Global thought should be seen through a universal and pluralist lense, one that allows the world’s boundless and divergent community to find commonality in itself in order to obtain a global approach in how we view things. Humanity’s main concern is freedom in all aspects of life. Global theory succeeds thanks to its nature of understanding forces of political, social and economic power, and how these forces unconsciously affect our ability to live and understand the world. Within this essay I shall talk about how Foucault and Derrida question the societal powers which maintain state order through their many different approaches to this, whilst also remaining optimistic of implementing critical discourse analysis in how we are being governed. I aim to show that global theory unleashes itself through an arbitrary, yet complementary relationship between power and knowledge.
Global thought could be approached as explained by religious Indian leader and teacher Buddha: “do not believe anything for the simple fact that many believe it or pretend to believe it; believe it after submitting it to the dictates of reason and the voice of conscience”. In other words, this method of philosophical interpretation presents the philosophers ideas but encourages us to dictate them by applying our own knowledge to them. This method implies that philosophers are products of their time and environment; therefore their ideas derive from notions which respond to a certain historical period and cannot be translated across time because this would alter the original idea in order to forcibly accommodate it to the readers point of view. The importance of outlying this lies on the fact that Foucault and Derrida are two past figures who’s intent is to deconstruct what we undertand as `correct´. Philosophical ideas are isolated and confined to their historical and cultural context, and therefore can only be understood from a far. This theory doesn’t seek to find some sort of `final truth´, because it believes that there is none. Ideas are born from context and are therefore inextricable, and they should be interpreted in that way. The opposing side argues that historical ideas should not be considered in context but rather in how they can be rationalized. I believe that global thought is deeply personal. In my opinion, when it comes to philosophy, no one is free from their personal preconceptions, thus our final interpretation of texts and ideas isn’t common, but individual.
Having said this, Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida are two literary academics who belong to the contemporary system of thought, usually called “poststructuralist” or “postmodern”. While structuralism is “a theoretical approach that identifies patterns in social arrangements, mostly notably language”, post-structuralism “holds all meaning to be fluid rather than universal and predictable”. Foucault (1926-1984) was a French postmodernist thinker who questioned most of today’s ideas and concepts by forcing us to think from a different perspective when analysing them. Hence, instead of thinking “why are we this way?”, we should question it by saying “what made us this way?”. He argued, poststructuralist critique “only exists in relation to something other than itself”. By putting this into practice, his many works draw on the importance of the power discourse. “Power refers to the ability to do things and the capacity to produce effects within social interaction”. Foucault underlines the idea that this discourse is largely based a “common sense” formed by a set of rules that are largely influenced by the historical conditions that make up our world. One of his most famous quotes is : “Man is neither the oldest nor the most constant problem that has been posed for human knowledge”. What he wants us to do is to not think of every concept us humans have created as eternal, but rather as always moulding and expanding throughout history. For this, we can’t simply always explain an idea or word by applying them to any past works, for these are in constant and everlasting change.
Global, social and political thought longs to define and locate the source of power in society. Through many previous world-reknown philosophers such as Machiavelli in The Prince where he viewed power as a logical reason to the interests of the government, or Hobbes in Leviathan, who thought the solution to a corrupt society was having a powerful monarch, Foucault was hugely inspired by them. For this French scholar, instead of being centered on the state, power was spread across various social and political platforms. He saw power as not being repressive, rather as productive – “power produces identity and subjectivity”. Roughly me speaking, I define subjectivity as the ability of being based or influenced by personal feelings, interests or opinions. Furthermore, Foucault criticized the dominant political philosophy of the time, which he claimed relied on notions of formal authority and the state, stating: “Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strengh we are endowed with”. For him, the state was simply a symbol of the various structures and configurations of power in society. Therfore, power is captured by Foucault as “capillary” – “flowing throughout the system as like blood in the capilleries of our body”. This idea of the state as a practice instead of a thing in itself suggested that a deeper understanding of society’s structure could only be achieved through a broad analysis. In his analysis, Foucault argued that political theory should not involve the idea of an individual sovereign, who can enact laws and punish those who break them. He believed that politics had changed since the 16th century, when rulers could obtain and maintain power. In order to understand how power works, political theorists need to “cut off the king’s head” and develop an approach that shows how power works.
