous studies on how spouses exchange support, and from this stems the need to research mutual support in moments of health challenges which is the foundation of this study.

The research has used a very relevant theoretical basis based on Communal relationships theory which states that both partners’ health is supported when partners are genuinely concerned about each other’s health as opposed to just a give-and-take attitude. This being the basis the research had the primary aim of studying the effects of experimentally manipulated mutual support and aimed at finding out if there were any gender differences in receiving support. The communal coping theories are very relevant as the basis for this research because they emphasize the importance of mutual emotional support e.g. showing compassion, and listening which one can offer regardless of their own health challenges. Moreover, this research has its unique relevance because while many types of research have been done with an emphasis on one spouse being the recipient and the other being a caregiver, this research delves into how spouses can support one another while they themselves are going through their own health stresses, noting that a spouses health issues help them to empathize with the other’s health concerns. Additionally, the research increases its relevance because few if any studies have been done on gender differences in giving and receiving support in cases of cardiovascular responses where the spouses are coping with health concerns. So it has succeeded in adding information.

In the context of cardiovascular effects, mutual support was easy to establish because unlike other illnesses in their later stages like dementia the mutual aspect may not be achieved. The research had 98 married heterosexual couples, intentionally so to keep to the orthodox roles of husband and wife. The research had a mutual outlook of both the spouses being ‘caregivers and care recipients as opposed to one being a ‘caregiver and the other a ‘care recipient’. Therefore my opinion was that additional hypotheses would have been relevant. The hypothesis being ‘husbands would benefit more from mutual spouses during a recovery period’. Because picking only one gender as a possible higher or lower beneficiary would make it look like imbalanced research.

The study was ethical because the researchers carried out the research on willing participants because the advertisement was done in newspapers and on bulletins hence they achieved a generalizable sample in regard to the number of couples involved in the research. However out of the ninety-eight whose data was analyzed, ninety-five were White, Caucasian Americans and three were of no primary group. The sample did not have any African American or other representations of Minority groups which could possibly mean the results could be biased towards Caucasian Americans. Additionally, the minimum level of education was High school except for one husband who had less than a high school education while sixty-four of them had a first degree and above, so in a sense, the research attracted a well-educated sample of individuals who could have eased in the questionnaire answering as well as in practice discussions but whose results may not be the same as that of an uneducated sample. Hence leaving room for future research on different kinds of demographics in terms of race, non-heterosexual couples, educational background, and even financial status.

The research was carried out in a systematic manner which involved questionnaires beforehand and then the ‘speaking procedure’ which is relevant in psychophysiology research on social support processes. All discussions involving support were coded by trained, independent coders using Feeney’s caregiving manual. The engagement of independent coders was particularly useful mainly because they were not even aware of the hypotheses so it diminishes the chances of bias. The article is quantitative and data analysis was done appropriately, firstly the researchers examined potentially confounding variables by running Pearson correlations between age, marital satisfaction, relationship length, and baseline outcomes. The document has an elaborate schematic diagram which is straight forward making it easy to understand the procedure outlined and the time taken. The results are also outlined in a precise manner and the findings from the study suggested that receiving emotional support from a spouse individually may be more impactful for immediate cardiovascular reactivity than both partners giving and receiving support.

These results deviated from their original hypotheses that mutual support would decrease blood pressure and heart rate in both spouses during the recovery period. Additionally, the results proved that husbands receive greater benefits in spousal support than wives. In my opinion, the results were objective and without researcher bias which is critical for any research and additionally the research was justified. The results were presented in table format which makes it easy to understand and the researchers had solid and supported arguments in the discussion section. As with any research, there were a few strengths and weaknesses and most importantly room for future research for example the need for the research carried out in a different way in order to see if there would be different results for example a longer recovery measurement period may have increased the opportunity for the significant cardiovascular effects of mutual support.

In conclusion, the paper flows and was smooth to read and was easily understandable, and had no grammatical errors that came to my attention it followed the APA formatting and it is mainly for an academic audience as opposed to general use. It confirmed previous research findings done in lab settings for example that men are equally capable of intimacy just like women are. While this kind of research is replicable even in a third-world setup like Kenya, I think that the difference in different social setups like Africa where couples might have extended family living with them who might be part of the social support would have a different set of potential confounding variables. Besides the research being replicable the results are applicable in various setups, for example in hospitals to encourage intentional emotional support behavior by the spouse and even in a counseling setup where the clients are fifty years and above and either or both of them are facing health issues which could be affecting their marriage. This study managed to capture couples dealing with a variety of health concerns hence increasing its replicability. In summary, it was very well done, and easy to read and understand.

References

1. Santrock, J.W. (2012). Essentials of Life-Span Development. (2ndEd.) McGraw Hill International: NY.
2. Monin, J. K., Manigault, A., Levy, B. R., Schulz, R., Duker, A., Clark, M. S., . . . Kershaw, T. (2019). Gender differences in short-term cardiovascular effects of giving and receiving support for health concerns in marriage. Health Psychology, 38(10), 936-947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/hea0000777

Is the Mars versus Venus distinction efficient enough to refer to the age-old dialog over the differences between men and women – differences that will be undoubtedly questioned, researched, and challenged for lifetimes to come? Women and men may differ in their propensity to choose a risky outcome because of innate preferences or because those preferences are modified by pressure to conform to gender stereotypes, more specifically said, due to both nature and nurture. The interesting question is thus the weight of each factor and the interaction of the two.

The vast majority of the decisions people make involve risk. Risk aversion is a concept in economics and finance based on the behavior of humans. It is the reluctance of a person to accept a bargain with uncertain returns rather than more certain but possibly lower returns. Although it is the subjective tendency to avoid unnecessary risk, it seems to completely depend on an individual. When facing a risky decision, leaders must weigh a lot of factors. Furthermore, one would naturally consider the likelihood that the risk will help hit strategic objectives and the effect the risk will have on the people involved. Recent work in experimental economics has examined to what degree the under-representation of women in high-paying jobs or high-level occupations may be due to nature, nurture, or the combination of the two. This implies that differences in risk attitudes could affect individual choices about seeking performance feedback or entering a competitive environment. Preferences, concerning time, risk, and social interactions, systematically shape human behavior and contribute to differential economic and social outcomes between the genders.

Rachel Croson and Uri Gneezy in their paper “Gender Differences in Preferences” review the literature on gender differences in economic experiments by considering risk, social and competitive preferences. Moreover, by speculating on the source of these differences, as well as on their implications, they warn about the bias that only papers finding a gender effect might end up being published. The findings of the paper are important as a source for understanding gender differences and as a starting point to illuminate the debate on gender-specific outcomes in the labor and goods markets. Risk preferences are a key ingredient in models of financial decisions. They play an essential role in modeling the demand for insurance, the choice of mortgage type, the frequency of stock trading, and the acquisition of financial information. Understanding investor risk preferences has several important implications. It offers guidance for the calibration of optimal portfolio choice models, it contributes to the asset pricing debate on time-varying risk aversion and it permits the assessment of the welfare costs of financial mistakes such as under-diversification and non-participation in financial and insurance markets.[2] Moreover, it helps financial intermediaries to comply with investor protection regulations that require the measurement of risk preferences before providing financial advice.

Economists and policymakers have observed gender differences in a number of different domains, including consumption, investment, and, perhaps of most concern, the labor market, often hypothesizing that these differences are caused by preferences between the genders. The paper reviews the economic experiments in which the decisions that individuals make allow the researcher to isolate one factor of a decision, such as risk preferences, and study it in isolation from other factors, such as altruism. Those experiments are also replicable, which means that the same experiment can be conducted multiple times with different individuals with diverse backgrounds and demographics. This allows the testing of the impact of various parameters, such as self-selection and learning, on both genders.

Starting with discussing risk-taking in objective probability lotteries, with known probabilities and dollar outcomes by considering ten papers that investigate gender differences in risk preferences using both real and hypothetical chances of winning, the robust finding is that men are more risk-prone than women in the vast majority of environments and tasks. The paper implies that the inclusion of controls other than gender, such as age, nationality, or race in the analyses of previous studies, varies. There are two notable and interesting papers that Croson and Gneezy reviewed regarding this. First, Melissa L. Finucane et al. (2000) find a gender difference among whites, but not among any other ethnic group. This is important because it implies there may be cultural biases causing gender differences in risk-taking. The second paper is by Renate Schubert et al. (1999) who find one situation in which men are more risk-averse than women: when lotteries are framed as losses rather than gains. Some studies have shown that sex is significantly related to asset allocation where women invest their pension assets more conservatively than men, in the minimum-risk portfolio available to them. This implies that women are more risk-averse than men in lab settings as well as in investment decisions in the field. While gender differences in risk preferences are relatively consistent, very few explanations are offered for the observed differences.

The majority of literature documents gender differences in risk-taking by presenting women as more risk-averse than men. Croson and Gneezy indicated some of the possible factors that cause this gender difference. One major factor is the affective reaction to risk. Men and women differ in their emotional reaction to uncertain situations and this reaction results in differences in risk-taking. Emotions affect the evaluation of outcomes as well as the evaluation of probabilities. However, emotions are not the only reason for gender differences in risk preferences. Men are also more confident than women and, as a result, may have a different perception of the probability distribution underlying a given risk. Moreover, males tend to view risky situations as challenges, while females view them as threats, which leads to increased risk tolerance. It is interesting to note that these differences are attenuated by experience and profession. For example, studies with managers, entrepreneurs, and professionals, find no gender differences in risk preferences. However, more detailed research is required to consider the possible driving forces behind this exception to the rule.

