Author: Andre Coleman

According to Marxist theory, a standpoint cannot be achieved by mere ascribing to a fact like a perspective is, it is an achieved common identity, and it is “arrived at through the experience of shared political fight (Ruxton, 2004). Feminist standpoint theory began with Hegel’s account of dialectic relationship between a slave and a master, and then it was strengthened by Marx and more specifically Lukacs’ formulation of the concept of the stand point. They argue that a suppressed slave will eventually arise and reach consciousness freedom as an end product of their struggles against the master. Hegel’s theory gave insight to the fact that oppression and injustices can be best analyzed, and a clear understanding made if it is viewed from the oppressed view point (Hardings, 1991).

In a similar view as that of Hegel’s view of the relationship between a master and his slave, it can be deduced, the themes of the feminist stand point theory. According to feminist standpoint theorists Dorothy Smith and Patricia Hill Collins, the socio-political positions that women have been socialized to occupy can become important areas for information about those who are in many aspects of their social lives disadvantaged as well as those who are privileged to occupy the positions of oppressors (Smith, 2012). Thus, Hardings (1991) concludes that, starting a research on women’s life will result in less biased and indistinct accounts for both the men and women the whole social order.

It is for this reason that feminist standpoint theorist Dorothy Smith tries to account for the fault line of gender, in that the male counterparts are privileged socially and politically unlike their female counter parts. She further goes on to attribute the failure of men to sense the disjuncture between daily life and what they know of the world to this social location of the two genders. She defends that women by the idea of being disadvantaged in the gender power relation can relate their daily life to what they know of the world.

The rational by Dorothy smith and the other feminist standpoint theorist to their assertion of this standpoint include three main principles. First, is the assertion that knowledge is socially situated, secondly, is the assumption that less privileged groups both socially and politically, are socially predisposed in a manner that make it possible for them to ask questions and be aware of things that the socially and politically privileged cannot. Finally, for an informative research, especially that which focuses on power relation, it should be carried out beginning with the lives of those marginalized.

It is this three principle assumptions about feminist theories that Smith employs to analyze the reason behind the different viewpoints that men and women have on social and political issues. She puts it that collecting women’s experiences, which in most scenarios is cleaning up, after men’s mess forms rich site for research, for policy reform and most importantly for social change (Smith, 2005). An example is the house holds chores that women do that no one pays for or offers lifelong pension scheme. The society views such tendencies as normal while most women remain oppressed as housewives.

While feminist standpoint theories claim that this status cannot be acquired by mere point of fact, or believing in the struggle, but through being part of the experiences and sharing in the struggle. On the other hand, masculinity is a performed gender identity not a sexual orientation. This is implies that it can be performed by either a male or a female. Hegemonic masculinity could be analogously referred to as an absolute form of masculinity which is virtually unattainable. It is actually the opposite of femininity (Kimmel, 2005). While women find themselves locked in the corners of feminist standpoints and are only relived from this social orders by first attaining a mentally free conscience, masculinity on the other hand, men are socialized to perform it right away from birth.

According to a masculinity sociologist Michael Kimmel, masculinity in men is because of certain cultures, one is that men grow with a mentality that they deserve something, and this culture is normally referred to as the culture of entitlement, where they look forward to having children, a generation, power, and/or women. Secondly, is the culture of silence among men, this comes out in cultures where men are not allowed to do certain things such as cry, or admit emotional pain especially to people considered outsiders to the culture of masculinity. Last is the culture of men protection, which can either be portrayed by assuming that the men would not do such an action especially that which is considered illegal, or they brush it aside as being in men’s nature to do that, for instance in some cultures especially in sub-Saharan Africa. In their culture, men cheating on their wives may as well be given a blind eye as it is in the men’s nature or it is the women’s fault that such happened (Ruxton, 2004).

Now from these two perspectives that is; feminist standpoint and masculine sociology, Dorothy Smith’s view on textually mediated ruling relations brings out clearly the difference. While from a masculine point of view, there is a fixed set of expectation that any of the two genders trying to demonstrate it are expected to fit into. This includes how the society perceives them or is expected to perceive them even before their arrival (Rubin and Rubin, 2005). For instance, men are expected to dominate over women in some cultures and to protect their wives plus to provide for them. Thus when a boy is born he lives trying to reach this expectations that are set out for him. This is contradictory to the feminist standpoint that works to shake off the pre-existing social order. Feminist standpoint theory, which borrows a lot from Hegel’s theories, postulates that those in marginalized in social or political power relations, will rise to challenge the social order within which they find themselves.

The theory bases itself on the idea that women are utterly oppressed. While the situation may be real in some societies some women also have their privileges. Why men have to work all day to feed women who believe it should be so while they still fight for equality is still not clear in the theory. It is for this privilege that most women are never willing to confront the oppression. The ones that do are joined by the oppressed while the rest sit and watch.

Conclusively, it suffices to conclude that the concept of masculinity sociology conflicts ideologically with the feminist standpoint theory. Smith attempts to explore the disjuncture between men and women in society by using the standpoint theory. Her account further attempts to explain the inevitable fault line between the two genders, which she does perfectly. However, she fails to clearly capture why exactly women have to struggle to be at par with their male counterparts.

She fails to answer the oppressed male societies who go through struggle to be named by women equal with their other male strong characters. While men are frowned upon when they portray female characteristics having a list of endless abuses to such men, women who behave like men are adored. Pointing to the problem is not enough, the gap between male and female gender is much perpetuated by perceptions which each of us have to come against.

“Inequality is an inescapable feature of modern society.”

Inequality affects modern society in a variety of ways. It is an inescapable feature of the world we live in. The most common inequality is gender. Men and Women are treated different in a number of ways such as in wages and in sports. This has been the same for centuries. Social class also plays a very big role in inequality. ‘89% of

People are still judged by their class.’ (Glover 2007)

Gender inequality is a huge problem in modern society today. One of the most common issues is wages. It is a known fact that men receive higher wages than women. According to a report by the government in 2006 ‘there is a 13% pay gap between men and women.’ (The Financial Times 2006) The Office for National Statistics website (2008) says that this statistic has risen to 17.1% in 2008 for full time workers and 36.8% for part time workers. The Equal opportunities Commission published an article “Facts about women and men in Great Britain 2006” It stated that 66% of mangers and senior officials are men, while women hold 81% of administrative and secretarial jobs. In the finance sector women are just over half the workforce, yet the average hourly pay for a woman working full time in finance is 41% lower than men. Jenny Watson, the chair of The Equal Opportunities Commission states that: ‘Jobs traditionally seen as ‘women’s work’ such as early years care and education are undervalued and underpaid, and later in life many women are forced to take a pay cut for the flexibility they need to raise their own children’ Men and women usually have an equal start with their career, but when women’s childcare responsibilities kick in, this is where the problems start. Most companies and organisations blame maternity leave and childcare responsibilities for the pay gap between men and women. Women are allowed up to six months maternity leave. Recently men have been able to take just as much as women. So why is there still a gap in wages? Women have always been seen as the nurse the teacher or the secretary. The International Labour Organisation website (2010) claims that ‘women only hold 34% of mangers jobs in great Britain.’ They only receive two-thirds the pay of their male counterparts. According to the International Labour Office ‘Women and men in lower-paid non-manual jobs such as clerks, shop assistants are closest to being equal.’

Growing up we all had the idea of men’s work and women’s work. Men were builders and doctors while women were teachers and nurses. This idea hasn’t changed much as we grow older. We will all automatically look twice if we see a female bus driver, a male nurse or a female foreman. It’s a natural reaction. From birth we see inequalities immediately in boys and girls. Blue is the colour for boys and pink for girls. Girls have their own toys that society deemed appropriate for girls and so do boys. It seems wrong or unnatural in some way to see a boy playing with a Barbie doll or pushing a toy pram. We have all grown up with these perceptions of what colours each sex should wear and what types of toys they should play with, that it’s no wonder men and women are treated differently when they grow up. It is what is natural to all of us.

Gender inequality also exits in the education system. In same sex schools the subject choices concentrate on the gender of the school.

For example in a girls only school it is rare that they would offer subjects such as construction studies or woodwork studies, the same for boys schools, they would rarely offer their male students the choice to take home economics. These subjects can only be taken for both boys and girls in mixed gender schools.

Another area where gender inequality is present is Sports. Women are in a male dominated world when it comes to sport. The ancient Olympic games website (2009) claims that Women have been fighting to gain equality in sport since 776 B.C. at the Olympic Games, originally known as the Games of Hera. Women were not allowed to play nor watch the games. Although women play the same sports as men do, women receive little or no air time. It is very rare that you would see a women’s soccer or rugby match being shown in a sports bar. The media has largely contributed to false stereotypes regarding men, women and sports. They see women as inferior to male athletes. Tennis especially has seen many centuries of gender inequality. Women only play the best of three sets whereas men play the best of five. I’m sure any female tennis player would be more than capable to play five or more sets if given the opportunity. There was also a dramatic difference in prize money up until 2006. There was a big difference in prize money between men and women in Wimbledon. Men were being paid a lot more money than women. A spokesperson for Wimbledon said that the difference in prize money was due to the fact that men’s tennis was more exciting than women’s. The Wimbledon website (2006) said this all changed in 2006 when both the ladies and men’s winners were paid the same amount of prize money. This is a step in the right direction for gender equality in tennis. On the other hand soccer needs to follow in the same path. Women soccer players do not receive the same recognition or the same money that their male counterparts receive. Wayne Rooney earns ?90,000 a week being a professional soccer player for Manchester United and is world famous. I don’t think many people would be able to name one professional female soccer player. Men get all the fame and all the recognition.

Golf is another sport where females are treated unequally. In most golf courses, women can only play on ‘ladies day’ and are not allowed to play alongside the male players. Professional Female golf players just like professional female soccer players, do not receive as much money or recognition. These are some of the many inequalities which women are trying to challenge and overcome today. It has stopped women from advancing as fast as their male counterparts. In my opinion women have been neglected in sports just as they have been in many other areas of life such as education and work.

More often or not people are judged by their social class. They are discriminated against by where they come from. ‘90% of 18-24 year olds say people are judged by their class’ (Glover 2007). This has been happening for centuries and I do not think that it will change in the near future. As suggested by Macionis and Plummer (2008) ‘Gordon Therborn has suggested that social class is one of the key features of modern Europe, as Europe was the first major arena of industrialisation.’ All the main political parties in Britain are trying to work against social class. Gordon Brown claimed recently that a class free society can become a reality in Britain. There are three shapes of class: The upper classes, the middle classes and the working classes. According to Glover (2007) the upper class is almost extinct with only 2% claiming to be part of it. The Middle class used to be the group between rich and poor.

‘In 1998, 41% of people thought as themselves as middle class, exactly the same proportion as today.’ (Glover 2007) The Working Class is the lowest of the classes. A few centuries ago working class people were miners. They are known as the poorest of society. Glover (2007) said, ‘Of people born to working class parents, 77% say they are working class too. One one fifth say they have become middle class.’

The fact that we still have a structure of class shows that people are discriminated because of their class and where they come from. They are discriminated against in the workplace and in schools. As Hutton (2007) described in his article, pupils from schools from middle class or working class areas are receiving little to no places in prestigious schools such as Oxford, even though they have received excellent marks. Their marks sometimes were better than pupils at Upper class schools. This just proves that there is inequality in social class. It obviously depends on where you come from and which school you attend that shapes your future education. No matter where we go in life we will be judged by our class and where we come from.

Karl Marx and Max Weber have different views upon social class. Macionis and Plummer (2008) said that Marx defined class ‘in terms of those who own the means of production and those who do not with a residual class in between’ He says that the owners or the means of production exploit those who produce goods and services, while the working class become alienated consumers. Marx focuses more on the economic side of social class, especially the labour force. Weber and Marx have similar ideas. In Weber’s view, a person’s class status is a determinant of how they will turn out in later life. People will have a better life if they are higher up in class. He thought that a persons possessions and the way they lived was the cause of class conflict. Although Weber believed as Marx did that the economic side of social class was important and caused most of the conflict, he didn’t believe that this was the only cause of the conflict between social classes. He saw society back then as having many status groups who held a vast amount of power. For example teachers do not own their schools they work for people, but they may be higher up in status than a mechanic who owns his owns and runs his own business. Weber thought that people in politics had more power in society. Weber said that conflict between the classes was a result of many different inequalities.

Inequality is definitely an inescapable feature of our society. There are still gender inequalities present in modern society and some that have been around for centuries. I think there will always be inequalities between men and women. It has been around for centuries and nothing has changed, so I do not see it changing in the near future. There will also always be inequalities in social class. It was around in Karl Marx’s era and is still here to the present day. People are being judged and criticized by where they come from. Even though the government is claiming that social class will not exist in years to come, they have not backed up their claims yet.