Developing from this, Foucault discussed in his lectures the concept of Government, which he saw as an art form that involved various techniques of discipline and control. By “Governmentality”, he refers to “the increasing homogenization abd organization of society in modern times – through a huge bureaucratic machinery that evolves endless ways of classifying people”. This concept can be seen in various contexts, such as the family, school, or the workplace. Through his explorations of power, he broadened his understanding of society’s various forms of power. In his works, he discussed the various forms of political power that can be found in society, such as the school classroom being a type of “micro-site” of political power which moves away from the traditional structures of government.
Using social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, we are more vulnerable to being tracked and monitored. This is because the very nature of these platforms makes it possible for anyone to access our private information anytime, but unlike before, “what the surveillant knows, the subject probably knows as well”, in the new surveillance “the surveillant knows things that the subject doesn’t”. In his 1975 panopticon view of the system, Michel Foucault explained how the power to watch over prisoners is distributed among various institutions, and that this has imitated itself in the digital world. It is also a form of power, which can be used to control or discipline the mass population. For people, this can become an internalized discipline that they adopt in order to avoid the consequences of their actions. Upon entering a facility, we are immediately captured with multiple cameras that capture us in varying angles, and these can then be used to identify criminals and monitor our body movements. This is now considered normal, as we are now subject to the dominant norm. The construction of subjectivity is not limited to a specific source of power. It can encompass all aspects of society, and it makes us question the freedom that we have as citizens. In his panopticon, Foucault referenced the idea of virtual prisons, where the institutions that control us affect our everyday lives.
Now, looking at another key philosopher in postmodernism is Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). His main theory was associated with “deconstruction”, “a complex and nuanced approach to how we read and understand the nature of written texts”. Derrida used deconstruction as a method for unfolding the relationship between power and knowledge. He believed that Western philosophers had systmatically priviledged speech and thought of it as the “authentic way” of communicating. On the other hand, writing was given less importance because it lacked the interaction and truthfulness that comes with conversation. In his work, Derrida tries to show that both empirical and transcendental subjectivity can be formulated beyond the limits of language. He rejects the idea that there is a universal language or that men can acquire one once and for all. Instead, he believes that there are multiple languages and various speech events. For Derrida, when people pick up a book, they imagine that what they see is a self-contained whole. For instance, when it comes to philosophy, they might expect to see texts that are logical and systematic. So, if you were to pick a book on mammals, you would think that by reading the whole thing you would have a lot of knowledge and understanding on this type of species. But, for him books and texts don’t work this way for he “reads texts against the grain of an author’ self-interpretation. In so doing, he does not simply disavow an author’s views on what his own texts are about. He takes an author’s standpoint as a pont of departure for his own discursive inverstigations, questioning the concepts that are employed to evaluate how their proposed oppositions and appositions harmonise with how they are used”.
Derrida came up with the term “aporia” and “différance”. The word aporia means “contradiction or puzzle” in Greek and différance is a new word coined by himself to show how language and words can be manipulated. Différence with an `e´ means “to differ” and “deférrer” means “to defer”. Now, both words are strongly similar which caught Derrida’s attention for he saw it as a way to explain the changing of meaning in written texts. The more description and words you add in a text, the more the meaning of it all changes and is revised. Meaning is differed in language. By implementing these two words when analysing texts it proves Derrida’s main point of written words actually show us something about language that speech doesn’t. All written texts have some form of contradiction, and this is what Derrida aims to show by deconstructing them. He shows that the complexity of textwork lies in the inner workings of most of the works. Deconstruction is a process of reading texts to expose hidden contradictions and paradoxes. This approach can also help us understand how social formations and ways of governance work because we are continuosly forced to acknowledge our deeply embedded political, historical and ethical unconscious. Thus, when we write a letter to a friend, the meaning of what we write is for Derrida, changed by what we write next without as being consciously aware of this.
In contrast to what has been said so far on Derrida, one cannot say “this is just” ‘without immediately betraying justice’. However, I accentuate that government control can be a part of justice, thus, in order to understand state order, one has to separate oneself from the desires of the self. Justice is infinite and can never be satisfied. One of his many famous quotes includes: “There is nothing outside of the text”, which somehow tries to imply that nothing actually matters also in life, not just in written works. It is here where I would like to criticize his theory for it is not accurate enough. His idea rejects logic and evidence and tries to undermine the social structures of life. Both Foucault and Derrida were left-wing, which is seen all throughout their work. In Deconstructing Modern and Global Theory, “Derrida’s deconstructive techniques alert readers to how concepts may be interpreted in ways that disturb the hierarchies and exclusions that are advertised and rehearsed by authors, who are set upon imagining a message that is clear and distinct”.