Social preferences are modeled in the economic literature in the form of altruism, envy, inequal aversion, or reciprocity. While all the models describe how an individual might be other-regarding, the extent and form of the social preferences may also differ across the genders. The authors discuss a number of studies that demonstrate how strongly, and in what direction, social preferences manifest themselves, by including evidence on altruism and inequality aversion from ultimatum and dictator game studies. The evidence on reciprocity is also included from studies using trust and related games. Research from psychology suggests that women are more sensitive to social cues in determining appropriate behavior. Small differences in experimental design and implementation can affect these social cues, leading women to appear more other-regarding in some experiments and less other-regarding in others.

What happens when people find themselves in competition? Recent findings suggest that women are more reluctant than men to engage in competitive interactions like tournaments, bargaining, and auctions. Additionally, men’s performance, relative to women’s, is improved under competition. While women seem to be less likely to choose to compete than men, yet, those who do choose competitive environments perform just as well as men in those settings. Why do we see this gender difference in attitudes and behavior? It might be rational for women to avoid negotiating in some situations. This explanation is related to the findings in the discrimination literature regarding incentives to underinvest in education, for example, because the expected rewards are lower for women than for men. An additional set of data comes from experiments with children. The fact that gender differences exhibit only later in life suggests an environmental cause, which further supports the argument that societal structure is crucially linked to the observed gender differences in competitiveness, and thus, that nurture matters.

An important bias in the literature on gender differences is that journals are more likely to publish papers that find a gender difference than papers that do not. This may cause researchers to invest more effort into finding differences than finding no differences. Croson and Gneezy devote much attention to including studies that do not find gender differences, even when they are unpublished, to counteract this bias. It is important for researchers to routinely record the gender of the participants when possible to help us greatly expand our understanding of gender differences and avoid the publication bias that is currently in place.

The issue is that historically risk-taking has been framed so narrowly that it skews our perceptions. For example, the majority of studies that point to men having a greater inclination for risk-taking define risk in physical and financial terms. They don’t point to risks like standing up for what’s right in the face of opposition or taking the ethical path when there’s pressure to stray — important risks that women may be particularly strong at taking.

Gender differences and pay gaps have been dilemmas that have faced many social, and unjustifiable conflicts universally. Women have paid dearly over the years for wanting equality and justice. Gender differences and the pay gap, have been there since the beginning of time, women were perceived to be a submissive role in households, and in the workplace. Fighting for gender equality both sexes are unified to get the same rights and opportunities across society, including being treated the way they deserve, and being able to think freely about what they stand for in terms of access to justice and to economic, and social gains.

From my viewpoint of virtue ethics, on the matter of gender differences and the pay gap, I believe that deontology and utilitarianism is the best theory to apply to the question. Deontology theory states that the morality of an action depends on its consistency with moral norms, while utilitarianism theory is based on the “morally right action is the one that produces the most favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered” claims writer Lewis Vaughn. In the article, No change to the hourly pay gap in 10 years writer David Uren states that “the pay gap between men and women has not changed in the past 10 years, with women still earning on average 11 percent less an hour than men” (Uren). I have chosen to write about gender equality and the pay gap using utilitarian and deontology ethical theories.

The world today is a much different world to live in for women, yet I think is much the same in other countries as it has been for many years. The gender differences and the pay gap is more complicated than many people believe. Many individuals say that men are paid more money or higher wages than women; however, there are some people that believe otherwise. Some individuals argue that women are not worthy as men in terms of educational level, some argue that is due to race and age that’s the reason why women seem to be paid less than men. Some argue that women tend to value people and family more than work and money and that preference explains a small part of the wage gap. In the article Common Question Reinforces the Gender Gap: [ Business/ Financial Desk], writer Claire Cain Miller Claims that “women continue to earn less than men, for a variety of reasons. Discrimination is one research shows. Women are also more likely than men to work in lower-paying jobs like public services caregiving and the nonprofit sector and take time off for children. Employers often base a starting salary on someone’s previous earnings, so at each job, the gender pay gap continues, and it becomes seemingly impossible for women to catch up” (Miller). However, Author Melissa Young in her article Gender Differences in Precarious Work Setting, she claims that, “ the gender differences in wages, security, work hours, and union protection suggest that women experience a great degree of precariousness women in various types of employment” (Young). However, In the book Doing Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, writer Lewis Vaughn writes, “all persons deserve respect and equal opportunity in employment and education. It is essentially an expression of the fundamental moral principle that equal should be treated equally “(598).

In today’s society, there have been claims where some say that gender pay has narrowed and we have reached a point where we live in a frame where there is gender equality. For example, In the article, How Can The Gender Pay Gap In Mississippi Be Explained, Author Sondra Collins argues that “although the gender gap pay has narrowed over the past thirty years, it still persists” (Collins). One ought to wonder what is equality. Based on my knowledge of what I have read in this class gender equality is when women and men have the same rights and opportunities in all parts of the world. This includes economic participation, decision making and equal pay for equal work which leads to women and men being equally valued and recommended at the same level with this in mind both men and women should obtain the same treatment and should not be discriminated against for their weaknesses or gender. In many societies’ individuals claim that there is equality for everyone, but in reality, there is still a lot of discrimination going on especially towards women at their workplaces. In the article Gender Differences in Precarious Work Setting author Marissa C. Young claims that “In the U.S., thirty-three percent of women work in part-time position compared to 12 percent of all men (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,2009). These findings are further supported by research on the gender- the wage gap, highlighting income discrepancies, despite similarities in job titles and tasks” (Young). For example, in the case of Aileen Rizo a trained teacher in the public school in Fresno, Calif., she claims that, “she discovered that her male colleagues with comparable jobs were being paid significantly more” (Miller). This is an example of unequal treatment towards women in a workplace area. In some professions, we can see the gender differences and pay gap more than in others. In the article Utilitarianism, Deontology, and The Priority of rights, author Samuel Freeman, argues that, “ certain liberties are to be equally distributed; that social positions are to be open to all under conditions of fair equality and opportunity; and that income and wealth are to be equally distributed unless unequal distribution would improve everyone share in which event institutions are to be designated so as to maximize the share that goes to worst of” ( Freeman). This will only be achieved by understanding why compensation is different between men and women; therefore, it will help businesses, governments, society at large, and individuals to tackle issues that can be addressed and improve overall productivity in the economy.

In my conclusion, I think that is unethical for women to be paid less than men, women should receive equal pay for the same action because they receive the same amount of education as their male colleagues. Therefore, it is completely injustice and unjust that women are paid less compared to their male counterparts for the same tasks because they are in the workforce just as much as men. Women are also playing their roles just as well or have the same occupation and receive the exact same amount of education. Employers should offer women equal pay for equal work as their men counterparts and treat them with the same respect as their male colleagues. Philosopher Plato once quotes that, “If women are taught the same work as men, we must teach them the same things. (Plato)” Therefore, now that women are taught the exact same thing as men and carry out the same work, I think it is the right time for employers to consider paying the same wages to both women. Author Freeman uses Rawls’s thoughts by saying that, between being fair to persons and being fair to interests or conceptions of good. “Fairness to Goodness” we should not speak of fairness to the conception of the good, but of fairness to moral persons…..it is fairness to persons that is primary and not fairness to conceptions of the good as such” ( Freeman) It is a high time for people to be aware of the calamity that is gender discrimination and people of the workforce, especially the women, should fight for their right to be treated equally in their workplace, or else gender differences and pay gap will remain, and there will never be a true balance of rights for women.

Discuss the evidence on whether gender differences in the taste for risk and competition can explain part of the observed gender gap in labor market outcomes.

Gender differences are presented by the choices of men and women regarding the observed gender gap in labor market outcomes (Bertrand, 2011). Principally discrete are the gender differences in compensation and representation in the highest-paid jobs. For instance, women denoted only 6,5% of the highest-paid CEOs in 2014 and were paid 9,9% less than men counterparts (Equilar, 2015). As gender differences have been explained substantially, sizeable differences remain unaccounted for (Reuben, Sapienza, and Zingales, 2015). An explanation for the remaining differences is the well-documented gender difference in taste for risk and competition where men are very eager to compete while women avoid competing, and shy away from competition (Niederle and Vesterlund, 2011). Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) introduced the evaluation of laboratory measurements of taste for the competition which helps explain upcoming gender differences in outcomes and labor market choices in a sample of high-ability business professionals.

The traditional economic approach to understanding gender differences in labor market outcomes focuses on demand-side interpretations, such as employer discrimination, and supply-side restrictions that are constructed on educational differences or family responsibility (Azmat and Petrongolo, 2014). Lately, economists examined the alternative supply-side descriptions for gender differences in outcomes. For instance, possible gender differences in psychological attributes, involving preferences for risk and competition, also concerns about people could offer insights into gender gaps (Croson and Gneezy, 2009). This paper outlines the gender differences in the taste for risk and competition and explains the gender gap in labor market outcomes. Subsequently, it provides an overview of the literature, psychological factors, and survey-based evidence. It analyses the taste for competition and earnings and then concludes.