Functionalism, an approach which dominated much of twentieth century thinking, sought to explain the family through the vital functions it played as a social institution. George Peter Murdock, a notable American Anthropologist and functionalist, conducted a study in 1949 in where he studied the institution of the family in 250 different societies. He concluded by saying that the family plays four different basic functions which he termed reproductive, educational, sexual and economic. Education was vital in teaching the norms and values of society whilst reproduction produced members for society. The family certainly does not perform these functions exclusively, this perhaps more relevant after the industrial revolution when the family lost many of its functions to new specialized social institutions such as factories, schools and hospitals. However the family still makes important contributions to all of the above functions.

Talcott Parsons, a respected American sociologist, also pioneered the functionalist perspective of the family. In addition to serving functions to society as a whole as explained above, it also plays equally vital functions for its individual members. According to Parsons, the family during early years of childhood structures the child’s personality and the internalization of society’s culture. Taught mainly by the child’s parents, the central norms and values of society are internalized into a child to a point where it becomes natural and instinctive. This is the same for every child, and without this internalization, society would not be able to function. An American child for example would grow up with the central idea of independence and a strong motivation to achieve a high status in society as these are the central qualities of American culture.

Once this personality is achieved, it must be maintained and this is the second basic function of the family: the stabilization of adult personalities. In order to balance the stress and strains of life found in a busy society, an individual can seek emotional support by his spouse. This function is especially important in Western societies as the nature of the popular nuclear family means that there is no extended family to rely upon for emotional support. Thus the married couple must solely depend on each other. The introduction of a child in a family also allows for the next step in stabilizing the adult personality. Adults can act out childish elements of their own personalities whilst engaging with his or hers child in a activity. This cannot be done in adult society.

The points discussed above largely derive from two of the most influential functionalists in the 20th century. However, there work in recent times has come under particular criticism. Critics tend to agree upon the fact that both perspectives offer an unrealistic picture of the family, portraying a couple who unwillingly care for each other’s every need. Parsons idea of socialization is also dubious as it fails to consider the child who will not conform to his parent’s values and morals. Parsons and Murdock also both fail to offer functional alternatives to the family unit.

As to affirm these criticisms, this functionalist view of the family has not been adopted by other sociologist who favor a more blunt and critical explanation. Friedrich Engles, with his publication of “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” in 1884 developed the first Marxist perspective of the family. He combined an evolutionary approach with Marxism, explaining how at the early stages of evolution, means of production were communally owned and the family as such did not exist. There were no rules to dictate the boundaries of sexual relationships thus society as a whole was the family. However, with the development of the state later in history, restrictions were applied on sexual relationships and on the production of children, reaching the point in where the nuclear family was born. Coinciding with this new unit was the privatization of both property and means of production. These assets were passed down by the male to his heir, and in order to ensure the legitimacy of the link, greater control was placed on women in order to ensure that there was no question about the paternity of the offspring. Summarized by Eagles himself in the original book, “It is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father’s property as his natural heirs.”

Alternative Marxist perspectives sought to study the role families played in industrial societies. They argued that the capitalist system exploited the free domestic labor of the housewife, seeing childrearing and housework as an essential part of the economy. However the central argument was that the employer only paid for the services of the male breadwinner, securing the housewife’s contribution for free. In addition to this, Marxist also saw that the worker was only able to work long hours for his employer as the domestic labor of looking after the children for example was done by the housewife. The housewife, in addition to the above work, also benefited the employer by reproducing potential workers. Expanding upon this idea, families acted as an ideological conditioning device which reproduced ideologies which prop up capitalism. Children are in affect a reflection of their parents in terms of values and behaviors and so uninspiringly follow them into the same work and patterns. Outside of the household, women were seen as a reserve army of labor that could be drawn in when there was a labor shortage and returned home when demand fell. All of these valuable services were provided to the employer for free, with him only having to pay the male breadwinner.

The Marxists approach compared with the functionalist idea is much more critical of the family unit, and this trend continues with the feminist’s perspective.

In their book “Familiar Exploitation”, radical feminists Christine Delphy and Diana Lenoard attached importance in Marxist methodology in explaining the family unit but nevertheless were of the opinion that men, not capitalism, were the main beneficiaries of the exploitation of women’s labor in the household. They began their explanation by detailing how they saw the family as an economic system in where men benefit from, and exploit the work of women. They identified several factors that related to the family as an economic system, for example that the family structure typically involves two roles and that the male usually occupies the most important one, head of household, and the women and children are left with being helpers. What makes the role of head of household so important is that he has final say on important decisions and assigns duties to other members of the family. These duties vary according to the status and sex of the person in the family as women for example are usually given the task of doing the domestic and reproductive work. The head of household usually has control over finances and spending decisions and this still applies even when the woman is in paid employment. As concluded by Delphy and Leonard, ‘The head of the family may have a near monopoly over, and he always has greater access to and control of, the family’s property and external relations.’

Both of these radical feminists perhaps offer the most comprehensive radical feminist insight into the family unit. They depict a patriarchal and hierarchal structure in where men dominate and receive “57 varieties of unpaid services”. It would be wrong to suggest that women are not oblivious to their exploitation but economic and social constraints make it difficult for women to escape from the patriarchal family. However their assumption that all families have a head has earned their work criticism. The data where this theory derived from is also questionable as it is said to be dated, and more contemporary data show in actual fact show less gender inequality in middle class families than in working class families.

Both of the above approaches tend to agree on the fact that woman are often exploited by men in family life and in the case of Marxism, also benefit capitalism. As already mentioned, both fail to take into account the variety family life can adopt in various societies and the effect this can have on individuals. Difference feminist ensure that the variety of positions women can find themselves in is central to their argument, taking into account lesbian couples, single parent families and the impact social position and race has on the woman’s position. Leading difference feminist Linda Nicholson in her book ‘The myth of the traditional family’ began by defining what is meant by the traditional family. She saw it as the “the unit of parents with children who live together”, separating it from other kin and emphasized the important bond between husband and wife. This simple image of the family is the one often associated with the nuclear family and it became popular among commentators in the 1950s. Alternative families to this image however were not regarded with the same esteem but Nicholson rejected this notion, arguing that alternative families offered greater benefits than the nuclear family for the women who live in them. In her particular study, she saw poor black women in the USA at more of an advantage when at the head of the household without men. Reason being was that their tended to be a stronger relationship between other friends and kin which in turn provided support and insurance, helping out families most in need at a particular time. This theory evidently had disadvantages, namely the lack of a father model which is integral for a child’s upbringing. However traditional families also share several disadvantages such as the inability of a child to turn to other relatives for help when abused by his parent. Nicholson concluded her work in a very liberal manner, advocating greater choice in individuals choosing their preferred living arrangements according to what best suited them. She disagreed with the distinction between traditional and alternative families, citing that traditional families often give the impression that they have long been the norm whilst this is not true.

The summary given above is only one take on the family by a difference feminist among dozens. On the whole however, they all tend to avoid narrowly define the role women play in families and instead show a degree of sensitivity towards different experiences of family life experienced by women of different classes, sexual orientation and ethnicity. It would therefore be fair to say that difference feminists offer the most advance perspective on family life.

In order to expand upon the perspectives explored above, various themes must be examined to gain a comprehensive understanding of the family as a unit of social organization. Perhaps the greatest process to have an effect on family life was the advent of industrialization and modernization in the eighteenth century. Modernization refers “to the development of social, cultural, economic and political practices and institutions which are thought to be typical of modern societies whilst industrialization refers to the “mass production of goods in a factory system which involves some degree of mechanized production technology.” Sociologists regard the above factors to be the detrimental reasons responsible for change in Western societies in the early eighteenth century. Embroiled in this was of course the family unit which found problems relating itself to industrialization or modernization. For example, every society experienced the above changes differently with each social institution effected in differing ways. This problem was exacerbated by the fact that industrialization and modernization is a developing process, our different culture, politics and society to those of our ancestor evidence of this. The complexity of trying to associate families and industrialization and modernization allows for plentiful confusion among academics as to what a pre-industrial family consist of.

Michael Young and Peter Willmott were among those who traced the development of the family from pre-industrial England to contemporary times. Specific to their study, which was published in a book titled ‘The Symmetrical Family’ in 1973, they traced the changes experienced by the family up to the 1970s. They concluded, using a variety of sources and social surveys, that the family had gone through four main stages.

Stage one belonged to the pre-industrial family which was seen as an unit of production consisting mainly of a husband, wife and unmarried children who cooperate as a team. With the advent of industrial revolution however, this form of family became largely extinct with the exception of some farming communities in the nineteenth century.

Followed closely after was stage 2 which coincided with the beginning of the industrial revolution and continued throughout the nineteenth century. As discussed earlier, the family lost many of its functions to other social institution and thus ceased to be an unit of production. The nineteenth century witnessed chronic poverty and high unemployment and therefore the family responded by breaking away from the traditional nuclear model into an extended network which included grandparents and grandmothers. This allowed for an insurance policy and someone to rely on in tough times. As with stage 1, stage 2 declined in importance in the twentieth century but still found prominence in low income, working class areas.

Finally, and still predominating today according to Young and Willmott, is stage 3 which the two sociologist conducted a large scale social survey in order to prove and later became the basis of their book. Stage 3 saw the return of the nuclear family with the exception of it being now more home centered. Free time was usually spent doing domestic work at home and leisure time allowed parents to play with their children and watch television. Stage 3 witnessed a stronger conjugal bond between husband and wife and a notable self-reliance now associated with the nuclear family. The term used to describe this type of nuclear family is ‘symmetrical family’, referring to the now equally shared duty of maintaining the household between two spouses. Radically different to the inequality described above about the allocation of chores and responsibility of finances, couples in stage 3 now share many of the chores and decisions.

Many of the above points are open to criticism, especially by feminists who disagree with the concept of the symmetrical family and instead still seeing oppressive inequality between husband and wife. Despite this, Young and Willmott accomplish in tracing the family before, during and after the industrial revolution and the various forms it adopted according to the needs of society.

Many criticisimis raised about the sociological prespectives is that they fail to consider other forms family may adopt in society.

The family is the main element of the society, but, also are the two themes most important in the books, “The Ellen Foster” and the “Lovely bones”, in these books talk about the family but in different contexts for example in the book the “Ellen Foster”, we found that the main character, Ellen is always in search an family for example, she wants the Scarlett’s family, although was a black family, however in the book, the “Lovely bones”, has another concept about the family, for example, in this family found that is a close family, but nowadays, what is the real concept of the family?.According with the society the family is the base of the education, because is the main source of information when we are children.

Other definition is obtained by Universal declaration of human rights this explain in the next sentence “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” [1] from this point of view, the family have an important role inside the society, nowadays we are living different changes inside this society because each day the human have more necessities, and this entail that we forget of spent the time with the family, and this have as consequences the family breakup a big problem in this era.

The family breakup is an event of the society that lie in the breakup the different bonds emotional and materials, in the same time is the breakup and dissolution of the marriage based in the common life between parents and other members of the family mainly in the children. One example is in the book “Lovely bones” in this book there is a family that has a quiet life, but unfortunately one day their lives have a drastic change, a member of the family is raped and dies, this event have with consequences the family breakup, because as a result of the family little by little begins to separate, because after the death the parents begins to have different problems provoking a lot tension in the family. In the real life the tension is an important stage for the family breakup, because mainly the parents when they arrive of their jobs and they have some problem they have bad humor, relieve it in their house, causing an uncomfortable atmosphere and provoke another situations that can disrupt family relationships if not addressed calmly, wisely and in a healthy manner, but also the growing tension between parents leads to physical separation and the decision to divorce.

Another common event in this era that provoke the family breakup is the divorce or separation because when the parents are separated should give more affection of the necessary and appropriate for their children, despite what happens, the children always need to have someone to guide them and guide them through the right path because if they feel alone only can lead to other problems. For example in the book the “Lovely bones” when the main character, Susie Salmon dies, some days after her mother leave her family, this event is hard blow for the family because the others children don’t know what happen and why her mother has this attitude, there are in real life many cases when a member of the family leave it, this event is sadly for all family and is the main reason for that many families breakup. Abandonment entail that relation between parent and children little by little could be affect, because other important element is the communication between this elements, parents and children, the communication inside of family is important because through communication can share feelings, longings, desires, material goods, based on a real community but what happen when this communication becomes in lack of communication. The lack of communication is another element that is aforementioned with family breakup and the same time there is an example in the book “Ellen foster” in this book stand out the relationship between, Ellen the main character, and her father, both have a cold and distant relationship, her father takes refuge day by day in the alcohol, and Ellen constantly search a family who fill the emptiness that has left her mother’s death, as the book shows a lack of communication makes family breakup, and what is worse than a child affected by this, until the point as to move from family to family or in this case of adoption for adoption.

When a family breakup the society also is affect because the human naturally is sociable, sometimes the society is the reflection of the a families, nowadays the society is going through a critical state, this critical state is hart for the family because always only is one a prose the happiness of the family, also as my point of view the society each day is more and more individualist, as example inside book “Lovely bones” show us the Susie’s mother the independent part of the book, because after the death of her daughter she has leave her family because is part of her personal change with a real person, but without family, actually the society change maybe the concept of family as well the individualist each day has more weight, until the point that the family is a obstacle for obtain the personal objectives, creating also a society individualist where the work in team doesn’t exist.

