Gender equity, harassment and preventions
A couple of days ago, I thought that I hit on a strategy to prevent harassment and systemic bigotry (essentially) against women, especially those in the workplace...and perhaps, beyond. It seemed that everywhere one turned, women were subjected to abuse. Even Dustin Hoffman, so admired by many, has been scooped up in these revelations.
In my hubris (because that is what it was), I identified 3 areas for consideration including political, economic and social systems. I believed, possible only in the intellectually blind, that through quotas, encouragement and those arguments acknowledging the qualifications of women for leadership positions, the scourge could be erased.
Wrong.
Stupid me.
My partner asked...what happened to common decency, aka, civility?
I guess one would need to revisit Jane Austin to find such a period?
My research was faulty.
Political
In many countries, women in legislative functions are a relatively recent phenomenon. (1907-Finland;1919-UK; 1922-Sweden; 1963-Singapore; 1973-Switzerland). the problem is that merely representing women...or having female elected reps is not enough, especially if an election comes without executive authority/power.
So, if we consider the Nordic countries, it was not until the 1970's that women held even 20% of seats in government. Did this represent a critical mass? In 2004, in Sweden could count 45% of elected reps being female. Or did that constitute a critical mass? By 2005, 50% of cabinet positions held in that country were held by women.
So, might one say that a longer history of women in elected positions would lead to greater social equity (and therefore less harassment)?
Evidently not.
There is some evidence to suggest, in fact, that as women secure positions of authority, a kind of placid contentment sinks in and society moves onto to other issues.
So, without evidence, we might conclude that societies with women with a shorter history of involvement in executive positions are more likely to aggressively assure themselves that women are to be treated with respect owed as human beings.
Maybe.
What has been found is that in those countries where women figure prominently in the legislature, women also figure prominently on corporate boards.
Pay Equity
What one earns is typically a badge denoting social status within and outside of organizations. However, while the principle of equal pay for equal work has been generally endorsed across western societies, there remains a persistent gender pay gap. Even in a highly regulated labour market such as Australia, the gap between men and women is over 10%. In the US, the least regulated of the OECD countries, the gender pay gap is a whopping 25%-30%.
So, in this case, at least , and as far as women nominated to corporate boards, those countries with a smaller gender pay equity gap, women are more likely nominated and appointed to corporate boards.
What's next?
