Introduction
Gender or sexual equality is one of the most critical issues that we face in today’s society. This century is no longer the time when one can say that men come from Mars, and women come from Venus. Today, sexual equality is one of the basic human rights, but not just a problem of a group of females, and each act of gender injustice has to be explained. Despite a significant number of projects and policies defending gender equality, the progress is rather slow. This phenomenon is linked to the nature of human psychology, which is based on stereotypical thinking (Bohnet, 2016). Thus, this paper is dedicated to learning about the concept of gender equality and understanding the reasons for inequality. It also mentions which notions are a part of gender equality and which are not connected to it.
Ethical Argument
Gender equality is a concept that means reaching equal rights between the sexes, in particular, family and civil rights. There have been numerous studies proving that women are equal to men in their intellectual development and capabilities (Kabeer, 2015). However, in many countries females still face unequal treatment, not getting the same rights and responsibilities that men are believed to have as a birthright. For example, in many professions, there is a significant prevalence of men or women, and both of them get unequally treated due to various reasons.
Gender equality as a principle consists of learning and removing all social barriers, which do not let a personality get chances for realization in all spheres, depending on the preferences of the individual. Gender identity is a set of human traits that define a person as a man or a woman, mainly in cultural and social contexts. It gets revealed through the roles defined by society, as well as through learned and expected models of behavior, which are associated with men or women. Gender inequality is a characteristic of social structure, which declares that men and women have distinct differences, which predetermine their unequal possibilities in society. The social psychology of gender is a limitless field for studying the misconceptions, discrimination, and appearance of social roles and norms. Gender inequality creates conditions in which the representatives of a particular gender are not provided a chance to take specific actions only for the reason of their gender identity. This problem again refers to both men and women.
Females make up more than 50% of the Earth’s population. Double standards regarding them cause harm to the whole society and negatively impact its economic development. The results of the research show that the countries in which men and women are treated equally are more economically advanced (Falk and Hermle, 2018). Such countries develop faster, and the economic situation in them is better due to applying more effective systems of state regulation, which is an important factor of growth and development. At the same time, providing equal rights to girls and women has to be treated as something that does not cause harm to the rights of males.
Explanation and Defense
One of the first philosophers who speculated on the topic of gender equality was Plato, who defended women’s rights and approved their participation in sports competitions, political life, and public institutions. He declared that women are eligible for taking important positions in government, including the leading ones (Kabeer, 2015). His works were revolutionary at that time, as ancient Greek society was under the pressure of centuries of traditional stereotypic thinking.
Gender discrimination in most cases is linked with erratic behavior based on stereotypic thinking. The beliefs about male and female role models cause an impact on what people believe is allowed and essential in their lives. Stereotypes provide an opportunity to realize some piece of information quickly, although, in many cases, these beliefs fail in their accuracy. People often make mistakes through stereotypic thinking, for they take their conclusions about the world as a must. In reality, the world, nothing and nobody in it is supposed to correspond to the stereotypical concepts of a person or a group of people. Psychologists say that this kind of thinking is typical for people and that each person tries to categorize the others. The nature of this thought process is unconscious; that is why it is so difficult to fight stereotypic thinking (Bohnet, 2016). Thus, once one learns the sexual identity of another person, biased thinking gets instantly activated in their head. Such brain functions are one of the reasons for unintentional discrimination.
This explanation of stereotypic thinking means that even though great media attention is paid to highlight the issues of discrimination by gender, race, or class, the progress in fighting it is not significant. The number of world countries involved in programs on fighting the issues of gender inequality is increasing. However, the impact of these programs, especially in societies with traditional thinking on gender roles is spreading slowly. Ideally, all communities and levels have to be involved in creating an environment through which all members of society could learn about the issues of gender inequality. Through social awareness about the traditional stereotypes on gender roles and understanding the physiology of the human brain, society can learn to combat this problem.
One of the studies researched a computer simulation, which calculated the losses economy would have if women are excluded from the labor force. The results showed that the losses of GDP per capita would fall by 40% in the leading world countries (Falk and Hermle, 2018). Thus, fighting the issue of gender inequality promotes not only the healthy development of a person but the economic growth of the whole nation, which is beneficial for both men and women.