The society play an important role inside own life because somehow a measure of our performance, so what do the society for fight the family breakup as well is important for our growth. For example in the “Ellen foster” book the society had a role important because it built the concept of the perfect family even thinking that one day she would find a mother like women who went to church. Sometime to be part of the society is a little complicated because the society is “a group of people living or working together, the origin of the word society comes from the latin societas, a “friendly association with others.” Societas is derived from socius meaning “companion” and thus the meaning of society is closely related to what is social. Implicit in the meaning of society is that its members share some mutual concern or interest in a common objective. As such, society is often used as synonymous with the collective citizenry of a country as directed through national institutions concerned with civic welfare.” [2]

From there the family is an essential part of good development for society as it not only helps with affection, also provides the basic foundation of society, so adding individuals to develop positive action within society resulting in social growth, helping to have positive changes in the same way with other individuals.

In this case show us an example the book “Ellen foster” because the society and contact with this make that Ellen change her way of thinking about black people, in the same time this action I think that help to Ellen because in the future her children will not be racist, contributing this way to a change family that simultaneously will have a positive change in the society, but what happened when the society didn’t contribute in this change and also the family didn’t also anything for make the change, both could be affected.

“Ellen foster” and “Lovely bones” are two books that have an element in common, the family breakup, these writers write the novel in different time, but , we can that the family breakup is a topic that affect the society all the time, because the family always is an important part of the society. The same time the books represent the concept of the family in different way, the writer of “Ellen foster” shows the cruel side of the society, because she tell us as a society can make irresponsible when it comes to deal with a problem that society often doesn’t help solve the problem, and just try to justify it, family breakup is now a matter of concern, today’s young society does not want any children because this new society think they may not realize their personal goals a cause of the family , or don’t want to repeat the same patterns as their parents, because almost a quarter of the population in Mexico is divorced, with the consequence of family breakdown. The book “lovely bones” reflects another point of view about family breakup, because in this case the family breakup occurs when your character dies, causing emotional imbalance inside the family, since parents did not know how to react the tragedy, forgetting themselves also their other children.

In real life this too often because like anyone how to be parents also can learn to act when a child dies the pain that the family has to gradually be separating like in the book “Lovely bones”, The writers mention some examples of the consequences about family breakup brings, both agree with the loneliness that this generates. The loneliness in the family owes to the lack of communication little by little to the lack of attention since always we think only about us themselves, leaving aside other members of the family, since we think that this couldn’t to affect them, since my point of the view in this era only have the family, nowadays everybody have many changes positive and negatives but I think that each family have the bases necessaries for confront the society each day could be a better society, we think that the family only is a terminology but is more that, is a

A family can simply be defined as a group of people connected by blood or marriage. They can either be living together in a household, for example, a couple and their never married children living in one place as a family or are related based on ‘blood’ but are not immediate family -for example, genetic relationships and this can simply be referred to as ‘kin’.

According to the American anthropologist George Peter Murdock, ‘The family is a social group characterised by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults’

The two most common forms of family are nuclear family and extended family. The nuclear family comprises of a husband and a wife with one or more children, own or adopted. According to Murdock, the nuclear family is ‘a universal social grouping’ which means, it is found in all societies. The extended family is a family structure which is often made up of three generations e.g. grandparents, parents and children. Basically, it is the extension of the nuclear family and this can be done in various ways.

Unlike the western society marriage which is monogamous, that is, one wife and one husband, many other societies practice polygamous marriage where by a person can marry more than one wife or husband. It is found in many small-scale traditional societies, particularly in Africa. A part from that, families can be extended if for example grand parents, brothers and sisters of the married couple live in one household. This is mostly practiced by the Indian communities in the UK.

During the pre-industrial period, societies were divided in to kinship groups called lineages, which consist of people descended from a common ancestor. Lineages may contain hundreds or even thousands of members, it is mostly found in traditional societies such as the Nuer of southern Sudan and the Bunyoro of western Uganda. Anyone in that group sees each other as relatives. The only source of livelihood was farming and livestock, for this reason; the most common family structure was extended families because, they work together and to some extent, they share domestic tasks and income. Any member is allowed to farm and graze their livestock in the land owned by the Lineages. People who would be seen as very distant relatives in western societies may be defined as close relatives within a lineage.

According to the 19th century historical research by Michael Anderson (1971), the early stages of industrialisation may have encouraged the development of extended families. He found that 23% of working class households in Preston contained kin beyond the nuclear family. This was due to the fact that, there was widespread poverty, high birth and death rates and without welfare support from the government, people had to depend on their kin for care and support. The working class extended family continued well in to the 20th century. Michael Young and Peter Willmott defined an extended family after their study of Bethnal Green in the east end of London (1957) as ‘a combination of families who to some large degree form one domestic unit’. The family members does not have to share one household as long as they contact regularly and share services such as caring for children and elderly relatives.

The industrial revolution gradually undermined and disrupted the existence of extended family because; men were increasingly drawn out of the home in to industrial employment. Long working hours and movement of individuals between different regions affected family socialisation. Despite that, low income working class areas such as Bethnal Green did not break their extended family ties up until the 20th century.

By the 1970s, the family structure changed to home-centred and privatised nuclear family. Family life is focused on the home. Husband and wife depend on each other for companionship. During free time, they silently watch TV at home with less contact of the wider kinship network. According to Talcott Parsons, the isolated nuclear family is the typical form in modern industrial society, on the other hand, Michael Haralambos states in his book, Sociology in focus that, a number of sociologists argue that, the so called modern, self-sufficient and self-centred nuclear family process has been exaggerated and that nuclear family members still contact their extended kin when the need arises though the relationship is not as strong as those in the traditional extended family.

According to Janet Finch and Jennifer Mason (1993) in their study of Greater Manchester, they found that, over 90% of the people they approached had given or received financial help from relatives and almost 60% had shared a household with an adult relative(not parents) at some time in their live. Finch and Mason also found that help was subject to negotiation and not a right

However, the British Social Attitudes have disputed the above study after they conducted a survey representing adults aged 18 and over during 1986 and 1995. They were looking at frequency of contact with kin. They found out that people are less likely to visit or be visited by anybody at all, be it relative or friends because there was no evidence to show that friends have substituted relatives and a large number of women are working outside their home which resulted in 20% drop of seeing their mother at least once a week (McGlone et al, 1999).

People from different backgrounds have different family structure from the indigenous population. For example, the Asian families in Britain have strengthened their ties with their family members more in reaction to lack of value attachment between British family members and their kin. They are worried of losing their values and culture. To help overcome that fear, they maintain links with their villages of origin in Asia.

The main sociological theories of the family are functionalist, Marxists and feminists. Functionalists consider the nuclear form of family as the best type. They believe that family is a vital element at the heart of society and a good source of socialisation. However, they only endorse the nuclear family as the norm, idealistic and more home centred, whereas, they consider the other types of family as harmful. Functionalists see family as a social institution which is there for a purpose that is beneficial to both its members and society.

According to Murdock (1949),’ the family is a universal institution with universal functions’. Their theories contain strong arguments that are vital for the wellbeing of society. They argue that, the family help to stabilise the social system by monitoring or setting some limits on their members not engage in sexual relationships outside marriage with some societies completely forbidding such acts unless married. This helps to reduce conflict. The functionalists also see family as a unit of production, for example, a farming family produce food while here in the west, the family is a unit of consumption, families buy goods and services for the rest of their family members, therefore contribute to the economy and to the wider society. The most interesting point of the functionalist’s theory is that, the family is responsible for primary socialisation. The first year of our life is very crucial to the rest of our life and all that is made possible by the immediate family members. Murdock believes that, ‘no society has succeeded in finding an adequate substitute for the nuclear family’ however, the American sociologist Talcott Parsons argues that, the nuclear family in the modern industrial society have become more specialised and unlike the pre-industrial societies, some family functions like looking after the elderly have been taken over by specialised institutions such as social services but he claims that they still perform the basic function which is, the primary socialisation of children.

Despite the strengths of the functionalist theory, there are some weaknesses associated with their views of the family. The first one is that, they ignore the dark side of family life, for example, conflict between husband and wife, child abuse and male dominance etc. They also pay less attention on the harmful effects the family may have on the wider society. Unlike the Marxists, the functionalists never consider variations in family life based on class, ethnicity, religion and locality

The second sociological theory of family which is Marxists concentrates on nuclear family as well but they reject the view that the family is there for the benefit of all, instead they see the family as maintaining the position of the ruling class. They believe that nuclear perpetuate capitalism and that the economy shapes the rest of society. In comparison to the functionalists, Marxists don’t accept that the family is largely responsible for primary socialisation, instead they argue that, children are socialised in stereotypically predetermined roles. The Marxists strongly argue that, the status of the society is largely determined by the economy and the capitalist economic system will produce a certain type of society. Basically, they see the family as an institution which is twisted by the requirements of capitalism. According to Friedrich Engels, the modern nuclear family developed in capitalist society. They also pointed out the great inequalities of wealth and income in modern societies. A small minority of the population who privately own economic institutions like banks and factories rule the larger population who are workers. The workers produce goods and services and are paid wages. The Marxists argue that, the minority ruling class exploit the majority of the population by gaining at the workers expense through profit making. The fact that they only endorse nuclear form of family, they argue that, this solved inheritance disputes because there is no doubt about the paternity of the children unlike the monogamous nuclear family. Both functionalist and Marxists see the family as a unit of reproduction and socialisation of children.

The weaknesses associated with the Marxists view are; they ignore the degree of stability in society, instead they concentrate on the idea of power and domination. They also undermine the role of women in the society. Sociologists agree to some extent that the economic system has some influence in the family. However, majority disagree with the Marxist view that the shape of the family is determined by the economic system.

Unlike the Marxists and functionalists, the feminist which is the other sociological theory of the family, criticize the power of men over women. They argue that male dominate the family and that they often control key areas of decision making e.g. moving house. The two main types of feminists which are radical and Marxists have different point of view in regards to unfair treatment of women in the family. The radical feminists see male dominance influence the structure of society and as a result, there is widespread domestic violence of which women suffer most. They promote lesbianism. The Marxists feminists argue that women serve as cushion for the man to release their tension of the day and these inequalities resulted from class variation in capitalist society. The feminists strongly point out that, most of the unpaid domestic work is done by women irrespective of them working full time outside home or not. According to Delphy & Leonard, 1992, Women make the main contribution to family life, men receive the main benefits. They also argue that, in most cases, the wife gives up her work to care for the children and economically depend on her husband.

Feminists base their view from negative perspective and ignore the positive side of family. It is possible that many women are happy to raise their children and do most of the housework. Feminists are criticised by some people as preaching hatred against men and undermining traditional gender roles. In modern societies, there is greater evidence of equality between partners but feminists are criticised for not acknowledging that progress but instead they still remain determined to address remaining inequalities.

Contrary to Murdock’s explanation of family which includes at least one adult of each sex, there is significant number of children who were raised by single parents or same sex parents living in a household. A woman with her dependent children, whether adopted or her own is a unit of family. There are a high number of single-parent families in Britain. According to Government statistics, in 1961, 2 percent of the population lived in households consisting of lone parent with dependent children. Lone parenthood can come about through different circumstances eg divorce, separation and death of spouse. In the case of unmarried partners with children break up, one of them will be a lone parent. There are a high number of divorced or separated couples who still keep in touch for the common interest of their children. They share responsibilities of raising their children; In this case they are described as co-parenting or joint parenting. Neal & Smart, 1977 see it difficult to describe such scenarios as lone-parent families. Some Sociologists suggest using the term lone-parent household rather than lone-parent family, this means, one of the parents does not share the same household with the rest but still contributes to the family. Becoming a lone parent is never the first option for both married couples but due to un avoidable circumstances, many choose to be lone parent than living in an unhappy relationship. According to Hantrais and Letablier(1996), Britain has the second highest rate of lone parenthood after Denmark in Europe.

Another type of household is the Gay and Lesbian households. Contrary to Murdock’s explanation of family, Gay and Lesbian households do not contain adults of both sexes but they can as well care for children from their past heterosexual relationships, adoption or may have been produced using new reproductive technologies. Diversification of family in modern societies was contributed by high divorce rate, decline of marriage rate and increase in the number of stepfamilies.