This section outlines experimental findings on gender differences that may induce job earnings. Importantly, gender differences in preferences for risk and competition analyze job sorting which is the first object of a labor relation. In general, differences in social preferences, propose interesting information on the job operation of men and women. Job-related and industry separation of men and women is one of the main mechanisms of gender gaps in earnings (Altonji and Black, 1999). Since jobs in different segments propose different arrays of job security, gender differences in preferences concerning risk and competition have the ability to form gaps in outcomes via job sorting behavior (Azmat and Petrongolo, 2014). Work-related risks are normally rewarded by higher outcomes, and high-risk sectors propose to be dominated by men. If women are more risk-averse than men, they rebound to be overrepresented in works with lower earnings. There have been studied risk experiments in order to have a better understanding of gender differences in risk preferences. According to Croson and Gneezy (2009), men are more risk-prone than women. Although Loewenstein et al. (2001), ascribe these differences to the emotional response to uncertain conditions, others display that they are correlated to confidence (Dohmen and Falk, 2011). A case that refers to the explanation of why the outcomes of men and women differ, even on identical jobs, is that men and women bargain their wages in different ways. In psychological terms, it is proposed that women receive less salary than their men colleagues as they avoid competitiveness, and according to Babcock and Leschever (2003), they basically ‘don’t ask’ for a pay increase. On the other hand, Small et al. (2007) define an explicit gender gap in the possibility of introducing a negotiation, with women requesting a higher payment from the experimenter less frequently than men. A significant result is that women are less possible to negotiate in the existence of male assessors (Azmat and Petrongolo, 2014).

This paper contributes to the growing literature on gender differences in risk aversion, preferences, and competition, and these could have in theory a large impact on the supply side of the labor market. Specifically, it will examine if the differences between men and women can explain gender differences in labor market outcomes. A recent survey researches using either survey or experimental data if women and men differ in psychological characteristics that can explain the circumstance that women are under-represented in high-paying jobs and high-level professions. If it does, then if these differences are controlled for, possibly the gender pay gap will disappear (Booth, 2009).

Looking the survey-based indication is illustrated the use of concurrent survey-based measures of risk-aversion and competitive behavioral characteristics is determined by probable endogeneity. Nevertheless, personality variables are combined into the investigation of Goldsmith et al. (1997), and Mueller and Plug (2006). Goldsmith et al. (1997), used NLSY data and displayed that personality variables and human capital are associated with wages, however, they do not examine the gender dimension. Instead, Mueller and Plug (2006), investigated the gender dimension using a Wisconsin-based survey. Although their psychological variables are concurrent with measures of earnings, they, on the other hand, discover interesting associations between measures of personality and earnings. Manning and Swaffield (2008) used determined psychological evidence avoiding endogeneity issues, principally measured at age 16 from the British Cohort Study to appreciate gender wage gaps at 30. They illustrated that there is no gender wage gap in labor market entry, for equal fully work-commitment women and men (for those who are not willing to have children and with constant full-time work experience). Notwithstanding, this changes over the age of 30 and creates an unexplained gap since, women who have no children and they are not willing to have, full-time employment earn 8 log points less than the corresponding men after ten years in the labor market. They considered the role of psychological variables in clarifying this, focusing on risk attitudes, competitiveness, and career orientation. The psychological variables identify the upper bound of 4,5 log points of the gender wage gap. These survey-based measures of psychological factors outline the differences in psychological factors that could explain gender pay gaps (Booth, 2009).

In order to measure taste for competition, the study of Buser, Niederle, and Oosterbeek (2014) is used. They discovered that monitoring for a taste for competition restricts the gender gap in track choice by about twenty percent. Therefore, by liberalizing their discoveries it proved that taste for competition forecasts actual labor market outcomes in a different sample of applicants. Moreover, Reuben, Wiswall, and Zafar (2015) examine the connection between the taste for competition and outcomes. They discovered that taste for competition and confidence measures are connected with the outcomes students expect to receive ten years after they will graduate. In addition, they also found that taste for competition explains about eighteen percent of the gender gap in the estimated outcomes. A couple of years after graduation, students are asked about their current earnings. Based on this, a positive connection is found between earnings, taste for competition, and the gender gap which disappears for women that are competitive and confident (Reupen, Sapienza, and Zingales, 2015).

Reuben, Sapienza, and Zingales (2015) investigated the gender differences in the taste for risk and competition explaining the observed gender gap in labor market outcomes referred to a study from MBA graduates from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business in 2008. As part of the study, all the MBA students completed a study and took part in an experiment projected to measure individual-specific characteristics. The students completed the study online and then they participated in the experiment. The survey contained questionnaires on personality traits and questions on demographic characteristics. However, this term paper will focus on the experiment mainly. The experiment consists of five parts that are proposed to measure people’s characteristics, especially risk preferences, time preferences, willingness to trust and reciprocate, willingness to cooperate, and taste for competition. Firstly, it will be outlined a short description of the first four parts and then an elaborate description of the firth part which measures taste for competition.

To measure risk preferences, participants were given fifteen choices in a lottery with an expected price of one hundred dollars and a certain amount between fifty dollars to one hundred and twenty. Thereafter, we use these choices to define each candidate’s risk aversion coefficient supposing a CRRA utility function (Holt and Laury, 2002). Likewise, to measure time preferences, they caused separable discount rates by providing each candidate thirteen choices amid taking their earnings right away and getting an amount ranging from zero percent to twelve percent two weeks after. Using these choices they were able to calculate each participant’s two-week discount rate (Reuben, Sapienza, and Zingales, 2015). However, measuring trust and reciprocity consists of the participants playing variations of the noted trust game (Berg, Dickhaut, and McCabe, 1995). Some participants played the game twice, meaning that they took the game once as trustors and once as trustees. Using the portion of fifty dollars that candidates consign as trustors as a measure of their readiness to trust and the portion of the price received that they return as trustees as a measure of their readiness to reciprocate. Lastly, the participants were separated into groups of eight and they were playing a linear public game in order to measure their willingness to cooperate (Isaac, Walker, and Thomas, 1984).

In order to measure taste for competition, the study by Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) is used. Firstly, participants completed an additional task which included a tournament payment scheme and a piece-rate payment scheme. Consequently, they completed the task once again but this time under a payment scheme of their choice. This choice of payment scheme stands for their taste for competition.

Recent experiments proved that given the choice of whether to participate or not participate in tournaments, women shy away from competition in comparison with men who choose to compete. Gneezy, Leonard, and List (2008) examined the importance culture plays in defining gender differences in competitive behavior. They examined two dissimilar cultures, the Maasai tribe of Tanzania and the Khasi tribe in India. The former is patriarchal but the latter is matrilineal. They investigated that, in the patriarchal culture, women shy away from competition in comparison with men, meaning that they are less competitive than men, the result is found from studies using data from Western cultures. On the other hand, in the matrilineal culture, women are more competitive than men.

Another experiment done by Gneezy, Leonard, and List (2008) has to do with college-age men and women studying at co-educational universities. As it is proven, girls and boys react in a different ways to co-education, resulting in boys doing better than girls in single-sex surroundings (Brustaert, 1999). Additionally, psychologists claim that the gender feature of an individual’s behavior is set in operation by the gender of others with whom they cooperate. Therefore, to examine the role that single-sex and co-educational education play in determining competitive behavior and risk-taking (Booth, 2009).

Moreover, a main inference is that education can alter preferences in an important economic approach, specifically, that girls from single-sex schools will have not the same preferences for risk and competition as those from co-educational schools. It is examined by Brutsaert (1999) that girls have difficulties in preserving their gender identity in schools where boys are present than boys when girls are present. In co-educational schools, girls are more attracted to people of the opposite sex than they are in single-sex schools. This may lead them to abide by boys’ potential of the proper behavior of girls to avoid social rejection. Thus, competitive behavior and risk avoidance are observed as being a part of female gender identity while risk-seeking is a part of male gender identity, so studying in a co-educational school may lead girls to make less competitive and risky choices than boys (Booth, 2009).

According to Booth (2009), in September 2007, an experiment took place on the Colchester campus of the University of Essex. The experiment involved students from eight schools in the regions of Essex and Suffolk in the UK. In Suffolk, there are no single-sex schools, whereas in Essex the old single-sex grammar schools remain. 260 students attended the experiment from years 10 and 11 who were attending either single-sex or co-educational schools. Students from each school were randomly separated into groups which were of three types: all-girls, all-boys, and mixed. At the beginning of the experiment, students were told that they will complete some tasks, and one of these would be randomly chosen for payment at the end. More tasks contained students solving as many of the fifteen mazes as possible in five minutes. In advance of each round, students were informed of the nature of the task to perform and the payment for that round. Although there are five rounds, there will be discussed just two of the rounds as they are more important, rounds three and five. Competitive behavior was measured by how students’ choices between choosing for payment through the experiment or by piece rate in round three. However, in round five we look for risk on whether or not a student selected a real-stakes gamble for the payment instrument (Booth, 2009).

Round three contained the choice of a Piece Rate or a Tournament, where students were free to select either option 1 or 2. The payment depended on the option chosen, option 1 carried £0,50 for every correct maze solved, while option 2 carried £2 for every correct maze solved only if the student solved more mazes than anyone in their group. The experiment showed that girl’s surroundings play a significant role in explaining why she indicates not to compete. Looking at the choices made by girls from both single-sex and co-educational schools it is clear to see that that there are enormous differences in their behavior. Specifically, girls from single-sex schools were more probable to enter a competition than co-educational girls. It was notable that girls being in the all-girls group for only 20 minutes were influenced and there were more likely to enter the tournament. Moreover, comparing the behavior of girls with that of boys from single-sex and co-educational schools, it was clear that girls from single-sex schools acted like boys (Booth, 2009). These results were reliable with the gender identity theory and with the educational literature which proposes that there is more pressure for girls to preserve their gender identity in schools where boys are present than for boys when girls are present (Maccoby, 1998).

On the other hand, in round five, we found that girls are less likely than boys to choose a real-stakes gamble. Students were asked to choose between options 1 and 2, option 1 consisted to get £5 definitely and option 2 was of flipping a coin and receiving £11 if the coin came up heads or £2 if the coin came up tails. This round illustrates the pure risk aversion differences between girls and boys (Booth and Nolen, 2009b).

