A Commentary on Miron et al. (2024): Why Managers May Not Actually Stop Caring About Gender Inequality.

This longitudinal evaluation of gender inequalities and economic growth addresses key questions in the evolving debate over the character of gender differentiation and the goals of womens empowerment. These questions include: 1) whether the impact of strategies of economic growth served to enhance or undermine the status of women; 2) whether changes in the status of women were accompanied by significant changes in gender inequality; and 3) the implications for existing debates. Section I reviews several sets of literature pertinent to the questions using three general approaches: modernization-neoclassical women in development and gender and development. Section II presents the data and methods used in the evaluation. The research assessed the contending interpretations reviewed in the first section by combining another set of cross-sectional and longitudinal data on womens status and inequalities between men and women with other existing indicators. Section III discusses the results in the following order: 1) cross-sectional patterns in womens status; 2) trends in womens status; 3) cross-sectional patterns in inequality between men and women; 4) trends in inequality between men and women; and 5) conclusion. Finally section IV presents an overall discussion of the findings of the whole longitudinal evaluation.

Racial and Gender Inequality as a (Non)Crisis: The Discursive Strategies of Academic-Managers in Belgian and Danish universities

Announcement of the kingdom of God The gospel of Luke describes John the Baptist going throughout Jordon, proclaiming a baptism of repentance: "The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight'" (Luke 3: 4-5). When the people ask John, "What then should we do?" John doesn't moralize, but responds proactively: "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise." Even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they asked him, "Teacher, what should we do?" He said to them, "Collect no more than the amount prescribed for you." Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what should we do?" He said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages." (Luke 3: 11-14) In other words, to prepare the path for God's kingdom is to actively do justice and destroy the consequences of the sin. What we have in the words of John the Baptist is an expression of Christological eschatology, i.e. the kingdom of God is going to be given to us as a gift, but at the same time we have been called to "make the path smooth" in our acceptance of the gift. In that sense, eschaton is God-human endeavour, the kingdom that we're awaiting from God is anticipated and expressed in history through the praxis of human beings that should iconize the new eon. In Gustavo Gutierrez's words, "The hope which overcomes death must be rooted in the heart of historical praxis; if this hope doesn't take shape in the present to lead it forward, it will be only an evasion, a futuristic illusion." (1) Christological eschatology means one important thing: it is divine-human synergy, just as Christ has divine-human nature as defined by the ecumenical council of Chalcedon. It isn't a communist utopia in which heaven on earth will be brought about by the proletariat, or a utopia of Zealots during the time of Jesus that human will is capable of bringing kingdom of God. We sometimes forget this truth and make ourselves passive in history through the expectation that God will do everything exclusively. We forget sometimes that "from the very beginning Christianity was socially minded. The whole fabric of Christian existence is social and corporate. All Christian sacraments are intrinsically 'social sacraments,' i.e., sacraments of incorporation ... To build up the church of Christ means, therefore, to build up a new society and, by implication, to re-build human society on a new basis." (2) The New Testament reveals the kingdom of God as a new mode of relationship, a new quality of life. The kingdom is proclaimed when the sick and the poor are healed, when the dead are resurrected, when the disenfranchised are accepted, when abundance of food is offered to many, when justice, love, peace, harmony, and solidarity rule (Matt. 4:23, 5:10, 25:34; Luke 9:2, 9:12-18; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 6:9). Let's look at the words from the beginning of the liturgy in the Orthodox Church: "Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." Through these opening words, the liturgy is supposed to open up toward the eschatological kingdom, "a progressive movement towards the fullness of the kingdom of Christ, toward His cosmic and historical triumph." (3) The kingdom of God should be manifested in all of its social implications through historical limitations. It means that the liturgy should not reflect a patriarchal mode of relationship, the degradation of women,4 * disregard of lay people/ and inaccessibility for the sick and elderly. Primacy should be given to these issues that collide with the values of God's kingdom. Genesis 3:16 argues that man should rule over woman, but this verse comes as a consequence of the sin--the fall. This verse only expresses how the male-female relationship has been lived or conducted in our communities where the ideology of men rules, and not God's given/original order. …