Adaptation is the survival mechanism of civilizations in the course of evolution. It is the emergence of a trait that will enhance species viability in an existing or new environment. Conversely, byproduct is the unintentional consequence of adaptation. Humans due to their great capacity for ‘generalized learning’ have consequently achieved a distinct capability of constructing and imparting culture (Parsons, 1964). According to Biologist Alfred Emerson (1956) within the realm of adaptation the ‘gene’ has now been replaced by the ‘symbol’. Thus it is not just the genetic constitution of human beings that affects the process of evolution but also their cultural practice. Societies subsist within complex social environments (e.g. raw materials, reserves and constraints and limitations) and they adapt to such intricacies. It is thus inevitable that societies reorganize and reform themselves over time in the face of social change. The study of society and social change has taught us that the social order of civilizations changes over time and reorganizes itself to appear as something different from its ancestral form. As a society, we have organized our everyday lives around former and existing situations. We are accustomed to standard and regular conditions and may be sensitive to extremes that fall outside of this array. The stages of evolution as discussed by Morgan (1877) and Tylor (1871, 1881) are as such: savagery, barbarianism and civilization. According to them every society and culture has or will go through these stages of evolution in this order. French philosopher Auguste Comte (1876) advanced the “law of three stages”. According to this human societies progress from a theological stage, which is governed by religion, through a metaphysical stage, in which theoretical speculative assessment is most important, and onward toward a positivist stage, in which empirically based systematic scientific ideas are most dominant. It has been argued that society has evolved by way of small steps that have led to increased complexity of society. Herbert Spencer (1887), a British sociologist argued that societies themselves are life forms. He attempted to extent Darwin’s tenet of the survival of the fittest to human civilizations and said that society has been steadily moving ahead towards an enhanced state. He claimed that western societies had persisted and evolved because they were better at becoming accustomed to the challenges of life. Emile Durkheim (1933) singled out the basis of societal evolution as a society’s increasing development of more complex social interactions. Durkheim viewed societies as changing in the direction of immense demarcation, integration and oppression under the demands of increasing moral density. Durkheim supported that societies have evolved from a comparatively self-sufficient state with little incorporation, where intimidation and domination is required on a social structure, with a kind of cohesion called mechanical solidarity to a more distinguished social structure with maximum division of labor where specialization and collaboration is extensive and interdependence and assimilation give rise to an organic solidarity. Julian Stewart (1955) constructed the multi-linear theory of evolution where he stated that societies change due to their adaptation to changing environments. A more recent view by Bloomfield (1993) suggests that society is in a state of equilibrium and when change takes place a transition results in a consequent stable but more complex society. The human race has shown a tremendous potential for adjustment and change. We have seen many forms of social change over the years. Human civilization has been witness to some foremost structures of transformations such as Industrialization, Globalization, World War II, Civil Rights Movement in United States, Indian Independence Movement, Gay Liberation Movement and Women’s Rights Movement among many more. In this paper we shall reflect briefly upon the evolutionary perspective of the Women’s Rights Movement and put forward certain questions as is the Movement a form of adaptation of the society? Or it is the byproduct of adaptation?

‘Nothing can be more absurd than the practice that prevails in our country of men and women not following the same pursuits with all their strengths and with one mind, for thus, the state instead of being whole is reduced to half.’ (Plato, 428-347 B.C.; Saxonhouse, 1976). In The Republic Plato proposes that an ‘ideal’ state is one in which women are given the same opportunities as men in areas such as education and participation in activities of the state (Saxonhouse, 1976). He is considered to be the first feminist although his concern is not about the rights of women but about their usefulness (Craik, 1990). Feminism aims towards social change by focusing our attention upon the issues of women and how we can go about empowering women and improving their quality of life. Feminism can be seen to have a transformational function to society. Competing for resources is the basis for evolutionary theory. This notion that has enabled our species to survive has an important implication in feminist theory. The feminist movement has consequently emerged in a patriarchal society as an amendment in the course of evolution. In Evelyn Reed’s book ‘Women’s Evolution: from Matriarchal Clan to Patriarchal Families’ (1975) she mentions that social structures were initially based on mother-child relationship and were considered matrilineal clans long before the patriarchal family tradition began. Men were not part of the child birth process and were prohibited from eating women’s food. She also notes that in most areas the essentially reliable sources of food were that of the gatherers (vegetables) and not hunters (animals). It was later that these matrilineal clans transformed into a patriarchal society. ‘In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve’ (Futuyma, 1986). Accordingly evolution can be presumed as a process of the development of a characteristic of society from its primitive state to its present or specialized state. Change comes about through the competition of resources and the circulation of favorable innovations in thought and action. Human nature is habituated by communication, which establishes what resources are available (Cooley, 1897). Arnold Toynbee (1987) postulated that civilizations transform from a stationary state to an active one. A more recent perspective on change was hypothesized by Thomas Kuhn (1996) where he talks of the concept of a paradigm. A paradigm is a set of values and beliefs about reality that allows a people to form theories about reality and solve problems. The central feature of a paradigm is its own etiquettes and principles. A paradigm remains popular and influential as long as it justifies most observable phenomenon and resolves most problems but it yields as new paradigms rise and begin to challenge it. Thus, long phases of “normal” science are pursued by short periods of “revolutions” that entail essential changes in prime theoretical presumptions. A good example here would be the androcentric assumptions that hard as well as social sciences tend to have embedded in their core and the recent shift towards a feminist paradigm where such assumptions are being questioned and alternate ideologies are being presented. This general idea is reinforced by Fritjof Capra (1997), who maintains that ‘a single person can have a worldview, but a paradigm is shared by a community.’ The paradigm impression demonstrates the scope of social change as a turning point on the state of mind of individuals. History confirms that changes in society occur not because of great wars or authoritarian governments but because a significant amount of people started to change their mind, even if only a little (Harman, 1998). Contrary to the impression that innovative ideas are the efforts of a handful of elites like scientists, philosophers, artists and religious leaders, sometimes new ways of perceiving life in a significantly meaningful way progresses from ‘the great mass of the population’ (Yankelovich, 1982).

Another model of social change helps to explain the transformation of feminist societies was presented by Anthony Wallace in 1970 in his book Culture and Personality. Change is seen to present itself when intense individual strain leads to a shift away from cultural harmony. Initial response of society as well as the individual is that it is a distinct personal problem, but as these individual problems begin to come together in the form of a group, they result in unstable social foundations and society in turn has to recognize it as a problem on a larger scale. Once this happens it is essential for society to endure a process of recovery and transformation to return to the state of balance. This process of renewal depends upon characteristics such as formulation of a code, communication, organization, adaptation, cultural transformation and routinization. We attempt to integrate the evolution of feminism into this model. Feminism has formulated a code in the sense that it has a ‘goal society’ in mind. It is one that contrasts the patriarchal society and insists upon a tradition of equality among sexes and envisions a liberated future for women. Communication in the feminist tradition has been one of prime significance. Consciousness raising groups were established by New York Radical Women and Women’s Liberation groups. These meetings enabled women to share their stories and shed light on how their personal problems were in fact more common than recognized (Sarachild, 1973). Women’s organizations exist in most countries that have been set up to address the issues of women and work towards globalized incorporation of solutions. The evolution of feminism has required the inclusion of many new viewpoints and the adaption of older ones. For example the radical feminist notion that ‘women are superior to men’ has now been substituted for a more holistic idea where women and men are considered as equal and no one sex is better than the other. The Women’s suffragettes have been able to attain women’s voting in most parts of the world and this has led to a cultural transformation to the perception of women and their basic rights and privileges. The war on patriarchy is still ongoing but the movement has won many battles amongst. The vision of an egalitarian state is still very much alive. Routinization for many element of the movement are yet to happen as ‘goal future’ is far from within our grasp.

History illustrates that women have suffered many dreadful fates at the hands of persons, in the form of rape, female infanticide, sati ritual, honor killing, bride burning, female genital mutilation, sex slaves, etc. Data shows that between sixty to more than one hundred million women and girls are considered ‘missing’ from numerous populations and are likely to have survived if gender discriminatory practices like sex-selective abortions, infanticide and inadequate care based on gender were absent (Seager, 2003; Sen, 1990; Klasen and Wink, 2002). Studies show that one in every five women have been forced to have sex, beaten or otherwise abused in their lifetimes and the perpetrator is usually a member of the family or an otherwise known person (Heise, Ellsberg, Gottemoeller, 1999) and about 69% of female homicide victims are killed by their male partners (Krug, et. al., WHO, 2002). Available data implies that in some countries nearly one in four women confirm sexual violence by an intimate partner and equal to one-third of adolescent girls report that they were forced into sexual acts for the first time (Ellsberg, et al., 2000; Mooney, 1993; Hakimi, et al., 2001; Matasha, et al., 1998; Buga, et. al., 1996). Sexual cruelty is more evident in places where attitudes of male sexual rights and entitlement are intense, where gender roles are inflexible, and in countries where there is an occurrence of other types of violence (Bennett, Manderson, Astbury, 2000; Gartner, 1990; Smutt, Miranda, 1998) In the 1994 genocide in Rwanda it was reported that between 250,000 and 500,000 women, or about 20% of women, were raped (De Brouwer, 2005). In 1992, during the five months of conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, about 20,000 – 50,000 women were raped (Ashford, Huet-Vaughn, 1997). In India, deaths attributable to dowry are estimated to be 15,000 per year and typically they are kitchen fires made to like an accident (Jethmalani, 1995). Close to half of the 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS are women. Social elements that lead to female exposure to HIV-1 include poverty, presence of gender inequality, cultural and sexual customs, violence and lack of education (Quinn, Overbaugh, 2005). Between twenty to seventy percent of women opened up about their abuse for the first time when they were interviewed for a survey by WHO and have not old anyone before that (WHO, Geneva, 2002). Recent studies have shown that there is no significant rise in the reported rape cases since 1990 (Wolitzky-Taylor, et. al., 2011). Keeping in mind these statistics it is no surprise that the feminist movement has emerged as a medium of social action against the oppression of women. Such atrocities against women are not a recent problem. What is remarkable is that such matters are finally receiving international attention due to the political power that women have acquired that we are now able to place the issue of accountability for gender-based cruelty on the international agenda. Women are taking advantage of opportunities, allocating resources, reconstructing social realities, envisioning a better, holistic and an overall more agreeable future and energizing a new generation of supporters (both female and male). Dissatisfaction among women is a reflection of evolutionary changes within the movement that aims for an integrated society.

As is with all social movements, the women’s rights movement too has gone through many changes and reorganizations in its evolution due to climate changes, internal and external conflicts, changes in social values and philosophical progress. The records of the history of feminism are mentioned briefly and represented as an overall picture of the struggle. Many attempts were made to highlight the inequalities between the genders such as the work of 15th century writer Christine De Pizan, who was the first woman to write about the relationship of the sexes (Brown-Grant, 1999), 17th century writer, Margaret Cavendish, 18th century writer, Mary Wollstonecraft, who is often said to be the first feminist philosopher and the works of Jane Austen, that focused on the restricted lives of women of the former part of the century (McCarthy, 1994). Although efforts were made by women such as Caroline Norton, who helped in changing the situation of married women and child custody in England ((Yalom, 2002; Perkins, 1989) and Florence Nightingale, whose belief was that women had all the aptitude of men but they had none of the opportunities (Bostridge, 2008), 1848 was the year that marked the beginning of an organized Women’s Rights Movement. The first wave of feminism was between the 19th to the early 20th century. Here attention was given to issues such as women’s education, better working standards, right to vote and running for office. Women’s suffrage was extremely significant to the women’s rights movement as it eliminated the overtone of them as being second-class citizens (Cott, 1989). What came after is commonly known as second wave feminism and lasted for the duration of 1960s to 1980s. During this time issues such as gender inequalities and discriminations were brought into awareness (Freedman, 2003). The third wave of feminism commenced in the 1990s and emerged to resolve the criticism that second wave feminism received. It dealt with issues of queer politics, reproductive rights, inclusion of race related subjectivities of minority communities (Henry, 2004). It also addressed concerns for a global feminism where matters such as First World vs. Third World feminism, the intersectionality of gender repression and inter-subjugation based on gender, race, sexual preferences (homosexuality), class, nationality, etc., defining feminism, birth and population control, identifying the central aspects of feminism against the political aspects, the gap between researchers and the grass roots, female genital mutilation and the degree and extent of political concerns affecting women have received attention. Women’s Rights movement, as all social movements, evolved and adapted (and still is) to societal changes.

Immigration into Canada totally changed the racial diversity of the Canadian population. In their study Gee et al. (2007) noted that since the beginning of European immigration and settlements, the Canadian society has been ordered based on racial and ethnic dimensions. Ethnicity has occupied a central position in Canadian’s rising inequality (2007:3). John Porter first studied this subject in 1965 and found that entry into the Canadian elite class was racially-ranked and determined by income, “ethnic prestige” and occupations. His findings found that, British-Canadians topped the group, French-Canadians took second position, and other European-Canadians were third while Blacks and Aboriginals-“visible minorities” occupied the bottom strata.

Economic Inequalities

Empirical examples shows that, substantial and convincing studies have been done on ethnically or racially-based economic inequalities in Canada. Well studied areas on this subject include income disparities and inequality in occupations. Gee et al. (2007) summarized the various studies done on this subject. (Reitz and Banerjee 2007) concluded that visible minorities in Canada have higher poverty rates and lower comparable incomes than ethnic Canadians of European origin.