In summary, from the experimental analysis, it is established that the average female avoids competitive or risky behavior more than the average male. Also, girls from single-sex schools are as likely as boys to choose the real stakes gamble and to choose competitive behavior as boys. This indicates that gender differences in competitive behavior that have been studied in previous experiments might reflect social learning rather than inherent gender traits alone. Also, the experiment showed that women in gender-segregated groups will be more completive and less risk-averse than in mixed-sex groups (Booth, 2009).

In conclusion, this paper studies whether people who enjoy competition, as measured by the experiment, earn different labor market outcomes than their less competitive-seeking colleagues. It also examines the MBA graduates from a prestigious business schools, competitive people earn higher outcomes after graduation. Notably, differences in taste for competition account for a significant segment of the gender gap in earnings. Moreover, the experiments bargain gender differences in competitive behavior and risk-taking. These are clarifying the gender pay gaps. It is clear to see that the experiments can help for a better understanding of gender differences in outcomes. However, with the combination of the insights of each methodology, we can conclude that a small part of the gender pay gaps and glass ceiling may be owed to psychological differences between men and women.

References

1. Altonji, Joseph, Blank, Rebecca, 1999. Race and gender in the labor market. In: Ashenfelter, O., Card, D. (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3C. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 3143–3259.
2. Azmat, G. and Petrongolo, B. (2014). [online] Personal.lse.ac.uk. Available at: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/petrongo/Azmat_Petrongolo_April2014.pdf [Accessed 16 Jan. 2019].
3. Babcock, Linda, Laschever, Sara, 2003. Women Don’t Ask Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, and Oxford.
4. Berg, Joyce, John Dickhaut, and Kevin McCabe. 1995. “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History.” Games and Economic Behavior 10 (1): 122–42
5. Bertrand, Marianne. 2011. “New Perspectives on Gender.” In Handbook of Labor Economics, edited by David Card and Orley Ashenfelter, 4:1543–90. Elsevier B.V.
6. Booth AL, Nolen PJ. 2009b. Choosing to compete: How Different Are Girls and Boys? IZA DP No. 4027.
7. Booth, A. (2009). Gender and competition. Labour Economics, 16(6), pp.599-606.
8. Brutsaert H. 1999. Coeducation and gender identity formation: A comparative analysis of schools in Belgium. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(3); 343-353.
9. Buser, Thomas, Muriel Niederle, and H. Oosterbeek. 2014. “Gender, Taste for competition, and Career Choices.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (3): 1409–47.
10. Croson, R. and Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), pp.448-474.
11. Dohmen, Thomas, Falk, Armin, 2011. Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: productivity, preferences, and gender. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 556–590
12. Equilar. 2015. “200 Highest-Paid CEO Rankings.” Retrieved from http://www.equilar.com/nytimes200.
13. Gneezy U, Leonard KL, List JA. 2008. Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society. Forthcoming in Econometrica.
14. Goldsmith AH, Veum JR, Darity W Jr. 1997. The impact of psychological and human capital on wages. Economic Inquiry Oct 1997; 35 (4); 815-829.
15. Holt, Charles A, and Susan K Laury. 2002. “Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects.” American Economic Review 92 (5): 1644–1655.
16. Maccoby EE. 1998. The two sexes: Growing up apart, coming together. Cambridge Ma: Harvard University Press
17. Manning, A, Swaffield J. 2008. The gender gap in early-career wage growth. The Economic Journal 118; 983-1024.
18. Mueller G, Plug E. 2006. Estimating the effect of personality on male-female earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 60 (1); 3-22.
19. Niederle, Muriel, and Lise Vesterlund. 2007. “Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (3): 1067–1101.
20. Niederle, Muriel, and Lise Vesterlund. 2011. “Gender and Competition.” Annual Review of Economics 3 (1): 601– 30
21. Reuben, E., Sapienza, P. and Zingales, L. (2015). Taste for Competition and the Gender Gap Among Young Business Professionals. SSRN Electronic Journal.

Discrimination is an unfair distinction between people based on a group or other category to which they belong or are perceived to belong . Also, discrimination does not only revolve between men and women, but it includes the LGBTQ where they are also a victim of discrimination andor inequality in various sectors in the community. We can hear people such as the bystanders, in the churches, and even in their own families saying that they are ‘salot sa lipunan’ andor that they don’t fit in. In addition to that is the Person-with-Disability (PWD), in which they are being cast out by many people. Why do we need to discriminate against people in the first place? You, I and we are all equal regardless of gender. One is not better than the other; they must complement one another and try to see the strength of one. Gender discrimination is the discriminatory treatment of women. Women are mainly the victim of discrimination in different sectors of society. Being discriminated against felt like no one is rooting for you or do not belong to one’s group. Why do people tend to categorize men and women of what are the things they are suitable for and appropriate tasks and roles they’re in? Filipinos have that kind of practice and also the mindset where men are tasked to provide and protect the family, while women are in-charge to do the household chores and looking after their children. We often hear, take this course because it is suitable for you or there’s a lot of malefemale taking that. This course is for male-only and these are for females. Like for instance, taking up an engineering course, the military course is for males while taking nursing, education is good for females.

What have I discovered being a woman is that I don’t see any problem in regard to what they can do and what they can’t? There are a lot of people who define an individual based on their gender in which categorizes men from being dominant and strong, while women are passive and weak. According to Mr. Clifford Sonta looking at the bigger picture makes us unaware of the small things. It is not a competition of gender but a matter of complementation. Men and women have their own strengths and weaknesses, they have similarities and differences. I realize how those small things can affect the bigger things. All of us have our own capabilities, skills, talents, etc. Gender is not a matter of competition but rather complementation; it is how they try to communicate to one another based on their worldview to be able to access holism to pay for the sense of holism on how you appreciate things . I realize just that if we want to have a voice, firstly, we, women need to speak up and in order to do that men should give us a chance to voice out what we think about a certain situation, and also they need to listen and also consider it. I learned that to be able to empower women is by giving them a vital role to make an influence. Some men are good at fixing things, also some women too. Some women are good at budgeting likewise also in men. We have those similarities where both males and females are good at, and also have those differences where males are better than females and vice versa.

Creating a community that is responsive to the need of the time and adaptive to the change of the time is something my fellow Filipino citizen need to focus on, in view of the fact that there are numberless issues and problems that we need to be addressed. Gender inequality is gender or gender-primarily or prioritized. Gender equality is an essential human proper, and that is violated via way of means of intercourse discrimination. Responding about discriminating oneself in gender may affect a big impact on the community especially in women facing difficult problems. Gender equality isn’t most effective in essential human rights, however an essential basis for a peaceful, a success and sustainable future. Eliminating gender troubles method, a global whereon ladies and gentlemen, women and men all experience same rights, resources, possibilities, opportunities, and protection. Give every girl and boy a chance to survive and thrive. Violence against women isn’t cultural it is criminal. Equality cannot come eventually it is something we need to take action. ‘FE MALE’ advocacy aims wherein men and women are engaged and exposed to various activities such as team building. Also, women don’t need any permission from men to make a decision or say their opinions, thoughts, and ideas.

Bear in mind that there is a ‘male’ in every ‘female’, a ‘man’ from every ‘woman’, a ‘he’ in every ‘she’ and a ‘hero’ in every ‘heroine’. Give her an equal opportunity, and you will see the benefit with your own eyes. Move ahead of the stereotypical gender binaries. Look around, and there are lot more than masculinity and femininity. Building a society that gives fair treatment and equal opportunity to all. It is not a matter of job or race or status. Every individual deserves to be treated well and treated right. My advocacy is to promote fair and just treatment for both men and women and that have given equal opportunities. Where in the goal of this advocacy is to eliminate discrimination among men and women. For example, in my case when I was in my senior high school, I wanted to take an engineering course, but my relatives especially my unclestitos’ said to me, it doesn’t fit for me, and they think that I would fail or that I won’t succeed in it, but I’ll prove to them that I will, and I can. That no one can restrain and hinder me from taking the engineering course just because I am a female, who wanted to become a licensed professional engineer someday. I was reminded of Dr. Denis Mukwege, that according to him “Taking action means saying ‘no’ to indifference. If there is a war to be waged, is the war against the indifference which is eating away at our societies.”

Therefore, I conclude that “Gender Equality is a Human fight, not a Female fight” says Frieda Pinto. To be able to achieve Gender Equality requires the engagement of men and women, boy and girls, male and female it is everyone’s responsibility. Reshaping our own perception of how we view ourselves. To make an action is to eliminate discrimination is to make a move. It should start within us. Voicing out and stepping forward, to be seen and ask yourself If not me, who? If not now, when? You, I and we can make it happen if we are all together fighting for the elimination of gender discrimination. We should start making difference by changing, reshaping, and fighting for equality. If there’s one, we should know for certain it is that this has to be stopped. Time is up for silence. It is time that we all see gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals. We should stop defining each other by what we are not; start defining ourselves by who we are, we can be a lot freer. Labels aside, we are equal and we are all unique. We, Together for gender equality.

This research showed some major distinguishers between the differences of the genders brain. It’s obviously no secret when it comes to male and female brains, which each gender brains drives differently. Each gender appears to use different part of the brain to encode any memories. Moreover, they also have different way of react through any location, and behave differently in stressed situation. Both gender are equal in intelligent, but they tend to operate differently.

“Life is not a competition between men and women, it is a collaboration” by David Fernhead. In this research, it is reviewed of how the male brain function differently from a female brain. Not by which has better purpose than the other, but how perform equally well. On the other hand, male and female have different ability, strength, and weakness that operate through their brain. Therefore, this research may play a role in learning processes, and discover the different appearance of the gender brain.

