Journal Analysis - Sexual Harassment
Article Analysis
The article discusses how discrimination, harassment and the glass ceiling are intertwined and related to preventing women from having roles in management and executive positions. As more and more women are put into positions of power the article suggests that the number of sexual harassment claims and incidents will be reduced. The article further sets out to point out that gender inequality may play a role in sexual harassment and helps present recommendations to help reduce or eliminate the problem. The root of the sexual harassment issue in the United States seems to have stemmed from sexual discrimination which is illegal in the United States and many other regions of the world. Sexual discrimination is not allowed in any matter in regards to employment issues and / or policies. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was changed in 1991 and now will award punitive damages to those who can prove they have been the victim of sexual discrimination at work. Many other countries have laws prohibiting sexual discrimination. “The Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 in the United Kingdom, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Sex Discrimination Acts of 1984 and 1992 in Australia (Barak, 1997) and the Hong Kong Sex Discrimination Ordinance of 1996 all prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.” This discrimination sets up the basis for the theoretical framework for why women are paid less for the exact same work. On average in 1998, women received 76 cents for every dollar that men earned for the same positions. This wage discrepancy gives some men a feeling that what they are doing is more important than their female counterparts and that they are higher up on the company ladder. The central concepts and arguments of the article stress that lower wages and discrimination contribute to workplace sexual harassment incidents. These concepts include sex segregation, concomitant low status, short career ladders and low pay. It
The article discusses how discrimination, harassment and the glass ceiling are intertwined and related to preventing women from having roles in management and executive positions. As more and more women are put into positions of power the article suggests that the number of sexual harassment claims and incidents will be reduced. The article further sets out to point out that gender inequality may play a role in sexual harassment and helps present recommendations to help reduce or eliminate the problem. The root of the sexual harassment issue in the United States seems to have stemmed from sexual discrimination which is illegal in the United States and many other regions of the world. Sexual discrimination is not allowed in any matter in regards to employment issues and / or policies. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was changed in 1991 and now will award punitive damages to those who can prove they have been the victim of sexual discrimination at work. Many other countries have laws prohibiting sexual discrimination. “The Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 in the United Kingdom, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Sex Discrimination Acts of 1984 and 1992 in Australia (Barak, 1997) and the Hong Kong Sex Discrimination Ordinance of 1996 all prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.” This discrimination sets up the basis for the theoretical framework for why women are paid less for the exact same work. On average in 1998, women received 76 cents for every dollar that men earned for the same positions. This wage discrepancy gives some men a feeling that what they are doing is more important than their female counterparts and that they are higher up on the company ladder. The central concepts and arguments of the article stress that lower wages and discrimination contribute to workplace sexual harassment incidents. These concepts include sex segregation, concomitant low status, short career ladders and low pay. It
References: Myrtle, P. B., Mary, E. M., & Jennifer, M. S. (2002). Discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling: Women executives as change agents. Journal of Business Ethics, 37(1), 65-76. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxy.davenport.edu/docview/198056742?accountid=40195