Gee et al. (2007) noted that recent studies on ethnic/racial orientations of income inequalities show that, household incomes of Aboriginals and visible minorities are usually low than those of Canadians with a European Origin. This is despite the fact that such studies have been conducted by different researchers at different times and applying different racial classifications and control variables. They further noted that racial disparities in the household incomes of European-Canadians have nearly minimized. Additionally, they also found indications showing that Canadians of southern European origin earn lower incomes than Canadians of British origin, while Canadians of French Origin earned much far better (2007:14).

On occupations, (Nakhaie 1997 as cited in Gee et al. 2007:16) found that British-Canadians continue leading the class of Canadian elites, despite the fact that Canadians of other origins have made efforts to join the elite class over the years. Gee et al. (2007) also noted that the correlation between ethnicity/racism and occupation can be studied in two different ways. One way is by establishing whether certain ethnic groups are concentrated in specific occupations (based on division of labor). The other alternative is evaluating the position of “racial groups” in the Hierarchy or strata of “prestigious occupations” (2007:17). Applying the first dimension, and using the male gender, studies showed that Aboriginals dominate the construction and building industries representing more than double of the Canadian male populations. They are extremely underrepresented in administrative and management occupations. Their women counterparts are represented in service jobs. They therefore concluded that, the Canadian labor force is more gendered than ethnically-based. In terms of prestige of occupations, Jewish, British and Chinese Canadians top the hierarchy. Blacks, Greeks, Aboriginals and Portuguese Canadians occupy the lower strata in that order. In the case of the female gender, the picture doesn’t change. In this case ethnicity and racism outweighs gender.

Employment and Home Ownership

Despite the fact that Canada among the first countries to assume multiculturalism as a policy, cases of social discrimination against visible minorities have existed in history. Racial minorities were supposed to perform duties deemed undesirable for the whites. During the construction of the Canadian National Railway, Chinese males were desirable source of cheap labor. After its completion, the Chinese were no longer valuable. A head tax was indeed imposed on Chinese immigrants to Canada (Kendall, Murray, and Linden, 1997).

(Li 2000 as cited in Reitz and Banerjee 2007:6) noted that the main economic problem that ethnic minority immigrants face in Canada is securing sufficient employment. This is associated with amicable reasons like, the “entry effect”-related to immigration problems and adjusting to the new environment (urban settlement), academic qualifications and racism. Ethnic minority immigrants experience more impediments than immigrants of European-origin (Reitz and Banerjee 2007:6)

Gee et al. (2007) asserted that findings show that in terms of home ownership, the picture is no different. It reflects the same strata as it is observed in household income levels and occupations. Osberg (2008:33) noted that, despite the fact that much literature has ignored the role of interest rates, wealth distribution, and household incomes of the wealthy and focused on earning trends, Canada now has much information on economic and other social inequalities and broad conclusions are apparent. He concludes that data shows an increase in economic inequality in Canada today.

Health Inequalities

Better health care is one of the basic needs that all human beings aspire to get any ware in the world. Low household incomes are frequently linked with poor health. Despite intensified research and studies on health inequality in Canada, little attention has been directed at ethno-cultural disparities on health.

Gee et al. (2007) looked at both “heath care access” and “health status”. However much of the literature that they examined didn’t show a direct correlation between ethnicity and health status. In some instances data showed that, some recent immigrants, irregardless of race or ethnic group had better health than their Canadian-born counterparts. This “healthy immigrant effect” was however associated with the health requirements in the Canadian immigration act that locked out immigrants with chronic health conditions. Their studies concluded that Canadians whose mother tongue is non-English or non-French are economically disadvantaged. Recent “visible immigrants are typically disadvantaged. Their analysis also found significant disparities in “health status” and “utilization” depending on country of immigrant and language. The health status of recent Immigrants declines as their years of stay in Canada increase. This is because they hardly report for medical checkups, due to the fear discrimination, prejudice and low household incomes.

Perceptions of Discrimination and Prejudice: A Barrier to Social Cohesion

Ethnic and racial inequality might be less decisive if it is as a result of circumstances amicable to the “visible minority”, such as status of new immigrants, language differences, or academic and technical training not compliant with Canadian requirements. In other words inequality would not be a threat to social cohesion if it is viewed as legitimate. The feeling of discrimination, prejudice and racism is another issue all together (Reitz and Banerjee 2007:8). A 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey, which sought to get views of individual experiences of ethnic and racial discrimination, showed that 35.9% of all the respondents “consisting visible minorities” reported cases of discrimination and prejudice compared with 10.6% of all Whites who responded to the Survey, of the visible minorities, blacks recorded the highest rate at 49.6%. (20007: 8:9). The Visible minorities also reported incidences of perceived discrimination of their ethnic group.

Despite improving economic status of immigrants as they cope up with Canadian environment and society an ethnic divide in perceptions of racial discrimination is eminent among immigrants with longer stay and experience in Canada (2007:9), this is even more persistence among children. Cases of non-recognition of immigrant qualifications also abound, despite in some cases being equivalent to those of native Canadians. Failure to recognize foreign qualifications and experience are some of the barriers that “visible minorities” come across as they seek employment.

Racial discrimination is viewed with skepticism in Canada, but the mutual covenant is that it exists and cannot be ignored. It is true that one of the effects of racial discrimination of minorities is its impact on the social cohesion of the Canadian society. Social cohesion generally means the capacity of a society to formulate, implement and adhere to policies that guide it. Lack of it may lead to conflicts and civil disorders as it happened in France and the United Kingdom. Other effects may be failure of a group to participate in making decisions and sometimes withdrawing its support for certain decisions or societal policies.

Integrating “ethnic minorities” is an important issue in Canada. Social integration and social cohesion are mutually exclusive and cannot be separated. Proper social integration of minority ethnic groups in Canada is a sine qua non for a peaceful and prosperous society that is viewed by its occupants as a means to the achievement of their needs. This will strengthen the Canadian society; raise the spirit of inclusiveness, civic and voluntary participation in activities concerning human life.

Conclusion

Inequality is a social evil; no society is a friend to it. The above revelations reveal that forms of inequality based on ethnic considerations exist in Canada irregardless of how minute they are. This is a big concern to racial minorities. It is not only a challenge to the racial group that experience it, but also to the whole Canadian society in terms of forging a peaceful and an all inclusive society acceptable to all.

The process of socially integrating ethnic minorities into Canadian society is often slower than that of European immigrants. This is often associated with their feeling of exclusion and perceived discrimination. Of emphasis is that economic integration should match social integration, none should supersede the other.

Existing Canadian policies and legal structures are laudable against racial discrimination and economic inequality. This is possibly due to international conventions and pressure to eliminate global racism and ethnicity, but it is not clear whether they are sufficient in addressing the issues that affect minority ethnic groups in Canada. However may consent is that ethnic prejudice and discrimination is a social construction that can only be changed by the subconscious minds of individuals-the way we think and see others. We should all join hands and fight ethnic inequality. We should judge others by their competence and content of their minds rather than the pigmentation of their skin.

“There shall be no solution to this race problem until, you yourselves, strike the blow for liberty”-Marcus Garvey

There are many aspects of today’s British society which make it multicultural, such as different ethnic backgrounds’, Social class, Religious beliefs, Sexual orientation, and Gender, all of which are categorized under ‘personal culture’. What I am interested in are the challenges this can have on a client – practitioner’s relationship and what personal ethics can be placed under pressure due to the diversity of culture, also what ethics are in place to prevent such challenges. I shall be focusing on a small number of issues listed above, such different ethnic backgrounds, different religious beliefs and Sexual orientation.

There are disadvantages of being an ethnic minority within Great Briton. Looking through history ethnic minorities have endured racism which is either subtle or obvious, victims of stereotyping, pre-judgements as well as cruelty, which in turn affects an individual’s self-worth as well as how they perceive themselves and their own culture.

Aisha Dupont-Joshura sighted in Counselling: The BAC counselling reader discusses and shares her ideas of inter-cultural therapy, she emphasises that practitioner’s must have knowledge of the variety in different cultures. ‘In today’s multicultural society, the need for counsellors and therapists to develop an awareness and understanding of cultural diversity becomes increasingly important.’ (80:1996)

She also discusses that the word counselling maybe changed to suit individuals from different cultural backgrounds for example replacing the word counselling with the word discussion as this may be better accepted in different cultures her reasoning for this is ‘better communication’ and no embarrassment that someone is in ‘counselling’ this is because without this shame the client will be more inclined to attended the session.

Carol Mohamed who also discusses trans-cultural therapy sighted in the sage hand book of counselling and psychotherapy this argues that the importance of a trans-cultural approach is not of the awareness of cultural diversity itself, but the awareness of the therapists’ own race-related attitudes and prejudices and the impact it could have on their behaviour towards a client from a different culture. ‘a therapist who is unaware of their own prejudices and stereotypes will form an opinion of a culturally or racially different client based on their own perception rather than who the client actually is’ (567:2006)

There are mixed reviews of what is needed from a white/majority practitioner to support those from different cultural backgrounds,

awareness that ethnicity exists is clear, however Judy Ryde has discussed that although awareness of personal race related issues and awareness that we live in a culturally diverse society are important, Judy Ryde believes it is also important to know what being white in this line of work means. She feels that by acknowledging the behaviour of whites within society this would lead to a better understanding of the impacts upon ethnic minorities which in turn will build a better level of empathy; this of course involves a level of acceptance from white people of their behaviour. ‘when questions of race are raised in a professional context, people tend to turn to a black person, if one is present, as if they must be experts on this subject’ J. Ryde (35:2009) Jude Ryde also tries to highlight what it would mean for white people to consider themselves as an ethnic race, when people discuss ethnicity the image that appears in peoples minds is not of a white person.

With the three different views of what is needed to understand ethnicity, what other factors relate to multicultural counselling which need to be taken into consideration?

Religion plays a part in multicultural backgrounds. Depending on where in the world an individual is from could influence their religious beliefs which could be different from a British practitioner, traditionally British practitioners religion (if religious) would be of Judaic-Christian principles.

Richard Nelson-Jones discusses the problem of this and questions if client practitioner pairing should be based of religion.

‘an issue for many religious helpers is the extent to which the values and teachings of their church influence how they work. For instance, Roman Catholic helpers may face value conflicts with clients in areas such as divorce, contraception, abortion and pre-marital or lesbian and gay sex’ Richard Nelson-Jones (28:2003)

John Mcleod supports Richard Nelson-Jones

McLeod discusses that if a practitioner holds different religious belief to a client then it can be problematic meaning the client will not be able to receive the skills needed for therapeutic growth, which could be damaging for a client, placing limitations on their own personal development and their progression through the seven stages of process. ‘acceptance can be difficult for a counsellor if they espouse religious beliefs that condemn certain forms of behaviour, such as sex outside marriage, homosexuality or suicide. If a counsellor who holds such beliefs works with a person who is, for example, gay or lesbian. It may be very hard to offer a counselling space that is sufficiently safe and free from blame’ J. Mcleod (98:2007)

Both have suggested it is very clear that a difference in religion is problematic and counsellors with their own religious beliefs will be unable to provide a ‘safe’ relationship for their clients.

Mary Thomas burke, Jane C Chauvin and Judith G Miranti conclude that there is uncertainty in regards to how to address religious issues because practitioner’s feel that they do not have the relevant capabilities to deal with such issues, there is a fear of imposing their own personal values as well as violating ethical codes as a consequence counsellors feel they are not suited for the client.

‘practitioners who think they lack formal training or expertise to help client resolve religious and/or spiritual issues will often refer such clients to their priest, rabbi or minister’ M.T burke, C. Jane, Chauvin and Judith G Miranti (xvii:2005)

Alternatively Nigel Copsey sighted in Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy

argues that as a practitioner, it is the practitioners responsibility to ensure that the work has been put in to place to guarantee a healthy therapeutic relationship, the reasoning for this is because the increase of a ‘muli-faith society’ in which we live will place a demand on practitioners to be able to respond, meaning that referral or bad practice is not going to help develop therapy as a service. ‘we need to be able to suspend our own belief’s while at the same time showing a deep genuine interest in the world of the client, thus allowing us to understand their experiences of the world through their own unique spiritual lens aˆ¦ this willingness to enter into a shared experience will strengthen the therapeutic relationship. It is my task to remain in relationship with my client while I celebrate the differences between us, if we can achieve this level of relationship, then I am certain that as counsellors we will be able to validate the healthy coping strategies’ N. Copsey(48:2006)

There seems to be a lot of debates to what is the best practice towards different religions and different ethnicity, With different views of religion will also come different views of sexual attraction which has been discussed above however sexual attraction can still be a problem regardless of religion that history has presented homosexuality to be something that is ‘unacceptable’ in society.

It has been stated more than once that homosexuality was labelled as a mental health issue this idea did not just come from people in general i.e. neighbours, colleges, friends or family members but infact that view was also believed by mental health associations.