At some point, there’s a great result of how gender has difference of brain, and how they operate differently. As research stated that men and women are different in many ways, which includes difference function of the brain. These differences include unusual behavior, changes of emotion, and different interaction of each gender. Although the brains of men and women are highly similar, they show dependable differences that have important suggestion for each gender. Somehow, research shown that “man and women have different fuel flavors running through their tanks” (Jantz, 2019). Which it reveal some of the major transformation between male and female brain. Within those major areas, it simply tells the different of how male and female activate their brain. Therefore, these are the major difference of the gender’s brain: processing, chemistry, structure, and activity.

It appears that men and women have different ways of how their brain operate, such as storing memories, recognizing faces, and make decisions. In addition each genders brain develop in different ways. For instance, “Men’s brain tend to be more lateralized” (THREE, 2018), which they operate more freely during specific task like speaking around ones environment. Women on the other hand, “tend to use their cerebral and hemispheres more equally” (Jantz, 2019). In addition, female are more advance on measures of sensory and thinking development, such as vision, memory and hearing. On the other hand, male eventually catch in many of these areas by out-perform female with such cognitive skills.

Furthermore, women, on the other hand, have more comfort in language skills, as they are known to be more communicative to men. In fact they’re temporal and frontal lobes are larger, which handles the sense of sound and emotion. With female having large frontal and temporal lobes, which makes them feel a whole variety of emotions and pain. In addition, women tend to express their pain through anxiety, but men express themselves physically. As with all gender differences, no person way of doing is better or worse.

According to research, “This profound brain-processing difference is probably one reason you may have noticed that girls tend to be more quickly transition between tasks than boys do. The gray-white matter difference may explain why, in adulthood, females are great multi-tuskers, while men excel in highly task-focused projects” (Natri, 2019). Not only males tend to be less inclined to sit still, but also females tend be more impulsive and aggressive. Moreover, studies shown that “to process information, males tend to use their left hemisphere of the brain while females are more capable at using both the hemisphere” (THREE, 2018). Which basically female are capable of controlling the motion, and able to perform any logic task more than male.

“Men tend to have larger inferior-parietal lobe that is believed to influence arithmetical ability than females. The areas of the brain that regulate math and geometry skills tend to be mature in boys four years earlier than in girls” (Term, 2019). On the other hand, male has great ability of learning mathematical ability, and obtain thinking skills on numbers. Also, women have larger hippocampus than man, a type of brain feature that makes women more efficient, compare to a painstaking man. However, men’s has the best mind of visualizing objects, and they are able to picture it in different angles.

“The adult human brain weighs on average about 3lb (1.5 kg) with a size of around 1130 cm3 in women and 1260 cm3 in men although there is substantial individual variation. Male brains are about 10% larger than female brains and weigh 11-12% more than that of a woman. Men’s heads are also about 2% bigger than women’s” (Zaidi, 2010).

Structural differences are one of the major points that related to the genders brain. Each part of their brain has different sizes, “male brains are about 10% larger than female brains and weigh 11-12% more than that of a woman. Men’s heads are also about 2% bigger than women’s. This is due to the larger physical stature of men” (Uddin, 2018). It simply review that men’s with all ages have larger brains than women, going along with their larger bodies. Nonetheless, research shown that female managed to have thicker cortices than men.

Within the gender of the brain, each of them has different hypothalamus, which is a small region of the brain. This region of the brain plays an important role in each of the gender brain. In this case, “Hypothalamus, where most of the basic functions of life are controlled, including hormonal activity, pituitary gland, which it also gender differences” (Zaidi, 2010). In other words, each gender has different ways of controlling their emotion, such as pleasure and rage. In addition, each gender hypothalamus has different ways to control their sleep, hunger, and body temperature. Whereas, this function of the brain makes male and female different from how they interact in certain location.

Furthermore, male and female both have different type of activity that they apply, or perform in any task. In other words “there are plenty of boys with excellent verbal skills, and girls with excellent visual-spatial ability” (THREE, 2018). Which it’s simply reveal the different ability that each gender posses. As research stated, “males scored significantly higher than females on personal self and self-satisfaction, but females scored higher than males on behavioral conduct, moral-ethical, and self-esteem” (Zaidi, 2010). Additionally, men’s of all ages tend to perform great task like mental rotation better than women. Which female on the other hand, tend to perform verbal task and identifying emotional expression from another person.

Indeed, men tend to have more ease in math, due to the fact of male having larger parietal lobe. On the other hand, parietal lobe involves with perception and sensory experience. In addition, it is the region where male controls math, geometry skills and visual observation. It’s divided in two regions, the part that manages sensations and perceptions and the part that manages sensory information, mostly with the graphic, and picturing imagination. Also, they are able to envision any creativity through different angles.

“Studies have showed both that areas of the brain associated with language, work harder in girls than in boys during language tasks. Also, that boys and girls rely on different parts of the brain when performing these tasks” (Zaidi, 2010). In other words, the brain of a female has great verbal skills language, while male has fewer skills. Moreover, Women think with white matter, which it consist connection with neurons. Within that connection, women’s brain tends to work faster than men.

Both genders have different ways of accessing different sections of the brain. Even when it comes setting goals, men rely on just one small area on the left side of the brain to focus on their goals. Except, women of all ages used areas in both sides of the brain. However, both gender have the same mindset when they focus on their goals. Whereas, there is more than one way for the brain of each gender arrives at the same result.

In conclusion, understanding gender differences of the brain open the door to greater understanding. Not only by telling the difference of how each genders brainwork, but also the way they process it. It also helps out teachers as a way to easily cooperate with boys and girls, because we all have different brain function. In addition, “life is not a competition between men and women, it is a collaboration”, David Fernhead. In other ways, it helps each gender cooperate in ways to work their brain. Therefore, these are the major areas of the different gender’brain: processing, chemistry, structure, and activity.

Definition: Moral development the centres around the rise, change, and comprehension of profound quality from childhood to adulthood. This quality creates over a lifetime which is impacted by a person’s encounters when they face moral issues. Thus, morality in the short term is it concerns an individual’s growing sense of a particular person of wrong and right.

Gender differences: The basic meaning for this is the difference between any two genders. It is also defined as the biological differences between genders. The differences due to psychology, personality, and many other reasons between two genders leads to this.

Gender difference

There are a lot of reasons due to which gender difference occurs. Moral development is one of the reason for this. Females were more compatible in the moral stage than male, whereas male were more compatible in moral orientation. There are many psychologist and experts who gave different theories regarding moral development. Some of them are as follows :

Lawrence Kohlberg:

According to his theory, there are three levels of moral development.

Pre-Conventional Morality :

At the pre-conventional level that is around 9 years old, at that age, one cannot have his moral code. In Fact it is developed by the standards of adults.There are also two stages of this morality.

• STAGE 1: obedience and punishment orientation
• STAGE 2: individualism and exchange

Conventional Morality :

At this level of morality, when we became adults, we began to internalize the moral standards of role models. Here, authority is not questioned and reasoning is based on the norms to which the person belongs. There are also two stages of this morality.

• STAGE 3: good interpersonal relationships
• STAGE 4: maintaining the social order

Post conventional Morality :

At this level of morality , that is to say most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical think for themselves. There are also two stages for this morality.

• STAGE 5: social contract and individual rights
• STAGE 6: universal principles

So these is the three levels of morality according to theory of Lawrence Kohlberg. These levels of kohlberg are only for individuals and not for others, and for that many psychologists and experts argue that this theory of moral development is gender biased.

Carol Gilligans theory

Gilligan in her research found that women placed a stronger emphasis on caring in moral decision making. Her theory began to question Kohlberg’s assumption that grounded his theory. Gilligan thinks that there is a gender bias in kohlberg’s theory. In this, she has support of Holstein who proved that males are morally developed than females. Now based on this gilligan also made a theory of feminine morality. According to gilligan, the male voices represent separation and responsibility for oneself, whereas female voices represent connection and responsibility for others. On basis of that, gilligan identified three stages of moral development

• LEVEL 1: Self-oriented

The level itself said that focus is on the needs of oneself. So the level 2 is all about the recognition of the conflict between one’s own needs and the needs of others.

• LEVEL 2: other-oriented

Here the topic said that focus is on the needs of others. Here the self adopts the traditional conception of feminine goodness, the maternal morality of self sacrifice, whereby the good is equated with caring of others.

• LEVEL 3: Universal oriented

The focus of this level is on the universal obligation of caring. Here, care is a self chosen that criticizes exploitation, violence, and neglect and demands active response to suffering. Caring for oneself and others is seen as intertwined because the self and others are recognized as interdependent.

Also according to her theory of moral development, changes occur due to changes in self and not by critical thinking. Carol gilligan’s also explains briefly about kohlberg’s post conventional theory. She proves his theory wrong saying that he only focuses from men’s point of view.

According to her, post conventional mentality is about two types of thinking. Care based morality (women’s thinking) and justice based morality (men’s thinking).

In a Justice-based perspective, the solution of the problem is viewed as a dispute between two individual groups. So, one of them can have the properly. Either moles or the porcupine will get the place in the burrow. Hence the solution to the dilemma, is not a resolution of the dispute, it is a decision or judgement.

In a Care-based perspective, the approach differs. The problem is viewed as a difficult situation faced by both the genders together, rather than a fight between both of them. Hence the solution is sought in a way around the problem or to remove the problem . The solution looks compromising but not damaging. The relationship will still be the same, after the solution.