To examine the role of inequality in academic achievement, we analyse a cross-national dataset including data from three cycles from 2012 to 2018 from the PISA, an international assessment of 15-year-old students’ math, reading, and science performance. The Gini coefficient and gender inequality index (GII) were used as metrics for a country’s economic inequality and gender inequality, respectively. The results show that gender inequality has a negative association with academic achievement for both boys and girls. Moreover, gender inequality has a stronger association with academic achievement than does economic inequality. We also find that gender inequality in reproductive health may contribute substantially to the association between gender inequality and academic achievement. Despite substantial advances in gender equality worldwide, multisectoral and multilevel approaches from the community to the country level are needed to ensure substantial long-term reductions in economic, gender, and educational inequalities.

Until six or seven years ago, women were invisible in work on social stratification, hidden in a conceptualization of female class or status derived from the class or status of men (Acker, 1973; Haug, 1973). Sex inequality was not part of the subject matter either of stratification studies focusing on individuals and their distribution in hierarchies of reward or of class studies focusing on aggregates similarly located in relationship to the system of production and the structure of economic and social power. In the ensuing years, there has been an avalanche of publications on sex inequality, much of it within the area of stratification and most in journal articles rather than books. In selectively reviewing this literature, I have been particularly interested in two questions fundamental to an assessment of progress toward stratification theory and research that illuminates the structural positions of women. First, can the disadvantaged and subordinate position of women be understood or explained within the confines of the available theories? Second, is our knowledge of class and stratification deepened, extended, or altered by the new attention to women? The answer to the first question must be no, unless we discard the assumption of derived status or class for women and investigate the possibilities of conceptualizing women as social beings with identities and existence of their own. It might then be possible to account for sex inequalities within stratification or class frameworks. Three different approaches to this problem are implicit, and sometimes explicit, in the literature: (1) that sex and class stratification are different phenomena and that sex inequality should not be examined at all or should be analyzed separately; (2) that women can be integrated into existing theories without substantial change in those theories; and (3) that reconceptualization is necessary if we are to understand sex inequality. That sex and class stratification are separate processes is implicit in much work on class. For example, a number of writers clearly think that an integration of the analysis of sex and class inequalities is not needed because women are still substantially outside the class system (Giddens, 1973) or because housewifes have the class positions of their husbands (Wright, 1978); the situation of women working for pay is no different than that of men and therefore, can be accounted for with a presumably sex-neutral class analysis. These authors do not discard the old assumptions that female class is determined by the class of male relations and do not deal with sexbased inequality; by implication that subject must be discussed outside the boundaries of class analysis. A similar implicit separation of class stratification and sex stratification appears in the proliferation of books and articles dealing with sex inequality as a separate phenomenon and geared toward the sex roles-women's studies market (e.g., Chafetz, 1974; Stoll, 1974; Deckard, 1979; Duberman, 1975; Walum, 1977; Nielsen, 1978). Class differences in the situations of women and men are described in some books (e.g., Deckard, 1979; Hacker, 1975), and the question of the relationship between sex stratification and class stratification is given brief treatment in others (Chafetz, 1974; Walum, 1977). However, the analyses do not proceed much past the declaration that women constitute a caste; the existence of these books as a separate body of literature attests to the implicit separation in the conceptual frameworks. Recent stratification textbooks illustrate a variety of approaches to bringing sex inequality into a stratification perspective,

 Gender inequality is a sociological problem because of unfair treatment in society between various genders. These dissimilarities are distinguished from biological factors, especially from differing reproductive roles inlife. Attitude and perception toward gender discrimination are social phenomena. In this research paper researcher find out the attitude and perception of students towards gender discrimination and inequality. Descriptive Research (Survey method) applies to describe and interpret the study attitude and perception. UG and PG level students who are studying in District Bijnor will constitute the population of the study. For this analysis, mean, SD, t-test and ANOVA inferential statistics use for this research. The research used the Stratified Random Sampling technique employed for the selection of 200 student sample. According to the data analysis, all null hypotheses are rejected and the researcher finds out gender, area and subject of the stream are not affected by the attitude and perception of students. Gender discrimination and inequality is a sociological factor that society decides. How to cite this article: Vashishtha D. An Analytical Survey of Attitude and Perception towards Gender Inequality and Discrimination of Higher Education Students. J Adv Res Humani Social Sci 2022; 9(1): 1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2349.2872.202201