Both of them liked to say that political, social and economic systems exclude, that any hierachy of value excludes. However, this is obvious to me because if there is a hierarchy of value then some things are more valuable than others and the less valuable things are excluded. Derrida claimed that the reason that those hierachies of value are constructed isn’t to produce objects and products of value, but to exclude and to maintain the structure of power that is instrinsic to the hierachy of value. This claim is incorrect because there are numerous other reasons of why a hierarchy of value might be put into place such as in hierachies of beauty, competence, intelligence, attractiveness, atheltic ability and musical talent. All these different hierarchies exists in order of high order for us to name the best person out of these groups, hence why we exclude the rest who aren’t that good. In this sense, we get music, and direction and order. Their postmodernist theories seem to be an attack to dismantle Western tradition and Eurocentric science by labelling it as “patriarchal and authoritive”. They seem to believe that there is no real world outside of their arbitrary opinion.
To conclude everything said so far, global thought can be used to study the various ways in which power is exercised. A political theory framework must also include an awareness of how power operates and the norms that are associated with it. Through theoretical arguments and historical examples, Foucault aims to show how different systems of thought and discourse can affect different periods. His focus is on the distinction between langue and parole, and he avoids relying solely on the analogy with language, but rather emphasize relations of power and control. In terms of his main subject areas, Derrida differs from Michel Foucault. He focuses on the nature of language and meaning, rather than on historical and political detail. Both Derrida and Foucault cover a wide range of subjects, and they do not always agree on some of the ground they cover. For instance, he challenges Foucault’s apparent wish to veer away from the language of reason. Nevertheless, what is clear is that both tend to destabilize the social centers of control and government.
- Barker, C., 2010. The Sage dictionary of cultural studies. London: Sage Publications, p.Abstract.
- Bhargava, R. and Acharya, A., 2016. Political Theory: An Introduction. 1st ed. India: Pearson India Education Services, pp.149-157.
- Browning G. (2011) Conclusion: Deconstructing Modern and Global Theory. In: Global Theory from Kant to Hardt and Negri. International Political Theory Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230308541_8
- Buckingham, W., Burnham, D., Hill, C., King, P., Marenbon, J. and Weeks, M., 2011. The philosophy book. 1st ed. London: Jonathan Metcalf, pp. 302-303 and pp.310-313.
- Derrida, Jacques. ‘Force of Law: the “Mystical Foundation of Authority”.’ In Jacques Derrida, Acts of Religion. New York: Routledge, 2002: 228-298
- Gary T Marx 2002. What’s new about the “new surveillance”? Classifying for change and continuity. Surveillance & Society 1 (1): 9–29
- Jacques Derrida: Margins of philosophy (Différance), publisher: University of Chicago Press
- Kelly, P., Dacombe, R., Farndon, J., Hodson, A., Johnson, J., Kishtainy, N., Meadway, J., Pusca, A. and Weeks, M., 2013. The politics book. 1st ed. New York: DK Pub., pp.310-311.
- Foucault, Michel (1997) ‘What is Critique?’ in The Politics of Truth, Sylvère Lotringer and Lysa Hochroth (eds.) (New York: Semiotext), p. 24.
- TACO SAGRADO CORAZON -2022, 2022. Madrid: MENSAJERO, EDICIONES (18 octubre 2021).
- Seiler, R. (n.d.). Semiology // Semiotics. [online] People.ucalgary.ca. Available at: https://people.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/semiolog.htm [Accessed 17 Feb. 2022].
 Buddha: TACO SAGRADO CORAZON -2022
 Abstract: Chris Barker (2010): Structuralism, Poststructuralism, and Cultural Studies
 Foucault (1997) ‘What is Critique?’ in The Politics of Truth, Sylvère Lotringer and Lysa Hochroth, p. 24.
