Gender inequality has been a contentious debate over centuries. The labor market and corporate institutions there have been the outsiders who are mostly women, the elderly and the underprivileged, second are the insiders who are primarily men making corporate leadership and labor market decisions. Gender equality is not only on employment status but also remuneration status. Women are paid less than men in the same departments doing the same activities. Men have the capability of scaling their careers up the corporate ladder, unfortunately, more than women can.
There have been attempts and activism bridge the gender gap in remuneration and employment. Most of these attempts are recognized from creation of soft or female-friendly employment environments. The nature of these spaces in corporates has often brought back gender inequality in terms of realizing same pay and similar career fulfillment and attainment among women. When spots are explicitly created for women, although the intention is good the result might not always be desired. More opportunities will probably be created for the less privileged gender but it would be difficult to attain gender equality in occupation attainment and earning (UN-ECOSOC). It is evident therefore as women-friendly employment opportunities are created, the notion of women, primarily as caregivers, is maintained thereby leading to segregation in occupation and discrimination in statistics.
At the end of the day, class equality is achieved in disguise of gender equality when welfare policies in gender equality are invoked. When welfare policies are invoked it might work for one category of women but not for all women in employment. Women in the low category probably would benefit from these welfare policies but may most probably increase the pay gap among the women in the category of corporate leadership.
Through the employment protection registration and the regulation of temporary work, women are observed to benefit from strict EPL regulation than deregulation. The idea would be that by the deregulation of EPL women would benefit more. As the women’s careers are interrupted by family circumstances such as motherhood, it would be easier for a woman to get a job anywhere due to deregulation (Dieckhoff et al.). Therefore, deregulation seems to be good strategy for gender equality and for ensuring career continuation. However, on the other hand a company with strict EPL, offers great job security and career continuation to the already employed women even after career interruption due to family-related issues. The law protects the women and therefore a company would prefer to have the woman back after career interruption, thus giving women a fair competitive edge against their male counterparts (Dieckhoff et al.). Therefore, even though it seems as strict EPL regulations seem to protect the insiders and discriminate against the outsiders which are mostly women, deregulation creates more opportunities for women to be unemployed by outsiders.
Public spending on families refers to a situation whereby women benefit from cash benefits to care for their young ones through child bonuses and benefits. These benefits have been seen to increase the continuity of careers among women. Unfortunate, these benefits have the risks of rendering women unemployed because of the benefits they accrue, risking becoming peripherals of unemployment and labor market exclusivism (Dieckhoff et al.).
Every policy, law, or reform towards the achievement of gender equality in the labor market seems to harm the same people these strategies are trying to solve. If therefore things remained as they are, is it better that way for the women? Does gender inequality boost women in the labor force? All the above arguments indicate that gender inequality to some extent can be a boost for women’s progress, development, and improvement in the workplace. Any intervention has led to more damage to the situation. Therefore, unless better sound policies after careful examination are done, the status quo is the best option for women in the labor force.
Dieckhoff, Martina, et al. “Measuring the Effect of Institutional Change on Gender Inequality in the Labour Market.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, vol. 39, Elsevier Ltd, 2015, pp. 59–75, doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2014.12.001.
UN-ECOSOC. Achieving Gender Equality, Women’s Empowerment and Strengthening Development Cooperation: Dialogues at the Economic and Social Council. 2010.