Gender difference in moral orientation

For quite a long time, scholars, students of history, and sociology scientists have zeroed in on the contrasts among people, regularly entering their examinations with the verifiable suspicion that distinctions exist, and afterward endeavoring to clarify these distinctions with episodic and additionally observational ‘proof.’ Psychological hypothesis and exploration on scholarly and moral advancement have been no special case. At the point when sex contrasts in ethical quality are affirmed, such cases are often connected with sexual orientation contrasts in thinking. Verifiably, affirmations of sex contrasts have burdened ladies in contrast with men, describing their ethical reasoning and thinking as less created. In this section, the creators survey the hypothetical cases and the observational help for sexual orientation contrasts in good and scholarly turn of events. They center around two of the frequently refered to formative speculations that affirm sex contrasts in moral direction and methods of knowing/epistemology. They follow the recorded setting from which these speculations were created and advocated. The creators at that point portray and evaluate the hypothetical cases made by sexual orientation scholars and look at the proof supporting their cases. They finish up with a conversation of ongoing examination in the zone of sexual orientation and good turn of events and the effect of this work on the field.

Individual differences in moral development

Singular contrasts in moral advancement are analyzed, with a specific accentuation on sex and sex contrasts This assessment incorporates a broad survey of the experimental and hypothetical writing in brain research on profound quality Based on this audit, it is reasoned that sex contrasts happen with less recurrence and with a less deliberate preferring of guys than is anticipated by a few hypotheses of good improvement furthermore, an examination is introduced which thinks about the connection of sex, sex, and character to profound quality Two age companion tests, school sophomores (n= 169) and grown-ups (n= 151), were evaluated with the ethical judgment size of the cognitive‐developmental model (Kohlberg, 1984) and a recently evolved moral character layout of the personological model. Members likewise finished the CPI and MMPI character inventories Results of the investigation demonstrate (1) the nonappearance of sex contrasts for either model, (2) the presence of sex contrasts preferring manly people for the cognitive‐developmental yet not personological model, and (3) that singular contrasts in moral improvement equal individual contrasts in character advancement The ramifications of these discoveries are talked about with respect to Gilligan’s (1982) guarantee that people vary in their ethical directions Finally, it is contended that an individual distinction approach, especially one that underscores character, would demonstrate valuable for future exploration on moral turn of events.

Gender differences in moral development

According to some psychologist and research experts, there are also gender difference in moral judgements and moral motivation that is part of moral development.

In moral judgments

According to new research by different psychologists, gender difference in moral decisions is caused by stronger emotional aversion to harmful action among women; the study found no evidence for gender differences in the rational evaluation of the outcomes of harmful actions. Also research says that women respond negatively and emotionally to their personal cause or harm, whereas men don’t respond emotionally for their personal cause.

In moral motivation

Moral sex contrasts have been talked about regarding Kohlbergian stages and substance of directions and taken to relate to general stable male and female highlights. The current investigation rather centers around moral inspiration and clarifies contrasts as far as job desires. We surveyed moral inspiration in 203 young people by a recently evolved rating system dependent on members’ open-finished reactions to theoretical good clashes and approved this estimation by two self-reports and one investigation. We utilized free measures for the substance of sexual orientation generalizations and sex distinguishing proof. Male generalizations include generally negative and ethically ominous attributes, female generalizations generally certain and ethically great qualities. A barely noteworthy relationship is found between high sex distinguishing proof and low good inspiration in young men, not in young ladies. We take sexual orientation contrasts in moral inspiration to result from a cooperation between exclusively varying degrees of sex distinguishing proof and substance of socially shared sex generalizations.

Gender differences in moral reasoning

A few analysts have suggested that ladies favor care thinking, which thinks about issues of need and penance, and men incline toward equity thinking, which thinks about issues of reasonableness and rights. Nonetheless, contrasts in way to deal with moral thinking might be because of the various kinds of quandaries ladies and men experience as opposed to contrasts in the manners people approach moral issues. The current examination utilized child rearing situations to decide if limitation of area would diminish sex contrasts in moral thinking direction. Predicaments were introduced or evoked and contrasted in trouble, significance, and individual importance to research the connection between situational qualities and care or equity thinking. Ladies and men didn’t contrast in their utilization of care or equity thinking when the space was confined, supporting the end that distinctions in moral thinking direction result from contrasts in current life circumstances instead of from stable sexual orientation qualities.

Male versus female morality

Many researchers said that male have less moral standards compared to females.

One of the most eminent danger factors for moral laxity is one that the entirety of the above guilty parties share: Being a man. Various investigations exhibit that men have settled for what is most convenient than ladies, in any event in serious settings. For instance, men are more probable than ladies to limit the results of good unfortunate behavior, to receive morally faulty strategies in vital undertakings, and to participate in more noteworthy misleading. This example is especially articulated in fields in which achievement has (in any event truly) been seen as an indication of male energy and skill, and where misfortune connotes shortcoming, feebleness, or weakness (e.g., a business arrangement or a chess coordinate). At the point when men must utilize methodology or sly to demonstrate or protect their manliness, they are eager to bargain moral norms to attest predominance. The reason for this is that men defend their masculinity. These researchers recommend that losing a ‘fight,’ especially in settings that are exceptionally serious and generally male situated, presents a danger to manly competency. Evidently masculinity is moderately delicate and problematic, and when it is tested, men will in general turn out to be more forceful and guarded. So a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. To guarantee triumph, men will moral standards if doing so implies winning.

Men for the most part set settle for the status quo than ladies, as they were altogether more averse to suggest exposure of clashing goals in the main situation, and to censure a lie in the second. Remarkably, across the two examinations men modified their moral assessments relying on their viewpoint. In the primary situation, men in the merchant job were unquestionably bound to suggest that the purchaser’s actual goals be uncovered than men in the purchaser job. In the subsequent situation, men were unmistakably all the more ready to legitimize a falsehood when making decisions about their own activities than those of another. Thus due to this type of activities only for proving their masculinity, man loses their moral standards and moral values. Men for the most part settle for the status quo than ladies, as they were altogether more averse to suggest exposure of clashing goals in the main situation, and to censure a lie in the second. Remarkably, across the two examinations men modified their moral assessments relying on their viewpoint. In the primary situation, men in the merchant job were unquestionably bound to suggest that the purchaser’s actual goals be uncovered than men in the purchaser job. In the subsequent situation, men were unmistakably all the more ready to legitimize a falsehood when making decisions about their own activities than those of another.

Thus, this shows that men have lower moral values than women.

Conclusion

From all the theories and articles regarding gender difference in moral development, it concludes that both genders have their own moral values, moral orientation and moral standards. But the difference between them occurs due to the theory proposed by Lawrence kohlberg and in oppose of that theory, Carol gilligan represents her theory.

Both theories have their point of view regarding gender difference in moral development. Also from the last topic, it concludes and also shows that females have higher moral values than males.

References

1. When Men Are Less Moral Than Women 2012C. MayScientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-men-are-less-moral-than-woman/#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20studies%20demonstrate,to%20engage%20in%20greater%20deceit.
2. Engineering Ethics – GilliganâÂÂs Theory – Tutorialspoint https://www.tutorialspoint.com/engineering_ethics/engineering_ethics_gilligans_theory.htm
3. Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development 2020Wikipedia contributorsWikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
4. Individual differences in moral development: the relation of sex, gender, and personality to morality P.D. LiftonPubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4045680/#:~:text=Individual%20differences%20in%20moral%20development%20are%20examined%2C%20with%20a%20particular,on%20sex%20and%20gender%20differences.&text=Based%20on%20this%20review%2C%20it,several%20theories%20of%20moral%20development.
5. Gender-related differences in moral judgments M FumagalliPubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19727878/

Many people today believe that all masculinity is toxic. Toxic masculinity is almost always represented in males and extremely rarely in females within books, films and plays. Not all masculinity is toxic, and it can be shown in both the play, ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, and the film, ‘Gran Torino’.

How does behaviour become toxic?

Both toxic and non-toxic masculinity can be seen in the play ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, with toxic masculinity being represented by Stanley Kowalski, and non-toxic being represented by Mitch. Stanley represents the alpha male, exuding strength, masculinity, toughness, brutishness, brashness and rudeness, which is now recognised as toxic.

His traits of toxic masculinity can first be seen at the beginning of the play in scene one, act one, where Stanley yells “Hey there Stella, baby!”. This shows the reader that Stanley is the loud, dominant one in the relationship. Stanley also calls his wife Stella, “the little woman” (page 14). Later he says to Stella “Since when do you give me orders?”. Stella says in reply “Are you going to stay here and insult her (Blanche)?” Stanley says “You’re damn tootin I’m going to stay here” (page 19). He deems himself to have the right to demean, harass and intimidate women, in particular Blanche and Stella and no-one is going to prevent him from his ‘right’ to do so.

Compare this to Mitch, who also in scene one, says “Not at my place. My mother’s still sick”, when asked whether they could play poker at his house that night. Instead of being rude and inconsiderate of his mother and hosting poker at his house that night, Mitch represents a different type of masculinity, which is kinder, caring and more thoughtful of others.

In Gran Torino, Walt Kowalski exhibits many of the elements of toxic masculinity that Stanley does. He’s overtly racist, portrays toughness to gain power over others, can be extremely violent and verbally abusive. He does, like Stanley, occasionally display a kinder and more thoughtful behaviour, occurring when they have greater understanding of an issue which they have previously reacted to poorly.

Is it possible to change?