 Rajeev Bhargava and Ashok Acharya in Political Theory: An Introduction (2016), p.149
 Michel Foucault in The PhilosophyBook (2011), p.303
 Political Theory: An Introduction (2016), p. 155
 Michel Foucault in The Politics Book (2013), p.310
 Political Theory: An Introduction (2016), p.155
 The Politics Book (2013), p.310
 Political Theory: An Introduction (2016), p.155
 Gary T Marx, 2002: Surveillance & Society 1 (1): 9–29
 Jacques Derrida in The PhilosophyBook (2011), p.310
 Conclusion: Deconstructing Modern and Global Theory, (2011) p.159
 Margins of philosophy (Différance) pp.6-27
 Jacques Derrida, ‘Force of Law: The “Mystical Foundation of Authority,”’ in Jacques Derrida, Acts of Religion (New York: Routledge, 2002): 237
 The PhilosophyBook (2011), p.308
 Conclusion: Deconstructing Modern and Global Theory (2011) p.160
Growing Up In Poverty Free Essay
Children who grow up in poverty experience a myriad of challenges throughout their life. Poverty poses numerous negative impacts on the overall performance of children which results in inequalities in psychological growth, cognitive development, health, and educational achievement. The inequalities are apparent right from pre-school through a child’s school life. As Morgan (2017) illustrates, the inequalities are also clearly visible in the labor market and sometimes passed over to the future generations. This essay reviews the impacts of poverty on the performance of children on the areas highlighted to help families and stakeholders working with children to understand and provide the necessary support.
Effect of Poverty on Educational Achievement and Cognitive Development
Empirically, there is a significant relationship between a child’s economic background and educational achievement, cognitive development, and the future prospects of securing employment. Growing up in poverty adversely affects the cognitive development of a child. According to Morgan (2017), the level of poverty and the time in which a child lives in poverty worsen the harmful effects, with children living in extreme poverty showing the poorest cognitive development. Comparatively, children who do well in aptitude tests during early childhood from poor family settings are outdone by children from rich backgrounds in similar tests carried out in later years. Parents exposed to extreme poverty experience prolonged stress, which results in reduced cognitive replication for their children. Furthermore, parents experiencing economic hardships are less likely to have more parent-child interaction which is a recipe for cognitive development and educational achievement.
Effect of Poverty on Psychological, Health, Social and Emotional Outcomes
There is empirical evidence that poverty is associated with negative psychological, health, social, and emotional outcomes for the children. Fiedler & Kuester (2010) revealed that the relationship is more powerful during early childhood and less powerful in the middle stages. Imparting children with positive psychological and behavioral skills at a tender age results in higher educational achievement and higher employment prospects in the labor market during adulthood. On the contrary, poverty and economic hardship for children in early years leads to poor psychological and behavioral outcomes. Moreover, factors such as mother’s level of stress, self-esteem, and the quality of parenting determine children’s outcome of these parameters. The maternal mental health, which is highly associated with psychological, social, and emotional well-being also directly affect negatively children’s outcomes.
Poverty and Parenting
Economically challenged parents equally face various difficulties including poor mental and physical health and lack of basic amenities, some of which have to do with them growing up in poverty also. Lipina & Colombo (2009) demonstrated that to try reduce the impacts of poverty on children, parents often sacrifice their consumption and possession of material things. Poor parents often have high hopes and aspirations for their children, but lack of the financial muscles and knowledge of how to accomplish those ambitions prevent them from offering the needed support. For poor parents and their children, better information is needed to provide understanding of how work and education fit together in realizing ambitions for the children.
In summary, children are the main beneficiaries of poverty because it affects their lives in the early lives and in the future. Interventions focusing on improving the economic conditions of poor parents as well as the state of children living in poverty are required. Stakeholders have the responsibility of identifying the inequalities and facilitating community development and empowerment programs to address the gaps.
