Gender-Based Problems of Women in Management Essay -- Psychology, Fem

Gender-Based Problems of Women in Management Early Research The focus of a good deal of the early research on gender-based problems at work has attempted to determine factors responsible for the problems. As noted by Talley (1988), women in management, especially the upper levels of management, were shown by this early research to have consistently been underrepresented and underutilized. An example of the kind of research that was being conducted at this time can be seen in research conducted by Gerike (1983) who compared a group of 34 women in upper- and middle-level management positions, most of them the sole woman at their level, with a group of 34 men matched to them only by job position or job title. Data were collected by mailing a lengthy researcher-designed questionnaire to the sample of female managers. According to Gerike (1983), the findings of the study showed a repeated pattern of gender-based discrimination. Specifically, it was found that female managers were lower in power and status than the males, on the basis of lower salaries; they were also less involvement than males with budgetary matters. In addition, managers more often trained and supervised employees of their own sex. Female managers had longer average tenure with their organizations but less managerial experience. They were paid significantly less than equally experienced males when job tenure for both was less than five years. Income for females but not for males was positively correlated with previous policy-making experience. Female managers were less involved in informal interactions with colleagues, such as lunching and socializing, and more of them were single (11 women, 1 man). Somewhat lower levels of risk-taking behaviors... ... used in the study was from the Current Population Survey, March 1982. Analyses revealed that education was significant in explaining the salary differential for the sample of salespeople only. Marital status was significant for the sample of male salespeople only. Age and hours worked were also found to be significant in explaining the wage differentials for female salespeople, male sales managers or department heads, and male salespeople. Hours worked was the only variable significant in explaining salary differences between married and single female buyers. Birth-order and its effects on the gender-related factor of attitudes toward female mangers was examined in a study conducted by Brenner and Beutell (1989). Since birth-order is one of the variables that will be examined in this study, Brenner and Beutell's study is pertinent to the proposed research.

Food Inc Movie Monsanto Essay

Food, Inc. reveals the shocking truths about the food and food chain that America eats. It narrates the industrial production of meat (chicken, beef, and pork), grains and vegetables (primarily corn and soybeans) and lastly about the major food corporations involved. The movie makes us aware about the food that we eat, the hidden politics about the production systems and economic and legal power that the food companies possess. As the film advances, it demonstrates the rise of current method of raw food production as a response to the growth of the fast food industry of the 50’s as compared to traditional methods. It makes a strong point by highlighting that a few multinational corporations who dominate the modern food chain and its production have skewed interests. The emphasis of these food corporations like Monsanto is on business and profitability rather than food quality or health and safety – of the food itself, of the animals produced themselves, of the workers on the assembly lines, and of the consumers actually eating the food. Production of large quantities of food at low direct inputs (most often subsidized) result in enormous profits, which in turn marks greater domination of the global supply of food sources by selected few food corporations. The government conveniently overlooks the power exercised by the food companies in pursuit of cheaper food regardless the negative repercussions. Regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA, sparing from the public eye give their consents to the food corporations such as Monsanto, to manipulate with the public health in exchange of bigger returns. The government approved bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, tomatoes that will not go bad are the negative gifts presented by these corporations. Companies like Monsanto throw more science at the problems to bandage the issues instead of uprooting the problem. As a result, new strains of E. coli- the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually have emerged due to the inappropriate business behavior of the food corporations. The increasing obesity levels, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults is a gift from the food corporations.

Overview of the Sepoy

A sepoy was the name given to an Indian infantryman employed by the armies of the British East India Company  from 1700 to 1857 and later by the British Indian Army from 1858 to 1947. That change of control in colonial India, from the BEIC to the British government, actually came about as a result of the sepoys — or more specifically, because of the Indian Uprising of 1857, which is also known as the Sepoy Mutiny. Originally, the word sepoy  was used somewhat derogatorily by the British because it denoted a relatively untrained local militiaman. Later in the British East India Companys tenure, it was extended to mean even the ablest of native foot-soldiers. Origins and Perpetuations of the Word The term sepoy comes from the Urdu word sipahi, which is itself derived from the Persian word sipah, meaning army or horseman. For much of Persian history — from at least the Parthian era on, — there was not much distinction between a soldier and a horseman. Ironically, despite the words meaning, Indian cavalrymen in British India were not called sepoys, but sowars. In the Ottoman Empire in what is now Turkey, the word sipahi  was still used for cavalry troopers. However, the British took their usage from the Mughal Empire, which used sepahi to  designate Indian infantry soldiers. Perhaps as the Mughals were descended from some of the greatest cavalry fighters of Central Asia, they did not feel that Indian soldiers qualified as real cavalrymen. In any case, the Mughals armed their sepoys with all the latest weapons technology of the day. They carried rockets, grenades, and matchlock rifles by the time of Aurangzeb  who reigned from 1658 to 1707.   British and Modern Usage When the British began to use sepoys, they recruited them from Bombay and Madras, but only men from the higher castes were considered eligible to serve as soldiers. Sepoys in British units were supplied with weapons, unlike some of those who served local rulers. The pay was approximately the same, regardless of the employer, but the British were much more punctual about paying their soldiers regularly. They also provided rations rather than expecting the men to steal food from local villagers as they passed through a region. After the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, the British were hesitant to trust either Hindu or Muslim sepoys again. The soldiers from both major religions had joined the uprising, fueled by rumors (perhaps accurate) that the new rifle cartridges supplied by the British were greased with pork and beef tallow. Sepoys had to tear the cartridges open with their teeth, which meant that Hindus were ingesting sacred cattle, while Muslims were accidentally eating unclean pork. After this, the British for decades recruited most of their sepoys from among the Sikh religion instead. The sepoys fought for the BEIC and the  British Raj  not only within greater India ​but also in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, East Africa, and even Europe during World War I and World War II. In fact, more than 1 million Indian troops served in the name of the U.K. during the First World War. Today, the armies of India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh all still use the word sepoy to designate soldiers at the rank of private.