‘a 1977 survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that a majority felt that homosexuality is pathological and that lesbians and gay men are less capable then heterosexuals of mature, loving relationships… studies of other mental health professionals founds that many, sometimes the majority, have has negative attitudes about homosexuality and lesbian and gay people and continue to harbour them’ (8:2000) GAP

Further research has been carried out which supports the lack of understanding towards homosexuality.

Research which has been carried out by Garnets C Hancock, J.A Cochran, S D Goodchilds and C A Peplau, all of whom are psychologists, the results can be found in two places their own book ‘issues in psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men’ (1998) or ‘counselling the culturally diverse theory and practice’ (2008)

Their work was a survey of therapist who had heard or knew of negative or positive responses from other therapist or clients in counselling,

their research and surveys conclude the following.

‘some therapist continue to believe that homosexuality represents a personality disorder or other mental health disturbance and is not just a different lifestyle… focusing on sexual orientation when it is not relevant. Problems maybe completely unrelated to sexual orientation, but some therapist continue to focus on it as the major contributor to all presented problems… attempting to have clients renounce or change their sexual orientation. For example, a lesbian was asked by the therapist to date men… presuming that clients with a different sexual orientation cannot be good parents and automatically assuming that their children’s problems are a result of the orientation’ D.W Sue & D. Sue(446-447:2008)

Although in the 21st century there is now a better acceptance of homosexuality ‘mental health organisations have acknowledged that homosexuality is not a mental health disorder’ D.W Sue & D. Sue (447:2008)

However there is still a lot of work which needs to be done, There are still other individuals and other cultures who believe different, for example homosexual relationships are punishable by death in Nigeria, in some Muslim communities homosexuality is seen as dishonour and results in disownment or imprisonment.

Over all there have been enlightening factors covered under the subject multicultural counselling under ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation all of which create an individual’s culture; this defines who we are as a person. There have been many issues raised within multicultural counselling and many ways to find solutions to these issues all of which are debatable. This subject matter holds a high level of complexity;

there are demands for counsellors to be in touch with their own assumptions, thoughts and opinions in regards to those who are culturally different. It has become clear that issues will arise within counsellors when working one to one with clients who exist in a different lifestyle.

—

Moreover the demand for counsellors to be aware of their own culture and limitations I feel is very challenging, as covered multicultural awareness has caused practitioners to question their own capabilities, feeling unable to offer the level of support needed to different cultural clients they are instead referred. This poses a problem for me regardless of the fact that my heritage is not White British. There is such a broad level of culture I must learn about, that it seems easier to ignore these implications rather than face them. However this is not an option as I and other counsellors who choose to ignore aspects of culture will find themselves stuck with one opinion causing the lack of ability to accept diversity and different ways of life.

‘reality is defined according to one set of cultural assumptions and stereotypes which become more important then the real world … people become insensitive to cultural variations among individuals and assume that their view if the only read legitimate one’ (21:1994) P. Pedersen

This is known as ‘cultural encapsulation’

‘describes the narrow world view that psychotherapists may have when they allow culturally biased perceptions of reality to dominate. A cultural encapsulated therapist, unable to see other through a different cultural lens, may regard as pathological what is normal for the minority cultural group.’ (6:1998) C. J Falicov

I do not feel I am a cultural encapsulated therapist, I am open minded to other cultures that are not my own Mixed White Black Caribbean, I hold a high regard for different cultures, but I have yet to find any cultural practice I feel I am inadequate to respond to effectively. The only advantage I hold is that I share personal experiences and understanding of what it is to be a minority in today’s society but of course this can also be a disadvantage depending on my clients own cultural differences.

‘for white clients the appearance of a black counsellor may unconsciously evoke certain prejudices and stereotypes which could lead to the rejection of the counsellor but be interpreted by the client as not having the right to choose'(296:1998) Moodley. R and Dhingre S cross-cultural/racial matching in counselling and therapy: white clients and black counsellors’

It is also known that counselling is perceived as a white middle class profession, and within counselling profession racism does take place ‘black clients involved in the research described critical incidents where they experienced subtle rather than blatant racism from clients and colleagues and where unable to challenge or name these events as such’ (196:2006) C. Lago

The above transcripts make me feel uneasy as being a black trainee I know I will be faced with such issues as I have done before and what will be challenging is how I respond to such behaviour. The same applies to those who are religious if faced with discrimination both client or counsellor it could be challenging and damaging to an individual’s self worth.

What if the client is religious but the counsellor is not? What problems could this bring? I personally am not religious and consider myself Agnostic I am not sure about religion, I hold an open mind and there are something’s which I find believable and something’s that I find unbelievable, moreover I also consider myself to be a rationalist there has to be a reason and there has to be an answer in understanding the world, therefore I find religion unreasonable as there are many things about religion that are unknown or many questions I feel cannot be answered. So with this frame of mind what challenges could I be faced with if working with a client who is strongly religious?

‘clients with strong religious beliefs inquire about the therapists religious preference in the initial phases of therapy, an evasive answer my heighten the clients anxiety and lead to premature termination… usually, the client’s initial concern is that the therapist will undermine his or her faith. This fear is particularly salient if the therapist s nonreligious… their fears of being misunderstood are entangled with their excessive need for certainty and intolerance of differentness’ (66:1995) V. Genia

I personally do not feel being non-religious will be a problem for me, I feel if I were to follow a religion that this maybe more problematic as my own beliefs may cloud my vision of others who hold a different set of beliefs and values.

I feel that as I hold no religious views, such as sex before marriage, abortion or divorce, this decreases the chances of me holding any pre-conceived judgements. I would therefore hopefully understand others beliefs, values and morals even if not my own, as if the client were to be religious it would be their way of being and living life. I know I must understand and respect the importance of faith and what it means to others, also the influence it may have.

However I think there would be more challenges if the practitioner was religious and the client was not religious, because of the participation in activities deem unacceptable within the practitioners religion, or if both follow two different religions. An unethical counsellor could allow their religion in to the therapy room and may force their beliefs onto the client or place judgements.

Religion and sexuality: within many religions it is a sin to be gay, lesbian or transgender. There are counsellors who call themselves ‘religious counselling’ who believe that they can put right those who are a sin.

‘religious counsellors and others who claim success in converting people from homosexuality. These people are dangerous in that they deny that the onslaught against homosexuality has any impact on the way homosexuals experience themselves’ (55:2003) C. Lago, B. Smith

my initial thoughts are “this is outrageous and a very outdated way of thinking and behaving”. As discussed before this opinion is held all over the world, it is said that homosexuality is an illness and it can be cured.

Although I am heterosexual I have no personal challenges within homosexual community. I have had friends and best friends from a young age who are gay males and females, and through my up bringing my friends and I have discussed the stigma attached to this community. Abuse I have witnessed along with bulling and confidence knocking during the ‘coming out process’ can be devastating. I feel I have worked though my own sexual orientation, because if not I think I would be confused, defensive and overwhelmed by other sexualities and this frame of mind is not steady to council an individual who may be questioning their sexuality and therefore feels confused and vulnerable.

Although homosexuality is being accepted more and more through the decades much has changed.

‘the social context within different generations of lesbians and gay men have grown up as changed enormously over the last few decades. Just thirty years ago male homosexual acts carried the possibility of a prison sentence’ (314:2000) S. Plamer

Over the last thirty years in Great Britain we have gay and lesbian bars and clubs, literature, programs, radio stations this shows the level of acceptance. However there are individuals and counsellors who are homophobic for whatever reasons these are the views and opinions of others, it is important to know that being homophobic is not wrong it is someone’s opinion but there are limitations within the therapy relationship. My interest lays in where these limitations come from? i.e. learned behaviour, this is something I would like to explore with my clients who are homophobic, racist or discriminatory as it may help build on the clients process.

What regulations are in place to help others including counsellors to become aware of their own limitations and address them in order for them to work safely with clients?

BACP – British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy

The BACP is the largest association within the sector of Counselling and Psychotherapy, their duty is to regulate the safety of the public and inform its members of best practice, they work with other organisations in the same/similar field.

‘the earlier RACE division of the association (which had been dedicated to the exploration and dissemination of good therapeutic practice in a multiracial/multicultural society) has more recently evolved into the ‘Equality and Diversity forum’ (15:2006) C. Lago

The Equality and Diversity objectives are to highlight equality and to reduce discrimination on, disability, gender, gender identity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation and to raise awareness of conflict or resolution between competing strands of equality and diversity.

There are also legislations in place to improve their lives of individuals of different sexual orientation.

‘The Civil Partnership Act 2004 -It allows a legal partnership between two people regardless of gender… including survivor pensions, immigration, equal tax treatment, protection against domestic violence and next of kin rights.

Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulation 2007 – prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination … sexuality should now be included in all diversity training’ (111:2010) C. Butler & A. O’Donovan and E. Shaw

There are other projects in place to offer support to today’s multicultural society these projects are all over the country and offer support to local or national residents examples follows

‘Muslim Youth Helpline (MYH) is an integrated support service currently offering two forms of telephone & e-mail counselling, supported by a community outreach programme… MYH specialises in reaching out to marginalised ethnic minority communities by responding innovatively to the cultural conflicts & religious sensitivities of Muslim youth.’ (2008) F. Shareefa & J. Raza

the problems with telephone based projects offering support is that it is unstable, there are many factors which are missed over the phone such as body language a way to spot congruence and dissociation. There is so much that can be benefited from one to one counselling in person.

Roshni Nottingham Asian Women’s Aid

‘Provides refuge for South Asian women (and their children) aged 16 upwards who are fleeing domestic violence and abuse or are living with an abusive partner/family’ Nottingham Women’s Centre

This centre is a brilliant idea in Nottingham, is located in an area Hyson Green, I’m not sure about the location because this centre is aimed towards Asian women, the area in which it is located is a majority Asian community therefore confidentiality could be an issue if seen by locals going into this centre. Having a centre aimed to support Asians could be seen as discrimination in itself ruling out other members of the community because they are white or black.

Gay Nottingham is a site that highlights the number of different projects taking place in Nottingham which offer support counselling and advice for GLBT(gay lesbian and transgender) individuals, one project which caught my attention was Adoramus

‘Adoramus is a high church but inclusive Christian ministry in Nottingham. They’re not specifically a gay church, but gay people are very welcome at all services, and the ministers bless gay relationships.’ Gay Nottingham

The good intention I see in this is that this shows acceptance within the Christian religion, GLBT individuals are also religious and can participate in services and celebrate their faith. The reference suggests that ‘ministers bless gay relationships’ what exactly does this mean? The reference can only speak for the ministers so what about other members of the church are they happy with different sexual orientation? Especially when Christianity considers homosexuality to be a sin, Adoramus seems to lack the understanding of what support GLBT individuals need, and have they considered themselves ethically to be able to offer support which is safe?

Overall that has been a vast development in terms of understanding today’s multicultural society. Over the decade’s acceptance, appreciation and respect has grown towards individuals who are a minority. Although I feel there is more which can be done I wonder if discrimination will always be an issue for counsellors and clients as well as society in decades to come.

Exploring the different approaches to tackle multicultural counselling has enlightened me I have read numerous books to learn that there will be no right or wrong answer. All the topics discussed have advantages as well as disadvantages.

All I can do as a counsellor is to stick to the ethical guide lines given and be aware of what my own limitations are and to work through them, this could be a long process, therefore until I am ready, if I am faced with a client whom I feel I cannot offer safe support to I will accept this be congruent and if I must I will refer my client but whilst doing so, I shall not hold any shame around my limitations as I know I am only human and I will not be able to counsel every client I may face in the future.

Erik Erikson theory of development stipulates the physical, psychological as well as emotional milestones and how they relate to specific developmental tasks in each stage. The personality traits exhibited by individuals are inborn temperament traits while others are learned by a person as he or she develops in regard to the challenges as well as support received in the course of development. Erik Erikson is credited due to the exemplification of the concept of personality development since he believed that the existence of the ego has its roots from birth and behavior exhibited by an individual is not completely defensive (Crandell et al, 2009). Studies advanced by Erik Erikson indicated that the development course of an individual is determined by a three fold interaction between the genetic biological programming of the body, psychological influences as well as ethos or cultural influences. Erik Erikson’s developmental theory stipulates eight stages extending from infancy to adulthood in which different developmental milestones are explained.

The first stage from birth to about 18months is referred to as infancy where the Ego development outcome is known as Trust vs. Mistrust. This is the oral sensory stage where major emphasis is laid on the child’s mother ability to provide loving care to the child. Through visual contact as well as touch a child is able to trust that life is satisfactory and considerable confidence in the future is achieved. On the contrary, when a child fails to achieve trust and consistent frustrations befall on a person, a deep seated feeling of worthlessness may develop as well as a pronounced mistrust of life in general. Basically during my infancy I was accorded the right treatment which gave me the belief that the world we live in is trustworthy and that every individual has an outmost right to live here.