Fiedler, A., & Kuester, I. (2010). Child development and child poverty. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Lipina, S. J., & Colombo, J. A. (2009). Poverty and brain development during childhood: An approach from cognitive psychology and neuroscience. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
Morgan, C. (Aug 2017). Impacts of Poverty on Children and Young People. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237078363_Impacts_of_poverty_on_children_and_young_people
Half The Sky Movie Sample Paper
Gender inequality is a global issue that draws my interest and attention. In the US and other countries, huge inequality gaps exist between males and females. Such inequalities are evident at work, at home, and in public. Statistics indicate that despite the transformations intended to challenge women’s subordination, there still exists inequality. Inequality is higher in industrialized nations and is propelled by how people relate gender issues. Gender stereotypes influence interpersonal relations, thus defining how men and women relate. In the US, women are more disadvantaged than men. Statistics indicate that women earn 80% less than men, are less considered in top managerial positions, and do twice as much housework as men. Social inequalities between men and women cause persistent inequality. Stereotypes have formed a cultural frame people follow when forming relationships and interacting with others. Gender inequality greatly affects women and subjects them to life-threatening consequences which affect them negatively. Most women are exposed to violence, discrimination, and inequality, which subjects them to post-traumatic stress disorders. In developing countries, inequality has led to increased rape, prostitution, maternal mortality, and lack of education among girls. Men have greatly contributed to widening the inequality gap since they are the greatest promoters of inequality. This paper discusses gender inequality among women based on the “Half the Sky” movie.
In “Half the Sky” movie, Kristof and WuDunn (2010) narrate the deeply rooted oppression and inequality among women to the level that global leaders need to intervene on the issue. The narrators explore the continents of Asia and Africa, where inequality is deeply rooted and most women and oppressed. However, there are encouraging stories of some women who emerge triumphant. Women encounter numerous challenges in receiving assistance, including foreign aid since the majority are neglected even by the authorities (Kristof & WuDunn, 2010). However, the movie condemns the deeply rooted gender inequality and proposes solutions to the global challenge that is highly prevalent globally. The movie first introduces Srey Rath, a teenage Cambodian girl who was sold to slavery in Thailand. The girl was forced into slavery after being raped and later forced to engage in prostitution before she was finally rescued. Despite the lady experiencing tragic occurrences, the story is common among several other women who have experienced the same encounter. The movie portrays over three million women who are forced into sexual slavery after being held captive, where they are subjected to drug addiction and cultural condemnation.
Efforts to assist such women have all failed until the authors are left wondering, “how can we help?” However, the authors argue that a solution to sexual slavery triggered by gender inequality exists. Despite most aid efforts failing to bear fruit, Kristof & WuDunn (2010) argue that educating the girl child is the way to rescue them. They provide detailed insights into how a private institution within Seattle empowered girls by sponsoring them for education. Some of the major challenges experienced included extremely poor girls being forced to work to get some finances to support their families. Despite experiencing numerous challenges, the project succeeded and rescued the women from inequality since they could live independently. The stories presented in the movie generally describe the major challenges that women encounter globally and the shortcomings of the mitigation measures put in place. Afterer discussing several instances of slavery among women the narrators, present other forms of oppression that women encounter. Men use rape as a weapon of controlling women. This has subjected women to brutal killings and poor health issues. The graphics presented in the movie are devastating as they expose the brutal occurrences that women go through globally. Such problems are not only common to third-world countries but also developed countries. The narrators emphasise the counties of Afghanistan, Thailand, Congo, and Senegal.
The entire movie revolves around the challenges that gender inequality poses to women. Prostitution is one of these challenges and is highly prevalent in developing countries. The authors visit brothels to understand the challenges girls whom their families have sold to prostitution experience. Most girls are sold into the sex business simply because most families cannot afford to raise them, while others are sold to pay family debts (Kristif & WuDunn, 2010). While at the brothel, most are drugged to work for long hours, thus exposing them to sexually transmitted infections. The girls are not even allowed to use condoms since the customers are the ones to decide. The financial emancipation of such women makes them have nowhere to go other than staying in the brothels for their entire life. Most other ladies are raped, but their efforts to raise the issues are dismissed and not believed by society. Whenever women expose their experiences, the majority are killed to preserve family honour and save it from shame.
Maternal mortality is also high since most hospitals cannot take good care of women and their children. Most women give birth while at home, thus exposing them to more risks. Girls are not allowed to access education, unlike their male counterparts. Most people believe that girls have no potential to be successful and live independent life. Most families selectively offer education opportunities to kids, with boys being the beneficiaries and most ladies being locked out. Poverty further complicates the issue since most families struggle to afford the basics such as uniforms and school fees, thus opting for ladies to remain uneducated (Kristof & Wu Dunn, 2010). Other communities believe that educated ladies do terrible things which are against the community. Men even fear educating women due to the fear of being deemed inferior.
