Discrimination and Harassment: South Asia vs. USA (by Fatima)
Tomorrow my team and I will be talking about sexual harassment policies in the USA v. Pakistan. My team and I chose this topic especially because they were interested in exploring the topic from a first hand perspective. However, on researching for the presentation I also learned so many facts about Pakistan law that I was unaware of. Even though this is going to be a very drastic comparison (comparison of a first world nation to a third world) it is something enlightening to understand some of the South Asian laws in general. In such a fast paced economy today, where men and women are on equal footing in most nations, some nations are still holding on to the past. Many people argue that in some countries like Saudi Arabia women are not put in the forefront even when they are capable. Most people argue that this is done to protect and safeguard women, and because most clients would not like to deal with women. I wonder if safeguarding women and keeping the clients satisfied can be seen as a mission of firms, or can it still be regarded as discrimination? What do you think??
posted by Professor Prenkert at
1:00 PM
3 Comments:
I remember discussing this issue in another class and it being a very touchy subject. On one hand it is certainly discriminatory if you do in fact choose a male over a female for a job in a society or culture where men are seen in top positions in firms over women. Although it can be seen as discrimination here, it could be argued that it is postive discrimination because you are trying to protect your employees. Placing a women in a top position in a country or area that may not treat them with respect could certainly be setting up that individual to fail becuase many people may not like or listen to her. Further, her safety and well-being should be considered as there may be people who will verbally attack her or worse.
I suppose that I could understand how not putting women in the forefront in jobs could been seen as a form of protection in certain countries which have strong views about what place women hold in society (which are often tied to religion). While in these countries such a decision may have a religious basis, and could even stand as an employment qualification to be a man if people will not conduct business with female employees, it still seems discriminatory as it limits the opportunities available to qualified women. In the United States, this would undoubtedly be considered discrimination since it would be viewed as making employment decisions on factors other than job qualifications.
I agree with the two comments completely, but I feel that if women are consistently "safeguarded" in these countries and never placed in certain positions, you are perpetuating a system which may well be outdated. I think it would be very hard to be one of the few females in a job or a type of job, but I think that in everything, there has to be firsts and there are always people somewhere who are willing to be them. For example, it had to be hard to be the first woman in the United States to, say, go to medical school, because she was fighting against a society that didn't believe women should be doing such things. I know that in Pakistan the differences stem mainly from religion, but I think that the two situations are similar. I also think that discrimination is a word that is defined differently in different countries. In the US, it would definitely be discrimination, but in Pakistan, societal views may not see it as so.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home