5 thoughts on “Policy Options Brief on Gender Inequality and the “Glass Ceiling””

1. I believe this is an excellent piece as it makes the case that the glass ceiling, gender bias, and the roots of both problems are serious issues. One of the strong suits for your explanation as to why this is an issue is how you are able to define the terms for the average reader to understand. Your explanation for why this phenomena takes place is also strong as it does not focus on one singular problem, but the multiple roots that lead to this problem such as the idea of the “Sticky Floor”.

   I also like that you are able to provide several options to alleviate the issues that lead to gender bias and the glass ceiling; an option for each of the problems. As you mentioned, this is a problem that has several different causes. With your proposals, they generally address each of these problems from equal pay for equal value to child care.

   The two recommendations I would make for your paper are as such. First, I would include statistics as to how much more women are more likely to take jobs outside of the market, if such exist. You explain the argument well, but if you could include hard evidence from a study conducted, your argument could be that much stronger.

   Second, I would recommend a comparison of child care subsidies or benefit programs from different states or countries for a base to a policy recommendation in that regard. As you mentioned, it is smart to point out how much the government can offer in childcare benefits depends greatly on available resources. But, I think if you could make a recommendation of how much to offer by looking at programs in Canada or Western Europe, it would make that policy proposal stronger. Aside from that, this is a very strong proposal and addresses the issue of the “Sticky Floor”.

   All in all, this memo makes a persuasive case for action and provides solid proposals to address this issue.

2. I thought your policy paper is excellent. You gave an oral history of the discrimination that women face in the workplace. I remember hearing the term glass celing but I didn’t know that there was a law passed with that very name. I actually learned more about this issue from reading your policy options brief. Very informative. My only suggestion is that I didn’t know that STEM professions meant science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. I never encountered that acronym before. That makes perfectly good sense because women were always taught differently than men. There is a greater expectation for men to be better at STEM subjects. I also encountered the acronym OECD which stand for oganization for economic cooperation and development.

   The fair pay act and the extended child care benefits are the policies that I thought were the realistic and measurable. I know first hand how hard a women has to work just to earn a decent wage. I am so happy that you choose this topic. I plan to read it again just to make sure the concepts stick.

3. This is an interesting and relevant piece. You do a good job of introducing evidence and statistics to solidify your point of view and the fact that this is actually a problem. I also really appreciated the different metaphors used throughout the paper. While I had heard of “glass ceilings,” I had never heard of “sticky floors” or “leaky pipes”—having such metaphors helps one remember the issues associated with the problem.

   Your intro and background in the “problem” section do a good job of explaining the different barriers that women have in the workplace. However, your introduction paragraph sheds light on the improvements that have been made, when you are trying to really bring out the problems that still exist. While it is important to bring forth data that contradicts your point, maybe think about reorganizing a little.

   Along those lines, you did a great job of explaining three policy options and the opportunities and flaws that come along with implementing them. However, concluding each policy option section with a paragraph that notes the flaws associated with that option makes it a little confusing—I’m not sure if you really support that policy option or not. Maybe add a sentence or two at the end of the options to bring back to the forefront of the readers mind the benefits of implementing those options.

4. I went over your policy options again and I realize that I didn’t state why I didn’t choose the Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. For starters, the enforcement of this act would require a woman or group of women to report their employers. I believe this act could result in a lot of collateral damage. What if there are only two women in the company. The unfair employer will be able to narrow the suspected whistle blowers. Poor law enforcement and low efficiency of government agencies was on of the problems cited in this policy. The Equal Opportunity Commision is a government agency so whats is the difference. The act of having the government come in to a company and allocate wages seems a last resort after a long protracted battle in court. Furthermore, what if the unfair employer states that the employee was being paid fairly because of issues like senority or additional tasks that were performed by other employees. I imagine that any agency that received a complaint have to wage an investigation first. Much to complicated to be of use.

5. I think that you have crafted a paper for a topic that is serious and will only increase in seriousness in the upcoming years. As women continue to excel in academia it will be harder for employers to create excuses as to why they should not be paid equally and fairly. The explanation of the policies is great, but rather than point out flaws in the Fair Pay Act it might be better to admit that flaws exist but to offer a way to rectify those places where the policy currently falls short. Overall I learned a great deal from your project both in substance and applicable lingo which was interesting.

Comments are closed.