When one examines even the earliest hunter gatherer societies it becomes evident that women have always worked alongside men. Yet as societies began to progress away from the hunter gatherer lifestyle, women's work started to become less recognized despite its obvious importance. As time moved on and societies changed women were slowly pushed into the home and were essentially stripped of any political or economic power. However in the early 1900's began being called upon as a reserve wage labor force, in which they would receive very little pay for doing their work in comparison to their male counterparts. It was not until the Second World War that norms changed due to the fact that women were performing just as well in jobs previously done by males. Not long after, the state recognized the need for change and began the implementation of several governmental policies aimed at achieving racial and gender equality . One of these implementations was known as affirmative action, and served the demand for equal representation in the workforce through government imposed rules.
[...] Therefore while affirmative action may work in some fields, in others it may endanger the lives of people within the community as well as the lives of the employees. While at first glance gender based affirmative action appeared to be an effective and justified policy, the research showed that it does generate adverse effects. After reviewing the information it becomes evident that affirmative action is a remedy which is put into effect at the end of self perpetuating cycle. Instead of attempting to reduce the amount of racial and gender stereotyping, this program is essentially breeding a new problem. [...]
[...] Once the two sets of common stereotypes are listed all together, they come off as almost offensive and seem over exaggerated. However one can assume that when people stereotype by gender that they will most likely only use the most pertinent generalization for the situation, thus reducing the likelihood of the person being unbiased in the future. Nonetheless it is reassuring to know that these gender stereotypes do not hold up under scientific scrutiny as research has proven interesting results. [...]
[...] Despite the good intentions of the government, it has been shown that affirmative action attracts its own set of negative stigmatizations which may negatively affect those it attempts to help. Surprisingly enough, those who most often speak out against affirmative action belong to the minority groups which are being assisted through the program (Heilman et al. 1992:2). Their arguments suggest that their preferential treatment implies that they are inferior to the point where special treatment is needed (Heilman, 1997:11). Their opinions make a lot of sense and one can see that their remorse of affirmative action is completely justified. [...]
[...] The fact that affirmative action creates its own negative stereotypes is only one negative aspect as its application in some fields can have an adverse affect on both the community and fellow employees. The domain in question is the use of affirmative action within the police force, and while it has some advantages, evidence shows that it is not necessarily a right. Through the adjustment of physical exams, police departments have made it possible for females to pass with more ease than before. [...]
[...] Attitudes of Canadians toward affirmative action: Opposition, value pluralism, and nonattitudes. Political Behavior, 67-95. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 536-544. Jr, J. L. (2000). Does a helping hand [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