Objection and Response
The questions of equality of sexes remain hard to be addressed. The professor of Harvard University Iris Bohnet mentions in her book that gender equality remains nothing but a moral argument. She states that society must realize that treating genders equally is the right thing to do (Bohnet, 2016). However, equality between men and women does not mean that they can become creatures with the same physical and psychological capabilities. It only means that both genders may have equal opportunities and responsibilities, which do not depend on their sexual identity. Gender equality means taking into consideration the needs, priorities, and interests of the representatives of both sexes. This question is not solely a problem of women, but a concern of all civilized society, as it is one of the parameters defining the economic wellbeing of the community.
Those who criticize the concept of gender equality remark that it is linked with providing equal possibilities to each person. They claim that it is practically impossible as men and women have different physiology and mentality. Thus, they conclude that no equality can be provided. Men cannot feel satisfied if they have to do what women prefer doing. At the same time, women in most cases cannot feel happy taking men’s activities and jobs. For example, most men do not like shopping and cosmetics, while most women do not like motorbikes and fishing. However, those who defend the concepts of gender equality declare that this position is a result of the patriarchal education of many generations, as well as of many stereotypes. Some sociologists believe that the opinion of a person, its mental state, psychology, behavioral motifs, and way of thinking depend on sex. Distinct gender differences are hard to argue; however, gender equality primarily means providing a possibility of development of a woman as a woman and a man as a man. It means that focusing on physical and mental differences between the sexes is not a fair reason for providing unequal rights.
Also, those who oppose the principles of gender equality tell that it is impossible for a mentally developed proactive person to do nothing else but fight for equal rights. People are supposed to do their job and to realize themselves through certain activities. Thus, though most people realize that a certain degree of segregation between sexes is a core of human civilization, they do not focus on inequalities. Regardless of the possible biases, a person first focuses on achieving the set goals. It means that for a significant number of people the problem of gender inequality never raises.
Conclusion
Gender equality is one of the core problems of the current century. It means providing equal conditions for men and women. Even though addressed in many countries, gender stereotypes remain strong, as they are linked with the way the human brain operates. Gender equality means providing equal rights and opportunities for men and women and does not mean that men and women are individuals with identical physiology, mentality, and interests. Increasing awareness on the problems of gender mentality provides slow, but practical results in reaching equal rights for men and women globally.
References
Bohnet, I. (2016). What works gender equality by design. New York, NY: Belknap Press.
Falk, A, and Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412).
Kabeer, N. (2015). Gender equality, economic growth, and women’s agency: The “endless variety” and “monotonous similarity” of patriarchal constraints. Feminist economics, 22(1), 295-321.
“Rampant: How A City Stopped A Plague” Film Reflection
During the times when HIV and AIDS were unknown to humanity, select social groups in the Australian city of Darlinghurst were leading a rather reckless lifestyle. Sexually transmitted diseases were a norm, and specialized clinics always had patients to work with. However, when people started to get infected with a new, previously unidentified virus, people started worrying, and the local government had to take measures to prevent the said virus from spreading. This essay is going to take a look at the 2007 film Rampant: How a City Stopped a Plague directed by Victoria Midwinter-Pitt, and discuss the depicted Australian method of fighting HIV.
According to the movie, the key to success was the cooperation between activists with Minister for Health Neal Blewett and his Senior Advisor Bill Bowtell, who is an openly gay man. The AIDS prevention plan went into full force by 1987, six years after the first reports about the disease came in. The method involved advertising campaigns to encourage protected sexual contacts, programs to exchange needles, funding for cooperatives of sex workers, and raising public awareness despite the number of people opposing it. The film provides proof that the plan worked: the general HIV incidence became ten times lower compared to that of the USA’s, with the death toll being more than seven times lower than predicted (Rampant: How a City Stopped a Plague). It would seem that the Australians took a more drastic approach with more active measures to prevent the disease, which is the major difference from the way the US dealt with it. Unfortunately, the film does not elaborate on why exactly the shown method was successful, only alluding to the political climate and assuming the viewers already know what happened.
It is possible to assume that the reason the Australian preventive measures were more successful than in the USA was the cooperation of activists and the government. Compared to the Australian approach, travel restrictions, medical treatments, and public health policies, the US initially introduced, appeared to be less effective. Another difference was a firm stance taken by the Australians against the opposition that preached morality, disregarding public health.