The early childhood stage is from 18 months and extends up to 3 years. The Ego development outcome during this stage refers to Autonomy vs. Shame. The basic strengths which a child ought to develop is will, courage as well as self control. Individuals at this stage learn to master important life skills for themselves. Children not only learn to feed, walk, talk, toilet train but they develop fine motor skills. As the developing child continues to gain control over their bodies through acquisition of new skills and differentiating the right from the wrong, feelings of autonomy and high self esteem are realized. During this period, children largely refuse to undertake the tasks stipulated by the most significant and/ constant caregiver that vital skills of will are developed. However, during this period children tend to be massively vulnerable. This is because children who are unable to learn important skills as well as fail in toilet training experience massive shame and doubt thereby resulting to low self esteem. Relationships with ones parents are very significant.

During the Play age from 3 to 5 years a desire to imitate adults is established as well as an inborn want to take the initiative in coming up with ideas during plays. Playing is paramount during this stage as children are involved in playing out roles as well as experimenting in the ideas they believe in. The ego development outcome at this stage is referred to as Initiative vs. Guilt while the basic strength exhibited is purpose. According to Erikson, the child largely struggles with the oedipal struggle as he tries to establish his gender through use of social role identification formalities (Berger, 2004). A child frustrated in regard to natural desires and goals experiences guilty feelings. The school age period between 6 to 12 years is referred to as latency and the ego development outcome attached to it is industry vs. inferiority. The child’s ability to learn and acquire new skills as well as knowledge and develop massive accomplishments helps a child develop a sense of industry. This is a largely social stage during the development where basic strengths of method and competence are made manifest. In case a child experiences inadequacy and inferiority in the midst of his peers competences as well as self esteem problems results. The most important relationships during this period are those found in the school as well as the neighborhood. Gender influences are exhibited during development especially in communication styles, aggression as well as social relationships. Many sociolinguists agree that females largely prefer private talks which are geared towards forming relationships. Since I grew up in an environment with males as all my siblings are boys, my communication was primarily based on report talk with such verbal performances as lecturing information, joking as well as story telling. The kind of plays undertaken by children is based of gender and cultural influences. For instance the boys’ plays have a leader who directs the course of action and the losers as well as winners are identified. Girls on the other hand girls play in pairs and turn taking is more evident. According to Erikson, the above developmental stages largely depend on what is done to an individual.

From adolescence stage which begins from 12 to 18 years, Identity vs. Role confusion is the developmental outcome which seeks to be achieved. Development largely depends on what an individual does. Adolescence is an indeed complex stage in which an individual is neither a child nor adult therefore individuals struggle to forge their identity in social interactions as well as establishing moral issues which to adhere to. Erikson states that individuals are expected to discover who they are. If this is not done adequately, the concerned individuals experience role confusion as well as upheaval. A period known as moratorium is witnessed by individuals who opt to withdraw from responsibilities. Adolescents identify most with their peers and due to lack of experience individuals tend to think in terms of ideals rather than reality hence the reason why massive conflicts are always witnessed during this stage (Berger, 2004). In young adulthood, between 18 and 35 years, the basic strengths to be achieved are affiliation and love. According to Erikson, during the initial stages of becoming adults, individuals largely seek for love and companionship. Through marriage and establishing friendships, individuals seek to acquire mutually satisfying relationships. Individuals who negotiate through this stage successfully get to experience intimacy at the deepest level possible while those that fail isolation and distance from other people result. In my case, I married in the year 1999 and experienced deep intimacy. The significant relationships are those established with friends as well as marital partners.

Middle Adulthood sets in from age 35 to 55 or 65. The ego development outcome involves generativity vs. stagnation. According to Erikson, during this stage individuals are largely occupied with their careers as well as creative works while at the same time involved in family obligations. Individuals expect to be in charge of their affairs. The basic strengths to demonstrate are protection and care. This is achieved through undertaking the significant task of perpetuating culture as well as transmitting values to the lives of the children. The parents should tame their children through providing a stable environment in which the children grow up in. According to Erikson, Generativity is achieved when an individual demonstrates care of other people especially children thereby resulting to production of something which significantly contributes to the betterment of the society (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2008). This is the stage where ones children gradually leave home. This move largely results to major life changes thus resulting to mid life crises. Self absorption and stagnation is experienced by people who fail to go through this stage successfully. During this period, relationships which matter the most are those existing in the workplace, family and the community at large.

Late adulthood which is witnessed from 55 or 65 years up-to death requires comprehensible demonstration of the vital strength in wisdom. According to Erikson, the ego development outcome at this stage is integrity vs. despair. Since individuals have spent substantial amount of time preparing their lives during middle adulthood, late adulthood presents an opportunity to recover from the challenges of life. As older adults, individuals have an opportunity to look at their lives with happiness as well as contentment. Recognition of the contribution made by an individual in life is what brings satisfaction and Erikson refers to it as integrity (Berk, 2004). Contrary, there are individuals who get to this stage and exhibit feelings of despair owing to the misgivings and perceived failures they have witnessed in their lives. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development compares significantly with Erikson’s developmental theory since the moral milestones achieved by an individual throughout his lifetime are stipulated.

According to Kohlberg, moral reasoning is what determines the ethical behavior to be achieved by an individual. While expanding on Piaget’s work, Kohlberg established that moral development is primarily concerned with the need to demonstrate justice and continues throughout the life of an individual (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2008). Through analyzing moral reasoning displayed by individuals in such cases as Heinz dilemma, Kohlberg managed to classify the actions and morals of various individuals into six distinct stages. The levels advanced by Kohlberg are classified into Pre-conventional, conventional as well as post-conventional with each level having two other stages. The pre-conventional stage is commonly exhibited by children although there are instances when even adults get to associate with this stage. The morality of an action is determined by the direct consequences exhibited by a particular action. Since a child has not fully conceptualized the societal conventions in regard to what actions are right or wrong, he or she focus on the kind or rewards or punishments a particular action is likely to elicit. The obedience and punishment orientation makes an individual to focus on the punishment advanced thus if the punishment is bad, the action is equally bad. This view is largely egocentric. Stage two in pre- conventional level is driven by self interest concerns whereby an individual seeks to determine the benefit he or she will derive from an activity. Thus, concern for other people’s interests is not as a result of respect or loyalty. The conventional level is typically demonstrated by adolescents as well as adults. People who reason in conventional ways base the morality of action in regard to the societal views as well as expectations. Conventional morality thus requires an individual to make a deliberate move to accept the societal conventional in regard to what is right or wrong. Thus an individual follows the stipulated societal laws and guidelines without considering the consequences of the actions. In stage three referred to as interpersonal accord and conformity motivated an individual seeks to fill social roles available in his society thus the emphasis lies in trying to live up to the expectations of the society. Thus stage three reasoning constitutes judging the morality of an action by considering the kind of effect that an individual’s relationship will demonstrate. When respect and gratitude sets in, people feel the need to fit in social roles since they want to be liked by other members of society owing to the good behaviors they demonstrate. According to Kohlberg, stage two of conventional morality is authority and social order obedience motivated. The importance of obeying the stipulated laws, social conventions as well as dictums lies in the massive need to maintain a society which is functioning well (Lerner & Weiner, 2003). Thus society needs transcend individual approval when making any moral reasoning. It is a central ideal which is present in the society which makes people want to follow the stipulated rules and regulations. Majority of the active members of the society remain in this stage of moral judgment.

The post conventional level of moral development is known as the principled level. According to Kohlberg, it is the realization that individuals are separate from society which makes individual perspectives to be considered before making decisions. People in this stage make decisions owing to the abstract personal principles they uphold. In stage one of post conventional level known as social contract driven, the world is considered to hold varied rights, values as well as opinions which must be respected by all people in the society. In this stage, laws are not considered as rigid dictums rather rules are considered as social contracts which need be changed in order to address the good on all people in the society. Various decisions as well as inevitable compromises come into interplay when such actions are being undertaken. The final stage is universal ethical principle motivated and it encompasses abstract reasoning during moral reasoning processes. The validity of laws is based only on their ability to uphold justice thus laws without an obligation to justice need be fully disobeyed. Since decisions are not arrived at hypothetically, a completely absolute method need be developed to come up with such conclusions. Kohlberg emphasizes the fact that the individuals, who have reached this level of moral development, put themselves in another person’s situation if at all they believed the truth of another person’s action (Lerner & Weiner, 2003). The consensus which results from such an action is the decision undertaken. Thus individuals act not because an action is legal, instrumental, or expected but rather because the action is right. It is quite difficult to determine individuals who operate in this level.

The cultural background of an individual plays a major role in determining the moral milestones achieved during the development process. Since culture encompasses the total community’s social, economic as well as political structures which shape the total outlook of an individual. It is the culture which determines the sensibilities, attitudes, skills as well as dispositions which in turn make an individual morally mature in all spheres of life. In case a cultural setting lays much emphasis on punishment, individuals will primarily remain in the pre- conventional stage of moral authority where actions are determined by the kind of punishment which will be accorded. Differences in sex exhibit different moral development of women and men. Women typically remain at stage three of moral development since they primarily encompass interpersonal feelings during decision making process. Men are largely stationed at stage five and six since they reflect mostly on abstract perceptions of societal organization during decision making process (Lerner & Weiner, 2003). This can be further explained by the fact that women do not undertake their responsibilities in regard to the conventionally accepted norms but rather on their own individual insights in regard to care and responsibilities of their children.

Compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of the equal opportunities and managing diversity approaches. Using the analysis above, discuss what the equal opportunities and diversity approaches could each contribute to the developed of an organisational programme to contract disadvantage of members of ONE of the following social group:

Gender
Ethnicity
Disability
Sexuality
(2800 words)

Intro: Diversity

The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique and recognizing our differences. Diversity is inevitable. It occurs in every man’s day to day life without even noticing it. It occurs in every part of the world. According to Dictionary.com (Anon 1, 2010), diversity is defined as the state or the fact of being difference. The dissimilarity is such as age, gender, ethnicity, different lifestyles and cultures, educational backgrounds, working methods, experiences, religious belief, sexual identity and against disabled people. Diversity in organisations reflects the changes that were occurring at the time of theorising equality developments. Organisations approach these issues by managing them using equality policy-making. Diversity has advanced from a traditional view to a more contemporary view because it covers a much wider framework than legal requirements in this modern society.

The world’s increasing globalisation requires more interaction from diverse cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds than ever before. People no longer live and work in an insular marketplace; they are now part of a worldwide economy with competition coming from nearly every continent. For this reason, profit and non-profit organisations need diversity to become more creative and open to change. Maximising and capitalising on workplace diversity has become an important issue for management today.

Today, in an organisation, each and every employee must accept the differences between individuals and respect them. Differences are seen in two aspects: people being valued for being diverse and unique which bring the uniqueness of a particular individual or organisation and the other aspect, a person marked as different, getting different treatment (Lecture Notes).

Diversity issues are now considered important and are projected to become even more important in the future due to increasing differences. Companies need to focus on diversity and look for ways to become totally inclusive organisations because diversity has the potential of yielding greater productivity and competitive advantages (Society for Human Resource Management, 1995 cited in Green et al, 2002).

Diversity is beneficial to both associates and employers. Although associates are interdependent in the workplace, respecting individual differences can increase productivity. Diversity in the workplace can reduce lawsuits and increase marketing opportunities, recruitment, creativity and business image (Esty et al., 1995 cited in Green et al, 2002). In an era when flexibility and creativity are keys to competitiveness, diversity is critical for an organisation’s success.

Managing Diversity

Managing diversity is defined as a management process that embraces the challenges of managing a workforce that is heterogeneous in terms of culture, ethnicity, religious belief, political affiliation, sexuality, gender and disability (Oxford University Press, 2009). Managing diversity is about assessing differences and treating people with dignity and allowing everyone, not taking into account their differences, to be able to perform to their level of ability. Managing and valuing diversity is a key component of effective people management, which can improve workplace productivity (Black Enterprise, 2001 cited in Green et al, 2002, p.2). Demographic changes, such as women in the workplace, organisational restructurings, and equal opportunity legislation, will require organisations to review their management practices and develop new and creative approaches to managing people. Changes will increase work performance and customer service.

According to Smed et al (1994 cited in Liff, 1996, pp.14-16), there are four approaches of equality: dissolving differences, utilising differences, accommodating differences and valuing differences. Dissolving differences may be seen more as equal opportunity than diversity management. Valuing differences, apparently, is the main approach to diversity management. This approach includes providing and initiating for the people, such as training and educating employees in the organisation to help them understand the organisational processes and boost their confidence.

Accommodating and utilising differences, unlike dissolving and valuing differences which represents the dominant strands in the diversity management, are almost similar to some equal opportunity approaches (Liff, 1996, pp.14-15). According to Kirton et al (2009, pp.5-7), inequality in the neoclassical economics, the employment outcome reflects every individuals preferences and choices. Inequality existence is due to the system of production that is based on the principles of market competition.