IntroductionGendered practices of working life create gender inequalities through horizontal and vertical gender segregation in work, which may lead to inequalities in health between women and men. Gender equality could therefore be a key element of health equity in working life. Our aim was to analyze what gender (in)equality means for the employees at a woman-dominated workplace and discuss possible implications for health experiences.MethodsAll caregiving staff at two workplaces in elder care within a municipality in the north of Sweden were invited to participate in the study. Forty-five employees participated, 38 women and 7 men. Seven focus group discussions were performed and led by a moderator. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the focus groups.ResultsWe identified two themes. "Advocating gender equality in principle" showed how gender (in)equality was seen as a structural issue not connected to the individual health experiences. "Justifying inequality with individualism" showed how the caregivers focused on personalities and interests as a justification of gender inequalities in work division. The justification of gender inequality resulted in a gendered work division which may be related to health inequalities between women and men. Gender inequalities in work division were primarily understood in terms of personality and interests and not in terms of gender.ConclusionThe health experience of the participants was affected by gender (in)equality in terms of a gendered work division. However, the participants did not see the gendered work division as a gender equality issue. Gender perspectives are needed to improve the health of the employees at the workplaces through shifting from individual to structural solutions. A healthy-setting approach considering gender relations is needed to achieve gender equality and fairness in health status between women and men.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic is more than a public health crisis. Lockdown measures have substantial societal effects, including a significant impact on parents with (young) children. Given the existence of persistent gender inequality prior to the pandemic, particularly among parents, it is crucial to study the societal impact of COVID-19 from a gender perspective. The objective of this paper is to use representative survey data gathered among Dutch parents in April 2020 to explore differences between mothers and fathers in three areas: paid work, the division of childcare and household tasks, and three dimensions of quality of life (leisure, work-life balance, relationship dynamics). Additionally, we explore whether changes take place in these dimensions by comparing the situation prior to the lockdown with the situation during the lockdown.MethodWe use descriptive methods (crosstabulations) supported by multivariate modelling (linear regression modelling for continuous outcomes; linear probability modelling (LPM) for binary outcomes (0/1 outcomes); and multinomial logits for multinomial outcomes) in a cross-sectional survey design.ResultsResults show that the way in which parents were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic reflects a complex gendered reality. Mothers work in essential occupations more often than fathers, report more adjustments of the times at which they work, and experience both more and less work pressure in comparison to before the lockdown. Moreover, mothers continue to do more childcare and household work than fathers, but some fathers report taking on greater shares of childcare and housework during the lockdown in comparison to before. Mothers also report a larger decline in leisure time than fathers. We find no gender differences in the propensity to work from home, in perceived work-life balance, or in relationship dynamics.ConclusionIn conclusion, we find that gender inequality in paid work, the division of childcare and household work, and the quality of life are evident during the first lockdown period. Specifically, we find evidence of an increase in gender inequality in relation to paid work and quality of life when comparing the situation prior to and during the lockdown, as well as a decrease in gender inequality in the division of childcare and household work. We conclude that the unique situation created by restrictive lockdown measures magnifies some gender inequalities while lessening others.DiscussionThe insights we provide offer key comparative evidence based on a representative, probability-based sample for understanding the broader impact of lockdown measures as we move forward in the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the limitations in this study is the cross-sectional design. Further study, in the form of a longitudinal design, will be crucial in investigating the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender inequality.

