GENDER ISSUES

GENDER ISSUES

Abstract

In this study we try to explore the concept of “gender issues” in the holistic context. The main focus of the research is on “gender issues” and its relation with “cross-cultural psychology”. The research also analyzes many aspects of “gender issues” and tries to gauge its effect on “cross-cultural psychology”. Finally the research describes various factors which are responsible for “gender issues” and tries to describe the overall effect of “gender issues” on “cross-cultural psychology”.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION4

BODY: DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS4

CONCLUSION9

REFERENCES10

Gender Issues

Introduction

The workforce of United States continues to grow more diverse. Employment equity legislation has made organizational diversity an issue of legal, ethical, and strategic interest. Data reported in 2005 by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicate an increase in percentage of people of color in private sector from 27% in 1998 to 30% in 2003. In 2005 Department of Labor reported that while foreign-born workers currently account for 15% of workforce, up from 11% in 1998, they have also accounted for 46% of net increase in labor force since 2000. (Majumdar and Parikh 1994) The percentage of women in workforce has also risen. In 2004, 59% of all women were in workforce, up from 43% in 1998, as compared to 75% and 73% of men in workforce in 2004 and 1998, respectively. Additionally, Bureau of Labor Statistics projections for 2004-2014 predict number of workers over 55 years old will grow by 49.1%, outpacing growth in entire workforce by five times. The number of disabled Americans in workforce increased from 29% in 1998 to 35% in 2004, according to National Organization on Disability. These trends indicate that workforce continues to become more heterogeneous on multiple dimensions. (Johanson et al 1993)

Body: Discussion and Analysis

There are two major perspectives on what characteristics term diversity should encompass in organizational settings. One perspective defines diversity based on demographic characteristics covered in civil rights legislation enforced by EEOC. This defines diversity in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, age, national origin, religion, veteran status, and disability. The other perspective is broader, encompassing EEOC categories as well as other distinguishing characteristics, including sexual orientation, values, abilities, personality characteristics, education, languages spoken, physical appearance, marital status, and geographic origin within United States, tenure with organization, functional specialization, and economic status.

Although the broader definition of diversity may be more inclusive because it encompasses many ways in which organizational members can differ from one another, it is also problematic in that it ignores power differences associated with powerful impact of race, gender, and disability status. The narrower EEOC definition includes only legally protected categories—groups whose social identities limit their access to societal and organizational resources. (Majumdar and Parikh 1994)

Although it is important to acknowledge that diversity can be constructed across multiple aspects of the person, impact of different identities is certainly not equal. Segregation in organizations and demographics of organizational hierarchies reflect American society broadly, which shapes expectations and experiences of employees. Power, authority, and leadership are allocated disproportionately to certain demographic groups; hence, access to higher-level positions is likely ...