Bridging the Gap: The Unfinished Fight for Gender Equality
All eyes on America.
Against the backdrop of the US presidential election in 2024, both Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris are battling it out. This election marks many firsts, including the potential for Kamala Harris to become the first female president of the United States. Harris, who has already made history as the first female, Black, and South Asian Vice President, brings a distinguished record in law and politics. Will she be able to break the glass ceiling? Will she become the first woman President of the US? These are the answers that only time will tell.
Gender equality remains one of the most pressing yet unresolved challenges of our time. Despite decades of advocacy, progress has been painfully slow, even in the most developed nations. The U.S., often seen as a beacon of democracy and progress, has yet to elect a female president, lagging behind countries in Europe and Asia that have long embraced women as leaders.
But America has come a long way. It was in 2016 that Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, was unable to secure the presidency despite winning the Democratic nomination. While Europe and Asia have had many women as heads of state, the US has yet to join the club.
This glaring inconsistency between global expectations and reality underscores the persistent barriers women face, not just in politics but across all sectors. As we approach another pivotal U.S. election with a woman leading a major party ticket, it’s clear that while we may talk of equality, we are far from achieving it. The gap between words and actions is as wide as ever, and the time for real, transformative change is long overdue.
This ground reality of one of the most developed countries on this planet is baffling. It highlights the glaring gaps between walking and talking. It once again puts the focus back on the gender stereotypes that women face all over the world, not only the poor countries and underdeveloped countries but also the developed countries are no better when it comes to gender stereotypes.
The United Nations aims to achieve gender equality by 2030. But recent data shows that this objective will not be achieved by them. The fact that developed countries like the US too will not be able to achieve it is worrisome. So, despite knowing its importance, why do countries find it difficult to achieve? The only plausible reason for this can be the wide gap between the talk and the actions required to get it done.
Let’s start from the very beginning. Earlier in primitive society there was a clear division of labor. Men would go out to work and earn while women stayed at home and looked after the children and family. However, things changed with industrialization. With the advent of capitalism, everything was given value, and that instantly earned respect. But there was no capital gain from staying at home.
So people began to question the females. Women on the other hand to gain respect from society decided to work but this was supposed to be in addition to what she was already doing. This brought some clash with it. Cases of domestic violence and ego hassles went up. This made things difficult for women who could achieve high standards in society through her profession or if she selected a profession that was predominantly considered, male.
But with the increase in higher education and mobility women are going places. We can even witness the change in terminology from housewife to homemaker; phrases like “we are pregnant” show men’s involvement in the family. Women have done their part; they are more educated and have increased participation in the workforce they take on more senior roles. So it is now up to the government and firms to do their part.
Globally women are paid 20% less than men for the same position with the same qualification. In 95% of all occupations, men earn more than women. To tackle this the Australian government is forcing companies to reveal the pay gap among genders. The pay gap is a reality across sectors in all countries. It is bad but worse are the efforts to justify it. In 1996 women were earning 75 cents to white men’s $1 and two decades later it has become 77 cents. This certainly cannot be the idea of progress. Last year Goldman Sachs was fined for pay disparity. Others need to follow. Companies want a competitive environment and meritocracy. All this could be a rallying point for gender equality but it does not happen so.
According to the UN 90% of women do not have access to the Internet in low-income countries 37% do not use the Internet. There is a vast digital gender gap but this gap is also there from the food we eat, our health, to financial stability from careers to the chores that we do. If countries invest in women our economies will advance. The global GDP will increase by 20%. No country has a framework to bridge gender inequality. Out of 120 countries whose data was available 2.4 billion women do not have the same economic rights. At this rate as per the UN, it will take 169 years to close the gender gap.
So governments need to invest in women’s education, health, and security. This will only benefit the Nations as the GDP will increase. The return far outweighs the investment. Empowering women is good for the economy and is an open secret, yet it is unsettling for men. Instead of partners women are eyed as competitors who will take away their jobs. Some Days ago on X, a company declared that its employees cannot use children’s illness as an excuse for leave as according to them children are not their employees. This outraged many. Women have long been paying the motherhood penalty in corporate jobs.
Such stereotypes have existed throughout and the root cause for all this stems down to patriarchy. Sex and gender are different. Sex is a biological orientation and gender is the societal orientation given to us. Gender equity is the only means by which we can achieve gender equality.
Gender stereotypes are commonly attributed behavior and roles which are prevalent from generation to generation and have a detrimental effect on both genders. Girls are supposed to be a certain way and saying that men are insensitive. These roles are very specific across cultures.