This chapter explores, through a self-ethnographic lens, the experience of teaching gender to business management students at a time when discourses on postfeminism have reshaped how gender inequality is understood and experienced in and outside the workplace. Following Gill (2007), I engage with postfeminism as a sensibility so that it can be treated as an object of critical analysis, thereby countering the tendency to reduce postfeminism to a distinct theoretical orientation, historical shift in feminism, or a one-dimensional form of feminist backlash. Furthermore, and germane to the purpose of this chapter, is the link between a postfeminist sensibility and neoliberalism, evident in how both emphasise individualism, in particular the role of the individual in changing themselves (e.g. bodies, behaviours, attitudes) in order to succeed at home and work. As such, I aim to explore the challenges this has presented in teaching gender inequality to undergraduate management students on an equality and diversity final-year management module. Students appear to give more credence to neoliberal discourses that promote the gendered subject at work as self-regulating and enterprising, which adheres closely to postfeminist discourses that circulate a notion of the individual unaffected by power relations and gender inequalities. This, I argue, enables students to engage more easily with the often challenging topic of gender inequality. While some students accept they may experience gender inequality in the workplace, many others frequently consign gender inequality as something that happened in the past, or dislocate it spatially as something that occurs in other cultural contexts and to other people. In regard to this last point, I have often noted that 'free choice' is a recurring leitmotif, illustrated in how students discursively construct notions of a ‘postfeminist workplace’ in which ‘hard work’ and making the ‘right choices’ are the primary means to avoid gender discrimination and inequality. The connections I explore between postfeminist and neoliberal discourses allow me to articulate the personal frustrations, pleasure, and concerns about teaching gender inequality as an openly gay man in the context of the business school.

The COVID-19 pandemic is more than a public health crisis. Lockdown measures have substantial societal effects, including a significant impact on parents with (young) children. Given the existence of persistent gender inequality prior to the pandemic, particularly among parents, it is crucial to study the societal impact of COVID-19 from a gender perspective. The objective of this paper is to use representative survey data gathered among Dutch parents in April 2020 to explore differences between mothers and fathers in three areas: paid work, the division of childcare and household tasks, and three dimensions of quality of life (leisure, work-life balance, relationship dynamics). Additionally, we explore whether changes take place in these dimensions by comparing the situation prior to the lockdown with the situation during the lockdown. We use descriptive methods (crosstabulations) supported by multivariate modelling (linear regression modelling for continuous outcomes; linear probability modelling (LPM) for binary outcomes (0/1 outcomes); and multinomial logits for multinomial outcomes) in a cross-sectional survey design. Results show that the way in which parents were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic reflects a complex gendered reality. Mothers work in essential occupations more often than fathers, report more adjustments of the times at which they work, and experience both more and less work pressure in comparison to before the lockdown. Moreover, mothers continue to do more childcare and household work than fathers, but some fathers report taking on greater shares of childcare and housework during the lockdown in comparison to before. Mothers also report a larger decline in leisure time than fathers. We find no gender differences in the propensity to work from home, in perceived work-life balance, or in relationship dynamics. In conclusion, we find that gender inequality in paid work, the division of childcare and household work, and the quality of life are evident during the first lockdown period. Specifically, we find evidence of an increase in gender inequality in relation to paid work and quality of life when comparing the situation prior to and during the lockdown, as well as a decrease in gender inequality in the division of childcare and household work. We conclude that the unique situation created by restrictive lockdown measures magnifies some gender inequalities while lessening others. The insights we provide offer key comparative evidence based on a representative, probability-based sample for understanding the broader impact of lockdown measures as we move forward in the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the limitations in this study is the cross-sectional design. Further study, in the form of a longitudinal design, will be crucial in investigating the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender inequality.

Sex ratio disparities in the two most common cancers worldwide: an exploratory analysis using GLOBOCAN 2022 data, gender inequalities, and economic indicators.