Equal Opportunity

Equal opportunity aims to ensure that our working and learning environments are free from discrimination and harassment and that policies, procedures, structures and services created by government and organisations do not disadvantage anyone based on their disability, socio-economic background, location, language, cultural or ethnic background, gender, sexual preference, marital status or religious and political conviction.

Equal opportunity is defined as an elastic notion that is caused by the appropriate measurement of the particular problem (Anon 2, 2010). In equal opportunity, differences are dissolved under the equality policies (Liff, 1996, pp.13-14). Differences exist between every living being, however, they do not need much attention from the legal approaches.

Advantages of Equal Opportunity

Equality of opportunity sets, that is, rendering the sets of choices available to different individuals the same (Roemer, 2002:456). It aims justice for all by preventing discrimination. Equal opportunity for all might be provided with the harmony of social, cultural, economic and legal conditions that affect each other successively.

According to Liff (1996, pp.11-12), equal opportunity do not focus on differences. Under equal opportunity, everyone regardless of their age, gender, or ethnic origin should be treated equally. In the UK, a legal framework underpins the importance of equal opportunity approaches to treat everyone equally (Liff, 1996, p.12). This approach primarily protects gender against inequality and being discriminated at work. Although differences exist between people, differences should not be acknowledged in this approach; instead, it should be ignored. In an organisation, it should not be assumed that men are more committed to the job compared to women. The chances of a married woman going away on maternity leave should not be judged just because she is married. There is a possibility that this woman might not want to have kids. There is also a possibility that a man at work might meet with an accident and be away for nine months on sick leave. Therefore, men and women should be treated equally in an organisation. Ethnic minorities should as well be treated equally and organisations should not have the assumption that people of different ethnicity could not speak their language. There are many ethnic minorities from Commonwealth countries speak English as their first language, because the British influence during the British Colonial in their countries. For that reason, ethnic minorities should also be treated equally and should not be assumed that they do not speak the international language.

The main aim to create equal opportunity is to create a context where every individual is able to demonstrate and perform to their relevant capabilities. They should be judges on the basis that they are equal.

Limitations to Equal Opportunity

Not focusing on differences, equal opportunity found its limitation to accommodate other minorities, such as aged people, religious belief and disability. These minorities may need special attention or legal framework enforced to protect them from being discriminated. According to Liff (1996, pp. 12-13), in an organisation’s decision making, individuals’ gender an ethnicity are stripped of to be equal. Any form of unfair, unequal treatment because of age, disability, marital status, ethnicity, religion, social-economical background, and any other factor that can give rise to unfair treatment is called discrimination.

Discrimination may be defined as selection of the candidates for a work according to the criteria’s which are not related to the job directly (Daft, 1991) Discrimination prevents equality of opportunity in any way. If an employer asks for a requirement that is not a bona fide occupation qualification (BFOQ) candidates who do no have that special requirement can not apply for the work. Some approaches of equal opportunity appear to break the principle of ignoring differences (Liff, 1996, pp.12-13).

Advantages of Managing Diversity

Unlike equal opportunity, diversity management focuses on differences (Liff, 1996, pp.11-12). By employing a diverse workforce can be beneficial to both the organisation as well as the stakeholders. Diversity management strategies can help create a link between the internal and external aspects of the work of an organisation. The organisation is, then, better able to understand the demographics of the marketplace it supplies. By knowing the marketplace and the customer better makes the business easier to manage, especially if the organisation employs men and women, people from many generations, people from ethnically and racially diverse backgrounds and so on. The diversified workforce gives the organisation a better understanding of the demographics as well as the marketplace. For instance the marketing department of an organisation with a diversified workforce will better understand the market structure and the demand of the market from its different employees’ knowledge and experience. It, therefore, makes the organisation better equipped to thrive in the challenging market. A diverse workforce in an organisation would improve employees’ satisfaction and inspire all of their employees to perform to their ability. Company-wide strategies can then be executed. The work pattern will, eventually, show a better productivity, profit, and return on investment. Employees will feel safer and more secure working for an organisation with a better managed diversified workforce.

A diverse workforce that feels comfortable communicating varying points of view provides a larger pool of ideas and experiences. The organisation can draw from that pool to meet business strategy needs and the needs of customers more effectively. Hence, it can supply a greater variety of solutions to problems in service, sourcing, and allocation of resources. Employees from diverse backgrounds bring individual talents and experiences in suggesting ideas and a collection of skills, such as languages and cultural understanding, which are flexible in adapting to fluctuating markets and customers demands on a global basis.

Disadvantages of Managing Diversity

Diversity in the workplace brings about many benefits to the organisation, as well it can lead to many dispute. Managing diversity, according to many organisations is more than simply acknowledging differences in every employee. Apparently, it is more difficult to motivate and manage a diversified workforce. Miscommunication occurs in managing diversity, due to having people from all walks of life. Different gender sometime interpret things differently based on their gender instinct, different ethnic group may have different culture in doing things and by having too many people of different religion and not understand each one of them may cause a big trouble when organisation an event. Perceptual, cultural and language barriers need to be overcome for diversity programs to succeed. Ineffective communication of key objectives results in confusion, lack of teamwork, and low morale.

Resistance to change and accept diversity management in their workplace silences new ideas and inhibit progress. The inability to manage diversity in a proper way in the workplace can be extremely harmful and can costs the organisation by creating negative image, high employee turn over rate, loss of advertising revenue, discrimination suits, ligitation time and money. Diversity management, if handled insensitively, may invade employees’ privacy and poorly handled programme may result in conflict and ill-felling.

Hence, cultural bias is another factor to diversity management disadvantages. It refers to prejudice and discrimination. According to Liff (1996), prejudice refers to an unjust behaviour and preconceived opinion and attitude towards an employee based on his or her culture group identity or religious belief. Discrimination on the other hand refers to observable adverse behaviour for the same reason. It also means a judgement of recognition and understanding of the difference between different people.

In some organisations, assimilations are created to create a situation in which some individuals are different and they are likely to fail. Deep-seated prejudices may be brought into the open, causing short-term tension. Implementation of a diversity programme may, in the short term, be expensive.

Sexuality

Sexuality was defined as ‘something which a society produces in complex ways’ (Weeks, 1986, p.25 cited in Hearn et al, 1996). Diverse social practices caused meaning to social activities, of social definitions and self-definitions, of struggles between those who have power to define and regulate and those who resists.

There are five factors of sexuality: sex discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual attraction (Kormanik, 2009). When an employment decision is based on sex and gender, it is a sexuality factor of sex discrimination. In the construction site, for example, construction workers are usually men. This is because women is seen as the more feminine sex and could not be able to carry weights. Sexual harassment is a form of teasing and demeaning behaviour made by a group of people about an individual. Usually, at a workplace the more feminine female worker is likely to be sexually harassed by her male co-worker. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is an individual’s erotic or affection deposition to the same and or opposite sex. A person’s sexual orientation is the attraction to the opposite sex and or even the same sex. Gender identity is the individuals’ psychological sense of the sex, either being male or a female. According to Jamison (1983:46 cited in Kormanik, 2009), sexual attraction is a quality or feature that attracts that one person experiences the exhilaration of inclination toward another person.

Equal Opportunity and Diversity contributes to disadvantages of Sexuality

In the past, people are more conservative and have inherent ideas from cultural and philosophical past which makes them perceive that accepting lesbians, gay men and bisexuals will wreck the society, culture and beliefs and reflects some form of devils. Even in the modern society, there are people who cannot accept lesbians, gay men and bisexuals and tend to treat them in a way that these lesbians, gay men and bisexual people are unable to for into the society. Many heterosexual parents think if they accept lesbian and gay people or bisexual people in their society, it would eventually rein the society, itself, especially the younger generations. It is the lesbian and gay people and the bisexual people’s biggest fear is being refused by the public, the society and relationship with other colleagues in the workplace and fear that the job or promotion opportunity is in threat. There might be some fear towards being discriminated in the overall labour market. In the education and children channel broadcast industry, lesbians, gay men and bisexuals are being discriminated and not offered the job. Parents fear that their children will grow up into a homosexual or bisexual.

Heterosexuals who discriminate against lesbians, gay men and bisexual people often harass them verbally. Whether at work or in public, heterosexual people often act as though they are more superior to the homosexual and bisexual people and patronise them which makes the homosexual and bisexual people felt patronised and afraid and feel intimidated to face the public in their true identity. For that reason, homosexuals and bisexuals are more likely to be harassed, especially at work, compared to heterosexuals. The issue of sexuality was avoided in organisations in the past. No one was supposed to bring up the issue of sexuality of homosexuals and bisexuals as it opposes many cultures and religions and many societies’ conservative attitude towards them. It was not against the law to refuse the homosexuals and bisexuals in an employment or refuse any of their benefits. In the labour market, the workforce is usually dominated by the heterosexual people. Homosexuals and heterosexual people try to be like heterosexual, in order to keep their job and their current position in the organisation.

In many organisations, however, discrimination and harassment against homosexual and bisexual people still occur. There is a strong discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people. Most of the cases are verbal and physical act against them, the lack of information, hence, makes it difficult to prove. Therefore, many lesbians, gay men and bisexual people rather conceal their sexual identity. It is easier for lesbians, gay men and bisexual people to conceal their identity compared to other groups of diversity (Kirton et al, 2010, p.39). Sexuality can be easily concealed by not revealing it to anyone around. At work, heterosexuals usually dominate the work environment and those who are against homosexual people and bisexual people often harass them verbally, some even physically. Homosexual people and bisexual people are often seen as an object to the heterosexual which they can make fun of. Which makes the homosexuals and bisexuals develop some form of fear against the society and the society acceptance of them, despite those who are in favour of them, and tend to be quiet and shy.

Higher income earners who are identified as homosexuals or bisexuals reportedly found it more difficult to be open about their sexuality at work (Palmer, 1993 cited in Kirton et al, 2010, p.40). In organisations, top management people are expected to be at certain professional manner and are expected to set an example to their subordinates. It goes the same for teachers to students and television presenter to children. According to Shape et al (1995 cited in Kirton et al, 2010, p.40), it is unaccepted to many organisations that their top management people are open about their sexuality if they are homosexuals or bisexuals. In certain professional field, such as teaching, the health science, television broadcast and the military, people are expected to be clean or conceal their sexual orientation at work.

Many studies proved that gay men tend to receive lower wages compared to heterosexual men (Schmidt, 2008). On the other hand, lesbian women receive higher wages compared to heterosexual women (Schmidt, 2008).

In recent years, many European countries’ governments enforced and reformed laws and rules and regulations to protect homosexuals and bisexuals at work. Some governments even protect homosexuals and bisexuals in their normal lives. According to the Employment Equality Regulation 2003, there is an act which protects homosexuals and bisexuals from sexual discrimination or harassment.

Like many other lawsuits, there are many cases seeking to protect homosexual partners from sexual harassment due to sexual orientation have been unsuccessful. In Whitfield v. Cleanway UK Ltd (2005), homosexuals and bisexuals are often being discriminated at work. A similar case was decided, Reaney v. Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance (2007) ET 1602844/06. The case involved homosexuals and bisexuals being discriminated on religious grounds. Some countries have policies against homosexuals and bisexuals, such as Algeria, Iran, Liberia and Nepal. There are countries would still legally punish homosexuality on religious grounds. Malaysia, for instance, fine and or jail sentence for up to 20 years (Anon 3, 2010). Some countries set death penalty to homosexuals and bisexuals to punish them. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed a case, Weber v. Community Teamwork Inc (2001) 434 Mass. 761, 752 N.E.2d 700, where a lesbian plaintiff claimed she had been terminated from her job based on sex discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Muzzy v Cahillane Motors Inc (2001) 434 Mass. 409, 749 N.E.2d 691 reviewed by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the case involved a lesbian complaining that her boss, who was also a lesbian, sexually harassed her on the job. In both these cases, the Court found insufficient proof to support the plaintiff’s case (insufficient evidence that the work environment was intolerable) and dismissed those cases.

These cases reflects hostile work environment, which is based on verbal and physical acts that make the workplace intolerable. It is more difficult to prove a compilation of acts, gestures, jokes and innuendoes.

Conclusion

A diverse workforce is a reflection of a changing world and marketplace. Diverse teams bring high value to organisations. Respecting individual differences will benefit the workplace by creating a competitive edge and increasing work productivity. Diverse management benefits associates by creating a fair and safe environment where everyone has access to opportunities and challenges. Management tools in a diverse workforce should be used to educate everyone about diversity and its issues, including laws and regulations. Most workplaces are made up of diverse cultures, so organisations need to learn how to adapt to be successful.

Differences live forever and human mentality is not easy to be influence over a few decades, therefore, discrimination continues and it is inevitable. It might need far longer time to manage the diverse culture of the world. According to the Fortune 500 in 2006, there is an increasing number of organisations that are taking steps forward managing diversity in the workplace. These companies begin to provide basic benefits to homosexual and bisexual staffs, such as the health benefits. Another reason for taking that step is to assist employees and management in moving through the state of being aware of other employees’ sexual orientation and gender identity.