Baby girls are socialized right from the beginning to behave in a certain way and baby boys are socialized to behave in a certain way. If we look at the kind of toys that we expose them to, baby boys are more aggressive. It is to prepare them for a world that is assertive and girls’ toys prepare them for domesticity. Dolls teach kids cognitive sequencing and verbal skills building blocks and puzzles teach spatial skills, and reading maps and hitting targets builds cognitive skills. But all toys are not treated equally. Girls get dolls and boys get maps and both lose out. All this depends on our culture. It can be the home, school, or neighborhood. All these shapes are attitudes.
A study was conducted to find out the age by which people become gender-conscious. So researchers went back to the very start of education at the age of 5-7 years to find if this gender divide existed and also understand the prevalence of general stereotyping at this age. They started with toys. A large number of children selected gender-neutral toys but what interested the researchers was that out of 191 girls, only one opted for a critical thinking game and only four boys opted for dolls. When they were shown typically male toys and female toys.
The next step was to link emotions and feelings to gender. So angry, and brave were found to be male as per the societal norms and what the kids’ entertainment industry set them. The third question was related to occupation. With female students believing that they could perform well in any field the boys were more apprehensive of the girls’ capability. Then, the next question was related to the choice of subjects. Students were given stem subjects and two non-stem subjects. Interestingly both boys and girls opted for a wide range of subjects.
So what happens in the next 10 years if girls opt out of STEM subjects? Lastly, kids were asked to name a picture of an engineer. With most of the kids giving male names and only one or two exceptions of a female name. The outcome of the study baffled the researchers. The dismissive attitude of boys towards the girls. They identified girls as weak and timid, “less brainy” to use their language. But we are talking about small kids 5 to 7 years old so what’s their environment like playing entertainment, studying. The entertainment industry has done much harm by endorsing gender stereotypes and no one is doing anything about it.
Suddenly blue is male and pink is female just because some marketing people thought so. In the 18th century girls and boys wore pink and blue alike. Pink was the color for boys and men. Pink comes from red which is a symbol of passion and aggression. By the first half of the 20th century, blue was seen as a color for girls because of its association with the Virgin Mary.
By the 1900s women of America’s high society and women’s freedom movement fancied pink color. By the 1970’s pink was considered a female color and marketers worked quickly to understand this. A mere choice, it trickled down and made its way to children’s toys. With the aisle being decided as the pink zone and blue zone. Marketers decide who will play with which toys. They even assigned emotions and value to it.
But this needs to be checked as parents it is our responsibility to instill correct values and open-mindedness in our kids. They also must not encourage any such stereotypes. We must be very careful with our speech and actions. After all, a compassionate and kind kid becomes a compassionate and kind adult. So the next time when the teacher needs some physical work to be done they should call for strong kids and not boys. Self-awareness and awareness of the situation are very important to take corrective measures. So, when Hillary Clinton told a young girl “You can become anything” she knew who her audience was and had taken a leaf out of the marketers’ handbook which stated, “to strike them young”.
We usually look for changes in the system but we never look at ourselves. As part of the establishment, we should actually look at people. We just need a few people critically thinking and talking about what’s going on; only then we can have hope.
Reporting the problem is easy but what is difficult is changing the mindset companies and governments have to acknowledge the gap and reshape attitude. We have to get to a point where we can decide differences, where we can celebrate and develop places that leverage these differences. Let’s aim to reach a place where people’s gender is not the relevant determinant of their capacity and that will contribute to the economic and social development of society.
Swami Vivekanand said, “It is impossible to think about the welfare of the world unless the condition of women is improved”. Against this backdrop of the current economic crisis in Europe, combined with the debate on the participation of women in the world economy realizing that they represent a critical engine for global economic growth. Does it represent the scenario where women’s potential is recognized and interpreted in terms of corporate advancement? Well, it needs to be seen.
Achieving gender equality is not just a moral imperative but an economic necessity. The persistent gap between rhetoric and action highlights the reluctance of governments, corporations, and societies to confront deeply ingrained biases. The fact that even developed nations struggle with basic gender equity is a damning indictment of our collective failure.
It’s time we stop celebrating incremental progress and start demanding systemic change. If we continue to see women as competitors rather than equals, we risk stalling global economic and social advancement. True equality will only be realized when gender no longer defines potential or limits ambition, and when we dismantle the structures that perpetuate these disparities.
Until then, we remain complicit in the failure of progress.
–Nidhi Raj is an independent writing professional, storyteller, and mother with a keen interest in women’s issues and International Relations.
