Another aspect of gender biasing - Page 18

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

haan yaar, sab executive positions toh women le jaatee hain. executive secretary, executive sales assistant, executive counter girl. no glass ceiling there😉😆

oh age does factor into commitment since it's got something to do with how hungry and driven someone is. somewhere later on in life, when the woman is getting back to her career after raising kids, she's probably not as driven coz her family likely has more money. for her then it's more tafri, less about survival. and in general as people grow older, their connection with things materialistic does diminish.😊

also, yes, the buses and vans do escort both males and females back home late. but that might not have been necessary if females were not part of the contingent. then it would have been a perk to hand out to star employees, not a necessary cost of doing business. makes it harder for a small-time call center operator to get into business, doesnt it? first thing they have to do now is open up a trucking business😆

Edited by chatbuster - 18 years ago

Gender Curfew
[4 May, 2007 l 0000 hrs IST]



In a move that is retrograde and bad in law, the Karnataka government has banned women working in business centres, the hotel industry, shops, spas and recreation centres from doing night shifts, or working beyond 8 p.m. By threatening to put thousands of women out of work, the order violates Articles 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution.

Article 14 says that all citizens are equal in the eyes of law, therefore questioning curbs on opportunity on the basis of gender, caste, religion, race or creed. It is strange that the government, which is bound by Article 16 or equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, should force a contrary order down the throat of private enterprise.

Article 16 outlaws denial of opportunity on the basis of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth and residence; how can women alone be denied the right to earn a livelihood at night? Article 19 (g) spells out the freedom to engage in a profession, occupation or trade of one's choice.

While the Constitution says that this clause does not prevent the state from imposing "reasonable restrictions" in the "interests of the general public", the Karnataka government order does not fall in this category. The Article suggests that the state could insist on professional and technical qualifications while retaining the spirit of the provision. But the state tends to use public interest — in this case, the safety of women — as a pretext to trample over an individual's basic freedoms and behave as moral guardian at large.

The Karnataka order seems all the more absurd for excluding from its scope information technology, hospitals, factories and essential services. Are women employees in these sectors less deserving of protection?

The government should treat crimes against women as a law and order problem, instead of pandering to a patriarchal mindset that tries to restrict the mobility of women, ostensibly to ensure their safety. There is a growing tendency of the state to view law and order issues through value-loaded assumptions. Whether it is Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkata, Mumbai or Delhi, the participation of women in the workforce is rapidly increasing.

In various service sector occupations, they outperform men. A conservative backlash is only to be expected. But the job of government is to uphold the law, and not play along with such tendencies. The Karnataka government ought to have understood this.

source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Gender_Curfew/articleshow /1999330.cms