This brings us to the realisation of courses, that it is possible for masculinity to be admirable, such as displaying courage, leadership, and discarding the traits of violence and sexism (ABC News 5/2/2019)

In ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, Mitch is a prime example of these traits of admirable masculinity, as he is much more considerate and aware of others when compared to Stanley. Examples of Mitch’s ‘softer’ side, and the ability to open up and talk about his emotions can be seen in Act one, Scene three, when Blanche and Mitch finally meet, and where mitch is showing the inscription on his lighter, which says “And if god choose, I shall but love thee better – after death!” and then when Blanche asks about the story behind the quote, he says “She knew she was dying when she gave me this. A vey strange girl, very sweet – very!” (Page 33). By saying this it shows the reader that he can be open about his feelings on a sensitive topic.

In ‘Gran Torino’, Thao, while much different from Mitch, still holds many traits of admirable and masculinity. Thao started out as insecure and timid, but began to become more confident, persistent and more of a leader. These traits became more and more refined once Thao began to work for Walt, who ordered him around, giving him jobs to do such as fix the house across the road and gardening.

The Yellow Wallpaper​ presents a unique format that can be interpreted in many ways. Gilman adds purpose to her writing by bringing awareness to overlooked topics and issues. One way the author does this is through her descriptive writing style. ​The Yellow Wallpaper seamlessly depicts the concepts of the Id, Ego, and Lacanian psychosis.

The narrator’s constant focus on writing and the yellow wallpaper portrays the exposure and taking over of her ID. It is evident that there is a disturbance “in the unconscious of the narrator. The id has been ruthlessly repressed; still, it is trying to” become noticed (Gul 2). The narrator is experiencing “some ripples in her unconscious in which she is afraid to openly confront. Due to this she wants to write about it and feels good when she does so. However, when this emotional and intellectual source of venting is denied she mentally deteriorates quickly. Throughout the story, she says “I think sometimes that if I were only well enough to write a little it would relieve the press of ideas and rest me” (Gilman 846). The narrator’s wish to write and be able to freely express her emotions shows her desire to satisfy her basic needs.

Through John’s restrictive control over the narrator, she is forced to internally retaliate and hide what she believes will truly help her. The narrator is bound by the repressive gender roles and oppression (superego), but cannot do anything about it, she retaliates where she can through her psyche’s repressed feelings/irritation. She is fighting an internal battle and repressing her id,” the superego is what is morally required of her to please her husband and nurse her baby, but some aspect of her Id stops her from doing so. It is because of this tug of war between the id, ego, and superego that she is inert.”(Gul 2). She is tormented by the never-ending struggle of maintaining balance; becoming unstable she starts seeing a pattern in the wallpaper of her room. Her obsession with these patterns reveals that she is becoming more consumed by her repressed emotions. Finally feeling as though she escaped what helped her captive, the narrator shouts:​ ​“ I’ve got out at last,” “ In spite of you and Jane! And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back!” (Gilman 855). Using her name in the third person shows her subconscious resentment towards her roles as wife and mother. The narrator is experiencing a constant struggle between understanding herself and feeling free in an environment so controlled. As a result of this, she dissociates from her roles as mother, wife, and patient and in a sense loses her identity to escape what she felt held her captive.

The Lacanian theory elucidates to the narrator’s attempt to constitute herself through the yellow wallpaper and her journal. Her crawling around the entire room on all fours “testifies to the fact that she is now a case of psychoses. “Wallpaper” according to a critic, Hume, represents her “repressed other or suppressed self”. It is the desire that haunts her socially confirming herself. The desire for an uncanny and forbidden self; the unreadable and lawless” (Gul 3). Her severed disconnection with reality and how she showed that the constant restraints and isolation led to her instability. The narrator’s inability to differentiate between fantasy and reality in the context of self-constitution portrays the effect of the “mirror stage”. She is reverting back to her mirror stage by reverting back to an infant-like state. She is constantly exploring the nature of reality – tactile and visual stimulation hence her obsession with the patterns of the wallpaper.

By reverting back to the “mirror stage” she is allowing herself to shed her current identity (that of an oppressed woman of mental instability) and enter a stage of I that permits a freer existence. Through the understanding of the Id, ego, and Lacanian psychosis the reader can better understand the short story ​The Yellow Wallpaper. ​Though the Yellow Wallpaper is often looked at though in a feminist perspective, it has proved to have a psychoanalytical background as well.

Its character development helped enhance its meaning and vividly describe the character’s mentality throughout treatment. Gilman’s short story will continue to intrigue and touch many readers for centuries to come.

Work Cited

1. Gilman, Charlotte P. ‘The Yellow Wallpaper.’ The Norton Anthology of English Literature, edited by Robert S. Levine, ninth Edition, vol. Volume C: 1865-1914, W.W. Norton & Company, 2017, p. 844-855
2. Gul, Sani. PSYCHOANALYTICAL READING OF THE YELLOW WALLPAPER, University of Swabi, Nov. 2013, ​www.vfast.org/journals/index.php/VTESS/article/view/133/167. http://www.vfast.org/journals/index.php/VTESS/article/view/133/167

Introduction

When I began working in the healthcare sector, gender differences in well-being at work (WAW) were not something I had thought of as an issue. However, as my career progressed, I became attuned to certain gender-specific challenges my female peers faced. Historically, women are more thought to face occupational barriers than men (Swanson, Daniels, & Tokar, 1996), so it would be natural to assume that WAW is mostly an issue for women. This paper aims to examine whether this statement is true, by describing and critically evaluating the theory and research of four key topics within WAW literature; stress, emotions, work-life balance, and career barriers.

Work-related stress

From a psychological perspective, work-related stress is defined as “a state, which is accompanied, by physical, psychological or social complaints or dysfunctions, which results from individuals feeling unable to bridge a gap with the requirements or expectations placed upon them” (Framework Agreement for Work-Related Stress, 2004). Stress can arise from the interaction between the design and management of work, within the organizational context and can have a negative impact on an employee’s psychological or physical well-being (Cox and Griffiths, 1995). Two well-known theories of workplace stress predict reduced well-being in workers exposed to adverse working conditions: the demand control support (DCS) model (Karasek et al, 1998), and the effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model (Siegrist, 1996).

DCS states job demands, job control, and worksite social integration are crucial aspects in the development of health problems. Jobs characterized by high demands, low control, and low social support are considered to increase stress. ERI suggests that work-related benefits depend upon a reciprocal relationship between efforts and rewards at work. Specifically, the model works imply that high effort with low reward elevates stress. Both these models have been criticized for being over-simplistic and not accounting for other work-related factors related to well-being (Bakker & Demmerouti, 2007).

The job-demands-resources (JDR) model (Bakker et al. 2003) aims to address these issues by suggesting that job resources may buffer the impact of job demands on stress. JDR is currently accepted as the leading model (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014) with a substantial evidence base (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), although much of the evidence relates to cardiovascular outcomes rather than WAW (Vegchel et al. 2005).

Martocchio and O’Leary (1989) suggest there are few differences between the number of occupational stress men and women experience. However, there is a consensus that males and females differ in their management of stressful encounters (Bellman et al. 2003). For example, women tend to appraise stressors as being more distressing than men (Eaton & Bradley, 2008). Day and Livingstone (2003) identified gender differences in perceived levels of stress and the use of social support as a coping mechanism. This is supported by Watson, Goh, and Sawng (2011) who found that stress is induced in females, as they directly perceive the threatening situation. For men on the other hand, stress results from an assessment of their resources for handling the situation at hand, thus stress in men increases as resources for managing the event are reduced. Additionally, the findings imply that men and women source stress differently within the stress and coping process. Hereby, JDR’s inability to account for gender differences when appraising stressful situations limits the model’s robustness.

The role of emotions in the workplace

According to Matthews (2004), work and emotions are reciprocally linked. Work has a major impact on social status, self-esteem, income, and well-being; whereas emotions determine work behavior, impacting productivity, satisfaction, well-being, and social climate. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1962) refers to an individual’s attempts to reduce discomfort (dissonance) caused by conflicting behaviors and attitudes. Employees might simulate their behavior to suit the organization through surface acting (simulating emotions not actually felt) or deep acting (suppressing their private feelings; Hochschild, 2003). Surface acting is associated with negative outcomes, such as reduced job satisfaction (Seaton et al. 2018) and emotional exhaustion (Ozcelik, 2013), whereas deep acting is not. (Grandey, 2003).

Men and women have been shown to use different styles of surface acting (Mann, 2007). Women tend to express their emotions more freely, whilst men generally suppress emotional expression (Simpson & Stroh, 2004). Kenworthy et al. (2014) found a positive relationship between the percentage of women in the study and levels of emotional dissonance and emotional exhaustion, suggesting repeated emotional dissonance is likely to have stronger adverse effects for women than for men. For women, both the expression of unfelt emotions and the suppression of felt emotions are incongruent with their general expectations. Men only experience dissonance through the expression of unfelt emotions, as the suppression of emotions is a well-practiced behavior. Another possible interpretation of these findings could be that the samples are depicting more female-dominated jobs rather than simply the gender makeup of the samples. Future work needs to identify whether the relationship between emotional dissonance and burnout is related to the type of job, rather than gender, and should also compare the differential associations between surface acting versus deep acting and burnout components.

Organizations face the challenge of ensuring that emotional labor is safe in terms of its possible effects on well-being, whilst enabling the employer to perform emotional labor in a way that is effective for the organization. OPs must take into account gender differences in emotional labor when advising both employees and employers on how these goals can best be met. This may include examining staff to ensure person-job fit to minimize acting required, paying careful attention to the design of emotional labor jobs, and training people to do emotional labor.