Kristof and WuDunn also explore the issues that complicate the problem-solving process. They identify the western misunderstanding of the Islamic culture as the major barrier that hinders women from achieving equality even when there are deliberate efforts to rescue them from inequality. However, the authors present solutions to all challenges that they discuss, thus underpinning their argument that inequality is not a permanent issue since it has tangible and effective solutions. Volunteer work and financial support are the most viable solutions that can rescue women from the inequality challenges they encounter. The government and all other stakeholders need to invest heavily in offering financial support or volunteer work to ladies. These include investing in other education and pursuing other empirically based solutions. The movie is split into two parts. The first part explains the key factors that contribute to oppression, whereas the other part discusses the possible mitigation measures. The movie ends up with an encouraging promise that political advocacy and financial support for women is the key o ending global inequalities.
Ethical values provide a moral direction on how individuals live and make critical decisions as it encourages people to do the right thing at the right time. Gender inequality is an unethical act that subjects women to long-lasting effects such as exposure to gender, discrimination, and objectification (Cerrato & Citre, 2018). For years, women have been viewed as sexual objects whose bodies can only be looked at, admired, coveted, and touched. Objectification arises due to the negative attitudes that men hold against women and promiscuity. Once women are discovered to be open toward sex, they are subjected to sexual aggression. However, we should all advocate for gender equality among all. Equal societies are safer and healthier since they experience less anti-social behaviour and violence. An equal society is less cohesive and disconnected. Gender equality is a human right and should therefore be upheld and respected by all citizens. Regardless of the poverty status or social background, gender equality is necessary as it ensures that both men and women make decisions that impact their lives positively.
The major causes of gender inequality include uneven access to education, job segregation, lack of legal protection, and lack of body autonomy (Zhu, 2021). Forced sex is against the major principles of ethics, which are used to justify ethical prescriptions and human actions. Ethics dictate that all people should be respected by being treated as autonomous agents and being protected. Individual opinions, beliefs, and moral convictions need to be respected not unless they are detrimental to others. The incapacitated young girls need to be protected until they mature and have the right to decide on their own. Extensive protection needs to be provided to all people depending on the risk they are exposed to. The principle of beneficence requires that all individuals be treated ethically and have their safety assured. All their choices should be of no harm and maximal benefits. The principle of justice requires that there be fairness in distribution, and every individual ought to receive what they deserve (Guyer, 2018). Injustice occurs whenever particular actions deny individuals the advantage that they deserve. This principle argues that all people need to be treated equally regardless of their gender, race, ethnic background, or religion. The principle of autonomy requires that individuals should be duly respected, and their choices should be upheld, provided they do not infringe on the interests of others. The principle of non-maleficence argues that individuals have the moral responsibility to protect others from harm and maintain professional competence. They should not force others into unnecessary suffering or destroy their hope.
In conclusion, sexual harassment is one of the major issues that women undergo in an unequal society. More women are subjected to sexual abuse than men, thus experiencing more health issues than men. Women’s oppression is a moral and economic issue that needs to be countered. “The book is a bold attempt by the author where he speaks out the hands-on experiences of women facing problems across the world” (Amrittha, 2020). Oppression is highly prevalent in developing countries across Asia and Africa. However, the issue is of global concern due to the detrimental effects it poses to the oppressed. Based on the movie, my perception that gender inequality cannot be solved has completely changed. Initially, my belief was that gender inequality is deeply rooted in society to the level that an amicable solution cannot be attained. However, the movie enlightened me and changed my view. Empowering women through education and financial support is the most effective way of handling the issue. Poverty greatly contributes to gender violence and exploitation since most families are forced to sell girls to clear family debts and select the kids who should be allowed to attend school. To end gender inequality, all people should unite to fight poverty and empower women to survive independently. The movie content addresses real-life issues which should not be looked down upon due to their high prevalence rates.
Amrittha, A. (2020). Book Review of” Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunities for Women Worldwide”.
Cerrato, J., & Cifre, E. (2018). Gender inequality in household chores and work-family conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1330.
Guyer, P. (2018). Principles of Justice, Primary Goods and Categories of Right: Rawls and Kant. Kantian Review, 23(4), 581-613.
Kristof, N. D., & WuDunn, S. (2010). Half the sky: Turning oppression into opportunity for women worldwide. Vintage.
Zhu, Z. (2021, December). The Causes and Solutions of Gender Inequality in the Workplace. In 2021 4th International Conference on Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS 2021) (pp. 693-697). Atlantis Press.