Introduction: Taking into account the growth of increase in the elderly population in Iran and the world, and the emergence of the phenomenon of feminization of aging, the present study has been conducted, with aim of examining the relationship between anxiety about aging and the perceived and experienced gender inequality among the women of Shiraz city (Iran). Methods: This cross-sectional study has been carried on 30 to 70 years old women in the city of Shiraz. The requied sample size is estimated to be 405 individuals, and the participants selected through a stratified random sampling. Data collection has taken place by a questionnaire which some of the questions of that were made by the authors and some are borrowed from anxiety about aging scale.The collected data were analyzed with SPSS 21 using pearson corellation tests. Results: Experienced inequality has a significant positive correlation with anxiety about aging (total) (r = 0.226; p < 0.01). The relation between perceived inequality has also been positive and significant with anxiety about aging (total) (r = 132; p < 0.05). Furthermore, there is a significant relationship between gender inequality (perceived and experienced) and anxiety about aging in different aspects, including social and economic fears, psychological fears, fear of losing the feminine position, fear of losing health, and fear of physical changes and changes in appearance. Conclusion: The anxiety about aging increases among women who experience and percive gender inequality. According to the accelerating process of population aging and the importance of paying attention to the social, psychological, and physical health of elderly women, it is necessary to take more considerations into account. In this regard, planning for decreasing the gender gap and inequality can be effective to some extent. Seemingly, the intersection of “the phenomenon of feminization of poverty,” due to gender inequality, with the phenomenon of “feminization of aging” in the future brings to the fore the necessity of paying attention to “anxiety about aging.”

ICT has been long recognized as a driver of sustainable development goals (SDGs). This study examines the relationship between ICT, gender (in)equality (SDG 5), and income inequality (SDG 10). We conceptualize ICT as an institutional actor and use the Capabilities Approach to theorize the relationships between ICT, gender inequality and income inequality. This study uses publicly available archival data to conduct a cross-lagged panel analysis of 86 countries from 2013 to 2016. The key contributions of the study include the establishment of the relationship between (a) ICT and gender inequality and (b) gender inequality and income inequality. We also make methodological contributions to the field by employing cross-lagged panel data analysis to further our understanding of the links between ICT, gender equality, and income inequality over time. Our findings have implications for both research and practice, which are discussed.

How does gender inequality persist in an advanced industrial society like the United States, where legal, political, institutional, and economic processes work against it? This book draws on empirical evidence from sociology, psychology, and organizational studies to argue that people's everyday use of gender as a primary cultural tool for organizing social relations with others creates processes that rewrite gender inequality into new forms of social and economic organization as these forms emerge in society. Widely shared gender stereotypes act as a “common knowledge” cultural frame that people use to initiate the process of making sense of one another in order to coordinate their interaction. Gender stereotypes change more slowly than material arrangements between men and women. As a result of this cultural lag, at sites of social innovation, people implicitly draw on trailing stereotypes of gender difference and inequality to help organize the new activities, procedures, and forms of organization that they create, in effect reinventing gender inequality for a new era. Chapters 1 through 3 explain how gender acts as a primary frame and how gender stereotypes shape interpersonal behavior and judgments in contextually varying ways. Chapters 4 and 5 show how these effects in the workplace and the home reproduce contemporary structures of gender inequality. Chapters 6 examines the cultural lag of gender stereotypes and shows how they create gender inequality at sites of innovation in work (high-tech start-ups) and intimate relations (college hook-ups). Chapter 7 develops the implications of this persistence dynamic for progress toward gender equality.

Gender inequality is a complex problem with multiple interrelated indicators (e.g. underrepresentation of women in leadership roles, gender pay gaps). Our academic community has been following a three‐step ‘script’ to motivate organisations to act on gender inequality: we document the inequality, we build a business case for equality, and we advocate solutions to correct inequality. But too often, our well‐meant messages have negative consequences. We may be inadvertently presenting gender inequality as an intractable problem and creating unrealistic expectations among stakeholders about gender equality benefits and gender inequality solutions. As stakeholders become impatient with Australia’s slow progress toward gender equality, we may need to reconsider this strategy. Academic researchers may be more successful change agents if we are more deliberate about highlighting the interconnections among gender inequality indicators, identifying the organisational value of gender equality beyond financial performance, and advocating small‐scale structural changes alongside large‐scale interventions.