Emotional Intelligence (EI) reflects individual differences in identifying and managing emotions in self and others (Pekkar et al. 2018). The concept is popular in work settings due to the belief that long-term training can result in changes in ingrained habits of thought, feeling, and behavior (Cherniss et al. 2010), which will ultimately benefit the individual and the organization. Many researchers agree on two main models of EI: (a) the ‘‘ability model”, measuring maximal performance (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000), and (b) the ‘‘trait model”, measuring typical performance (Petrides & Furnham, 2001). Higher levels of EI are associated with greater subjective well-being (Schutte & Malouff, 2011), better mental health (Martins, Ramalho, & Marin, 2010), better work performance (O’Boyle et al. 2011), a greater sense of control and social support at work (Houghton et al. 2012).

Gender differences vary depending on how EI is assessed. On the performance-based test MSCEIT (Mayer et al. 2002), women consistently outperform men (Brackett et al. 2006). On self-report measures, sex differences in global trait EI are generally absent (Daley, Burnside, & Hammond-Rowley, 2009), however, women score higher on interpersonal facets (e.g. empathizing with others), and men have higher scores on intrapersonal components (e.g. emotional self-control; Petrides, 2009). This is consistent with research showing that males tend to be more agentic and females more communal (Bakan, 1966). Agentic behavior is associated with “masculine” qualities such as being independent and task-focused, whereas communal behavior is associated with “feminine” qualities such as being relational and socially focused (Frame et al. 2010). EI scales conceptualized as interpersonal may be very distinct from EI scales that are more intrapersonal. Whilst Trait EI has shown incremental validity over the Big Five personality traits (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007), ability EI has been criticized on conceptual and psychometric grounds (Brody, 2004). Thus, OP still faces the conundrum of what to include in the EI measure.

Although recent research suggests EI can promote WAW, only three studies advocate the use of EI training to improve WAW (Slaski & Cartwright, 2003; Groves et al. 2008; Kirk et al. 2011). Furthermore, most EI training is based on personality trait models, which are less changeable than other facets of EI (McEnrue et al. 2006). OPs face the challenge of addressing organizations’ demands of implementing EI training against the lack of evidence-based support.

Work-life conflict

Work–life conflict (WLC) refers to an incompatibility between an individual’s work pressures and life pressures (Thomas & Ganster, 1995). Higher WLC is associated with higher turnover intentions and higher job dissatisfaction (Allen, 2001). Deviations from traditional gender roles suggest that both genders experience WLC (Perales & Baxter & Tai, 2015). Whilst women report significant WLC due to cultural norms and gender biases in the workplace (Rehman & Roomi, 2012), society’s expectations for men to act as financial providers for their families cause men to work longer hours to meet their financial obligations (Evans et al. 2013). Michel et al. (2011) imply that individuals with a high internal locus of control (who believe success depends on their own hard work) effectively balance their work and family demands and have lower levels of psychological distress, compared to individuals with a high external locus of control (who believe externalities are responsible for their success).

Evidence suggests that women experience lower levels of internal control than men because many work skills are male-stereotyped and make women feel less confident in themselves and their abilities (Maes, Leroy, & Sels, 2014). Karkoulin et al. (2016) examined gender differences in the interaction between WLB and perceived stress among workers in the Lebanese banking sector using three psychometrically robust scales (Fisher et al. 2001; Spector, 1988; Cohen, 1983). The findings support literature showing that job control is more significantly associated with a decrease in WLC among employed women than among employed men (Grönlund, 2007). These findings are corroborated by a sample of US employees (Hwang et al. 2017). This study also found WLC to mediate between DCS variables and job satisfaction, implying that WLC mediates the relationship between work environments and employees’ WAW. However, the coefficient of reliability regarding job demands was poor and the study did not account for several family domain variables, therefore this study cannot fully explain the relationship between the DCS model variables and job satisfaction across gender. Future research should seek to verify the findings on a larger and more diverse set of employees and account for the impact of both work and family domain variables on job satisfaction across gender.

Previous studies on the gender difference in the association between the DCS model variables and employees’ WAW (Vermeulen & Mustard, 2000) are mixed. Many studies have shown that there is no gender difference in the impact of the DCS variables on employees’ WAW (Häusser et al. 2010; Van der Doef & Maes, 1999), specifically in relation to the relationship between work characteristics and psychological distress (Pugliesi, 1995) and in the association between work-based support and job satisfaction (Ng & Sorensen, 2008).

The quality of work is as important as quantity, as captured by the JDC model. Survey data from 800 Swedish employees (Gronlund, 2007) show women in jobs with high demands and high control do not experience more work-to-family conflict than men, even when working the same hours. One explanation for this is, for males, high-strain jobs are spread over a large spectrum of jobs, and women are more concentrated in education, healthcare, and service positions. Sweden is also considered a gender-egalitarian country, where both men and women are equally encouraged to engage in work and family roles. In countries low on gender equality, the traditional gender model prevails (McDaniel, 2008). A meta-analysis of work populations in 22 European countries found that substantial part-time work is more conducive to satisfaction with WLB in more gender-egalitarian countries than in countries with low gender equality (Beham et al. 2018), thus confirming the impact of society on gender differences in WAW.

Work-life balance (WLB) policies intend to bring more gender equality into the workplace for women (Kottke & Agars, 2005) via family-friendly work schedules (Nilsen, 2012) and flexible work arrangements (Drew & Murtagh, 2005). However, WLB policies are attached to traditional gender stigmas towards females (Hochschild, 2003) and consequently cause distress for professional women (Slaughter, 2012). As a result, both females (Clutterbuck, 2004) and males (Beauregard & Henry, 2009) avoid taking advantage of WLB policies in fear of it hindering career advancement.

Flexible working and teleworking are intended as gender-neutral options for employees to have control over when they work or where they work (Allen et al. 2013; Kelly et al. 2011). Evidence suggests flexible working can help women stay in employment, and are less likely to reduce working hours, after the birth of their first child (Chung, 2018). This supports previous literature that indicates having control over where and when an employee works can relieve WFC for females (Shore et al. 2011; Kelly et al. 2014; Hill et al. 2010). However, others argue that flexitime and telework have little or no impact on workers’ WFC (Allen et al. 2013) or that they can potentially increase WFC (Golden et al. 2006). One reason behind this is that flexitime and teleworking may allow workers to remain to maintain their working hours. This is in contrast to part-time work, where the reduction in working hours reduces the likelihood that work will interfere with family demands. Hofacker and Konig (2013), found that flexible work leads to a decrease in WFC for women but an increase in WFC for men. Sav et al. (2013) indicate that men’s perception of work as an obligation and a way of supporting their families influences their experience, which dilutes the negative effect of WFC.

The challenge remains to normalize flexible working options as an option regardless of gender. Whereas most organizations handle requests for flexible work subjectively and at the supervisor level, it would be beneficial for organizations to define the parameters of flexible work in advance and for decisions to be made regardless of employee gender, parental status, or rationale for the request. Thus, OP’s are tasked with implementing culture changes within workplace settings that eliminate gender stigmas attached to WLB policies and improve organizational success and WAW among all employees regardless of gender (Beauregard & Henry, 2009).

Career opportunities and the gender pay gap

Despite specific legislation introduced in countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and in the European Union, recent show that women in these countries continue to be paid considerably less than men (Símon, 2012). The differences in the wages earned by female workers when compared to male workers are measured by the gender pay gap (GPG). Amado et al. (2018) developed an enhanced method to measure and decompose GPG among 15,712 men and 17,175 women working as business and administration associate professionals in the finance and insurance industry in 20 countries. The results reveal that the existence of GPG in all countries, although the gap varies considerably between countries. There is a need for more meta-analysis studies to summarise the existing literature and to help understand the determinants of GPG.

The ‘role congruity theory’ (Eagly & Karau, 2002) suggests gender-role perceptions may influence female occupational aspirations by limiting the kinds of jobs and roles that both women and men see as “female appropriate.” As mentioned earlier, scholars define these two categories as “agentic” and “communal” (Frame et al. 2010). Perceived career barriers can also influence career choice (Watts et al. 2015). Numerous studies have provided evidence that gender is a significant variable for understanding differences in career development. For example, research on career self-efficacy (Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007), career identity salience (Lobel & Clair, 1992), career advancement prospects (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1993), and career success (salary and managerial level; Melamed, 1995) has often focused on gender differences.

According to the ERI model, gender differences in career opportunities can be explained in terms of the level of effort an employee exerts. Effort can be measured in terms of work engagement (WE). If females are exerting the same, or higher levels of effort than males, and are not being justly rewarded, this should have a negative effect on females’ WAW. There is relatively little research about gender differences in relation to WE. Camgoz et al. (2016) found no gender differences in the mediating role of work engagement. Similarly, Cenkci and Özçelik (2015) found gender did not moderate the relationship between leadership style and employees’ work engagement. Conversely, Suan and Nasurdin (2016) found that the positive effect of supervisor support on work engagement is stronger for male than female employees. Literature on work engagement and gender is mixed and sparse, thus future studies should investigate the role of work engagement in relation to gender differences in WAW.

By critically reviewing current models and theories within the WAW literature, this paper examines the extent to which gender differences in relation to WAW exist. The paper shows how workplace stress, emotions, and work-life balance can be conceptualized by evidence-based models, whilst highlighting the drawbacks of these models. Furthermore, the paper has acknowledged challenges related to the management of WAW and highlighted examples of the way OP’s can be utilized to enhance workplace wellbeing. WAW is a broad topic that encompasses a range of phenomena, yet with ever-changing work environments and constant remodeling of gender roles, it is more important than ever for new research to be undertaken to understand the effects of gender on WAW. As I continue in the field of healthcare, I look forward to advancements in theory and practice that will benefit employees regardless of their gender.