Work Cited
Rampant: How a City Stopped a Plague. Directed by Victoria Midwinter-Pitt, Chapman Pictures Pty Ltd, 2007.
Researches On The Housing Prices
Literature Review
The topic of house pricing is very well researched. The housing market is often associated with large cash flows which make sellers and advertisers research the reasons and factors that affect the price of houses and apartments. Beijing as a capital city with a huge market for real estate is an excellent ground for research in the sphere of residential housing prices and factors affecting them. One of the major trends identified in this literature review is the prevalence of hedonic pricing method. According to many researcher groups including Candas, Kalkan, and Yomralioglu (2015), Chen and Jim (2010), He et al. (2010) and others, determining the price of a property by assessing the functional and recreational ‘fertility’ of the nearby territory is one of the most widespread and effective methods in theory and in practice. Another trend is rising value of greenery in proximity to a property on sale. According to Chen and Jim (2010) people there has been more than a 17% increase in the value of attractive landscape among buyers. These and other trends, major findings, arguments, limitations, and strengths of the available research data will be discussed in further detail below.
Key Factors in Forming the Price of Housing
Researchers identify a variety of components of which housing price consists. Among them, the transaction price, distance to center, public transportation options, proximity to various socially significant institutions such as hospitals, schools, kindergartens, the proximity of small and big shopping outlets, etc. Most researchers such as Chen and Jim (2010), He et al. (2010), Randeniya, Ranasinghe, and Amarawickrama (2017) tend to review several factors and compare them to each other to identify the most significant ones. Others such as Ottensmann, Payton, and Man (2008) provide an in-depth study of a single factor or, as in the case with Zheng, Sun, and Wang (2014), focus a heterogeneous group of factors.
On the one hand, comparative studies seem to contribute more to the developing of practical data and forming usable clusters information for agents and buyers to use. On the other hand, this approach does not let assess the reasons and mechanisms that form the significance of the factor to a certain market. It appears that both research approaches can be deemed justifiable as they let further research possible and more evidence-based. The in-depth knowledge of each factor separately contributes to the wiser choice of comparison tactics. For instance, in the works of Xiao et al. (2017) and Ottensmann et al. (2008) explore the value and significance of location as a major element that forms housing price. The latter group of researchers argues that monocentric model provides a wide choice of measuring techniques. For example, for determining the value of location parameter, Ottensmann et al. (2008) discuss travel time to center, travel distance to center, distance to employment, and other procedures. This, as the researchers conclude, helps build more reliable data for comparison of location with other factors (Ottensmann et al., 2008).
The factor that is arguably the most frequently discussed one in scientific circles is location. There are different approaches to its definition and measurement (Ottensmann et al., 2008). Location is a multidimensional and complex factor that, includes several metrics such as accessibility, distance, proximity to viable social objects, etc. It has been found that in multiple cities and countries including Moscow, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Beijing, and others there is a strong positive correlation between distance from a city center and price of a housing unit.
The other significant factor that is discussed in the literature is land transaction price (He et al., 2010). According to the results of the application of mathematical modeling tool to different factors, this aspect was considered the most influential as its t-ratio, p-value, and other estimation results were significantly better than those of other factors (He et al., 2010). Another factor identified by the researchers is FAR. FAR is significant as it directly correlates with the quality of living. Densely built areas, according to Cebula (2009), He et al. (2010), and Zheng et al. (2014), offer less open access to public facilities, present waste issues, and other unpleasant items that can lower the price of housing.
Greenery was identified as increasingly significant by Chen and Jim (2010) and Zhang and Dong (2018). The pleasing qualities of the landscape such as proximity to parks, gardens or, at least, street greenery have been long advocated for in urbanist literature. Aesthetic and health-related qualities of the landscape have been found to form up to 10% of the housing price. According to the other data, the landscape component may take up to 17%.
There are also many other aspects that contribute to housing price including scarce land supply, interior properties, exterior construction material, building age, etc. (Cebula, 2009; Zheng et al., 2014). Yet, according to comparative analyses done by He et al. (2010) and Zheng et al. (2014), the results are either outmatched by location, and land transaction or they remain mixed and inconclusive.
