According to the World Economic Forum, the gender pay gap will be fully closed within the next 118 years if the evolution continues at the same rate. 118 years. This number can be translated into the simple fact that the two following generations of women will keep on being paid less than their male colleagues.
Gender parity guarantees equal opportunities and equal representation across sectors for all genders. This means 50% of men and 50% women in any sector.
Core gender parity is a philosophical thought rather than a truly achievable goal in society, therefore, this article is going to set the focus on gender parity in the political environment and gender quotas in the economical environment.
Gender equality can be considered as a precondition for genuine democracy. Indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and right' (Article 1).
Democracy has its roots from the Greek and means 'power to the people' or 'ruled by the people'. The government has to be elected by and for the people. A reduced feminine representation can mean that half of the countries population is not properly represented in the parliament. Amongst others, these are the arguments used by the parliamentarians of Brandenburg (Germany) in order to justify their vote in favor of the 'parity law'. By 2020, each party in Brandenburg will be asked to present an equal number of male and female candidates.
On the other hand, one can argue that gender party acts against the principle of free electoral choice and meritocracy. Gender parity laws restrain the voter in the sense that it forces the voter to choose amongst a certain list which was set up under certain conditions.
How far away are we from gender parity?
According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the global average of women in parliaments is only 23%. There is a deficiency of women not only in the political environment but also in senior positions or on decision-making bodies in companies.
Rwanda is the clear leader in parliamentarian gender equality. As early as 2003, 46 out of 80 parliamentarians were a woman. On January 1st, 2019, 61% of the MPs were a woman. Nevertheless, this high involvement of women has a dark origin. In 1994, a genocide organized by the government made over 800 000 victims. This dramatic decrease in the masculine population has lead to a steadily increasing amount of women in leadership positions in Rwanda. Nevertheless, women still face challenges in Rwanda mainly because of mentality and social conventions.
The top-ranked countries in terms of gender equality in parliaments are rather unexpected. Generally speaking, we can say that Latin American (Cuba and Bolivia 53%, Mexico 48%) and Northern European (Sweden 47%, Finland 41%) countries have the greatest amount of women involved in their parliaments and administrations. Moreover, gender quotas in South Africa (42%) and Namibia (46%) explain the high amount of women involved in politics in this region.
All added the European Union has an average of 30.52% female MPs. In the United Kingdom, there have been 455 British MPs since 1918 this is less than the number of MPs who sit in the Commons today. In order to act against this shockingly low rate, other countries such as Norway have imposed a quota (40% woman since 1983 in Norway).
In comparison to the low European rate, we can state the example of Afghanistan. 27% of their parliament is female which is an extremely surprising rate considering the Islamic cultural background. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan partly bases its legal system on the Sharia which is the Islamic religious law. The origin of this relatively high rate is a law that states that 50% of the Afghan president's appointees to the country's upper house must be women.
Why do we need it? Why would it be a great advantage for political and economic matters?
Legally speaking most western countries already guarantee equal rights for men and women. Nevertheless, women facing more challenges and giving up opportunities (in comparison to their male colleagues) if they want family and children remains a reality.
Equal access to education on all levels is proof that inequalities towards women are not purely linked to meritocracy anymore, it is based on an age-old power structure. This power structure renews itself automatically through subconscious actions and perceptions. Indeed, it has been proven that we attribute less authority to people who have a high pitched voice as opposed to people with a lower-pitched voice. In the same way, men have a clear dress code in a working environment where women have more options. This traditional aspect of working life equally has an impact on how leadership skills are perceived. Women are more likely to be judged on their appearance compared to men.
According to the journalist and political commentator Nicholas Kristof, '' The most effective way to fight global poverty, to reduce civil conflict, even to reduce long-term carbon emissions, is typically to invest in girls' education and bring women into the formal labor force''. Indeed, according to a study published in Columbia’s Journal of International Affairs, women do lead differently than men. Perkins, Phillips, and Pearce found that under female leadership, the predicted GDP growth was 14.55 percent, versus -1.89 percent under male leadership. In countries with higher conflict rates or ethnic fractionalization (EF), a female president proved to be a more effective leader. Evolutionary psychologists say this study reflects women’s leadership ability in tense situations, especially those that demand more cooperative and inclusionary practices (Perkins, Phillips, and Pearce, 2016).
However, these results do not mean that women should systematically replace men, this study is much more about the traits of character such as those explained in Hofstede's five dimensions to analyze culture. One of those determining factors is femininity versus masculinity. A culture in which femininity is valued is a culture in which cooperation, solidarity and conflict resolution are highly valued. Whereas a culture in which masculinity is valued has a preference in society for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material rewards for success.
Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that men do not have these traits of character nor that women are automatically qualified. It is about the social perception of whether a trait of character is rather feminine or masculine.
If we go further than just women in leadership positions, we can clearly argue in favor of an increasing amount of women in the employment market. Indeed, an increase 0f 10% of girls' schooling rate leads to an increase of 3% of the countries GDP. In 2014, Goldman Sachs argued that Japan could boost its absolute GDP by 12.5% if female workforce participation was equal to the masculine one.
There are nevertheless arguments that justify the refusal of some politicians and firms not to guarantee parity or to install a minimum quota for women. In terms of politics, as previously mentioned, gender parity would act against the right to free electoral choice. Free electoral choice is one of the fundamental rights of any democracy. Installing specific conditions for being a candidate at elections would reduce the free choice of any voter and even go against the concept of meritocracy. Indeed, even quotas for women in companies have a negative impact on the perception of employees. Men might feel disadvantaged and women in leadership positions will be considered as not competent enough or not the best possible candidate for this position.
Another consequence that has to be mentioned is shown by the example of Rwanda and reflects the problem faced when the law goes further than the society's own codex. Indeed, the increase of women in the political and economic areas went simultaneously with the increase of violence in households.
All around the world women face inequalities. Unequal access to education, unequal access to leadership position; often considered as inferior to men in terms of social construct or are even confronted with violence within or outside their homes. It is the responsibility of politics and the legal system to protect women and to guarantee their inclusion in any area of society. Laws and the mentality have to constantly evolve in a tit-for-tat mechanism in order to guarantee a regular positive evolution. The fact that in most western societies, tampons are still taxed as a luxury good whereas razors (for example) are taxed as basic needs shows that there is still a long way to go.
Comments