Major Issues, Debates, and Limitations in Relation to Housing Price Determinants
There is a certain number of issues related to factors that affect housing prices. Different researchers concentrate on a variety of factors and value them as the most significant. For instance, He et al. (2010) argues that top three aspects of residential housing price are floor area ratio (FAR), land transaction price and distance from the center of a city. According to He et al. (2010), these three factors constitute 98.8% of the price. The authors used a linear and semi-logarithm regression model to prove that. The structural variables showed close correlation, yet certain variables performed better during test-drop. As a result, variables such as a park, transit availability, hospital and others lost significantly to the transaction price, distance from the center, and FAR. This point of view is reinforced by other prominent scientific works. As such, Ottensmann et al. (2008) and Zhang and Dong (2018) suggest that distance to the center is one of the most significant price-forming factors in real estate market.
On the other hand, Cebula (2009) argues that positive effects on the price were demonstrated by variables that pertain mostly to interior design and functionality. Aspects such as the number of bedrooms rooms, fireplace, square footage, etc. were found to be more statistically significant than certain outside amenities such as proximity to bus stops, waterfront, shops, and other public facilities. However, both Cebula (2009) and He et al. (2010) do not use the same variables, so strictly speaking, this is not an argument between the significance of one or the other. Rather it is a clash of variable choice for analysis.
There has also been a debate among scientists as to what should be called a center. Ottensmann et al. (2008) cite researchers who believe that center is primarily a concentration of recreational functions, while Xiao et al. (2017) argue that center or centers are the major concentration of the workplaces. Both researcher groups agree that these functions are often imbued with a single location within the city.
There are certain issues that persist in the literature. Most of the researchers use open-source statistical data on the housing transactions. These often include geospatial datasets, volunteered geographic information, the point of interest data, etc. One other issue is the lack of certain significant data on transactions such as person’s own argument for buying and selling. It is often unknown why people choose to buy one or another house. In addition, the statistical information that is mostly used by the researchers is biased in this regard as the choice of a certain acquisition is not always driven by clear and transparent logic. Therefore, mathematic equations and formulas are not always applicable to such data. Generally, the area of sellers’ individual influence is widely under-researched.
Among other limitations is the lack of comprehensive multi-variable research which utilizes regressive analysis, wavelet-based denoising method, and a range of descriptive statistics. There is a lot of solid research, yet they, arguably, lack scale. No researcher presently has compared and analysed all of the existing variables.
Conclusion
All things considered, the housing prices and variables that affect them are widely studied and discussed in scientific literature. A lot of research has been focused on an in-depth study of certain variables but significantly more has been aimed at a comparison. Most of the researchers use regression analysis and draw data from open geospatial and economic data sources. Despite wide coverage, the research generally stays fragmented. In addition, there is not enough emphasis on self-reported data study.
References
Candas, E., Kalkan, S. B., & Yomralioglu, T. (2015). Determining the factors affecting housing prices. Web.
Cebula, R. J. (2009). The hedonic pricing model applied to the housing market of the city of Savannah and its Savannah historic landmark district. The Review of Regional Studies, 39(1), 9-22.
Chen, W. Y., & Jim, C. Y. (2010). Amenities and disamenities: A hedonic analysis of the heterogeneous urban landscape in Shenzhen (China). Geographical Journal, 176 (3), 227-240. Web.
He, C., Wang, Z., Guo, H., Sheng, H., Zhou, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). Driving forces analysis for residential housing price in Beijing. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 2, 925–936. Web.
Ottensmann, J. R., Payton, S., & Man, J. (2008). Urban location and housing prices within a hedonic model. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 38(1), 19-35.
Randeniya, T., Ranasinghe, G., & Amarawickrama, S. (2017). A model to estimate the implicit values of housing attributes by applying the hedonic pricing method. International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 4(2), 113-120. Web.
Xiao, Y., Chen, X., Li, Q., Yu, X., Chen, J., & Guo, J. (2017). Exploring determinants of housing prices in Beijing: An enhanced hedonic regression with open access POI Data. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 6(11), 358-366. Web.
Zhang, Y., & Dong, R. (2018). Impacts of street-visible greenery on housing prices: Evidence from a hedonic price model and a massive street view image dataset in Beijing. International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(3), 104-116. Web.
Zheng, S., Sun, W., & Wang, R. (2014). Land supply and capitalization of public goods in housing prices: evidence from Beijing: Land supply and capitalization of public goods. Journal of Regional Science, 54(4), 550–568. Web.