Economical impact of maternity leave in the USA

Not that long ago, a man, who is now the President of the United States said that  being pregnant is inconvenient for the business and for the economy.
It might be a bit depressing to admit that this piece of writing was inspired by Donald Trump, but in a way it was.Thank you,Donald!
Unfortunately it is quite common to think that being pregnant is not beneficial for “the business”, or in the long run, for economy, which I’d like to prove otherwise.
Paid parental leave is an essential part of bringing up a child let alone all the other things  that parents, especially mothers, may face after giving birth.

“It’s time we stop treating child care as a side issue or a women’s issue, and treat it like the national economic priority that it is.” 

And this is not only Obama’s point of view.
According to an article in  New York Times, many economists believe that paid parental leave could actually give some boost to the economy.
If we think about it logically, if one has paid parental leave, they obviously take some time off: just to set the records straight, not for holidays, but to actually give life to a human being. If that is inconvenient for the economy, I can’t think of something else that is not.
Furthermore, it can also be assumed that the probability that one returns to the job she/he had before is higher with paid parental leave than without it.
As a conclusion, I think it is fair to say that it may not be super beneficial for the business but it’s certainly not a burden either.
Why is parental leave such a big deal economically, though? Specifically talking about the USA,  because women now make up a larger percentage of the US workforce, 47% in 2012 and according to the latest statistics women’s share of the total labour force was 46.8% in 2016. 
It is also proven that within 3 years after the child’s birth, “paid leave increases maternal employment by 15-20% as well as the total hours worked per week.” The same article also claims that  “mothers who took leave were also 6% more likely to be working a year after childbirth”.  And even if you have very basic knowledge on economics, you may as well figure that increased labour participation is usually a good thing.
There was another research in Europe a bit earlier, in 2013 that suggests something else: as it is shown on the chart above, Norway is one of those countries that provide enough time and money for paid maternity leave.  Norway was one of the first countries to adopt paid parental leave in 1977 ( just for the record, all of the countries who adapted paid maternity leave in the 60’s were communist) and women receive 100% of their income paid by the government and are guaranteed a return to the same or similar work.
You may think that it’s one of those great things that could only work in the Scandinavian countries, but it’s actually not. paid_maternity_leave
Even in Hungary, a country that constantly receives criticism for disrespecting and dismissing fundamental human rights, 3 months of paid maternity leave is provided by the government.
Now, back to Norway, in 2013, they extended maternity leave – and fortunately, it doesn’t look like they ever want to stop ever since and that raised some questions. As some economists argued  35 weeks is just too much : “Extra leave and other benefits amount to a  pure leisure transfer”. The same research claims the following:

“Women don’t need extra months or a year off with pay to breastfeed and bond with baby.”

This study was released by National Bureau of Economic Research.  As I was convinced that no women or mother would say the foregoing, I checked, and surprisingly enough, mostly men work at NBER. There was no further details on the distribution between men and women working on this research, though,  but were all academics from all over the world.

In this post, I was attempting to bring attention to an issue that is usually not in the top priority list in the USA.
Undoubtedly, things are developing in a way. Even such a  – seemingly – hopeless and dysfunctional administration like Trump’s show signs of interest in trying to make their system better.
In conclusion, no matter  where certain opinions differ on this issue, there is a point where all these different viewpoints meet: it is quite obvious that without paid parental leave it can be extremely difficult for parents to get on with their lives – financially – while having a toddler.
Certain social benefits must be provided,not only in the US but all over the world.  Not in despite of its not-very-likely-but-still-possible impact on economy, not because it’s a ‘feminist thing’ which was brought up again by another angry woman (without a child) moaning about how unfair a system is, which  doesn’t even concern her yet.
Paid parental leave is important because there should be absolutely no dilemmas or obstacles set by any states in having to choose between having children or keeping one’s career.

Reference list

By  Lucy Geczi
Hendon Campus




British Rail System Is Shambles- Nour El Huda Shaker- Dubai Campus (1)

British rail system is shambles, and nationalisation has been proven to work. So what are we waiting for?

Once upon a time, about 9 years ago, my school commute in London cost me £13 weekly and I even had a few pounds left to buy pudding for lunch. Fast forward to present day and shockingly I’m still a student and I still commute, but now it costs me £100… weekly and I can’t even afford buy a hot drink whilst I wait for the delayed train in the cold November weather. British rail system is shambles, and nationalisation has been proven to work. So what are we waiting for?

"I know it's yesterday's ticket! - That's when I got on this bloody train!"

Trains in the UK are used by thousands of people everyday but the trains and their systems are some of the most expensive and inefficient in Europe. This can be traced back to 1979 when the privatisation of public sector industries was a priority according to the Conservative government. The government claimed that the main benefit of privatisation is that some services will be better run if invested by the private sector, and the efficiency and competition of the private sectors will overall improve the industry (Bishop et al., 1994). I’m sure thousands of daily commuters that are late for work would beg to differ. Conservatives need to realise that not all industries benefit from privatisation. Industries where it makes sense for companies to compete against each other to provide the best possible service should be privatised. Industries where the profit motive will make things worse for everyone should not.
Screen Shot 2017-10-20 at 19.00.17.png

Statistics accumulated and calculated by YouGov shows that 60% of British people support re-nationalising of the railways so they are run in the public sector rather than by private companies. UKIP, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters all support the idea, by 70%, 78% and 60%. Conservatives however are divided 42-42% (YouGov, 2014).Screen Shot 2017-10-20 at 19.00.26

YouGov also collected the reasons why people wanted to support the rail nationalisation. 62% of people say that railways should be accountable to taxpayers rather than shareholders, 47% think it this will cause prices to go down and 43% think it will thus be more cost effective overall. (YouGov, 2014)

According to the statics above, the highest level of support within political parties is the Labour party and they have re-nationalisation of the rail industry on the top their economic agenda for decades. They argue that a nationalised system would promote transparency and accountability, and would give the government more control over certain areas (Parker and Martin, 1996). The best example of nationalisation working for us is East Coast rail. The service was rescued by a government controlled company in 2008, after National Express fell into financial trouble and the franchise collapsed. Under public ownership, satisfaction rates climbed to 91%. So… what are we waiting for?


Bishop, M., Kay, J and Mayer, C. (1994). Privatisation and Economic Performance, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Dahlgreen, W. (2017). YouGov | Why the public want to nationalise the railways. [online] YouGov: What the world thinks. Available at: [Accessed 11 Oct. 2017].

David Harvey (2007) ‘The Neoliberal State’ A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford University Press), pp. 21-26

Matthew Watson (2005) ‘Approaches to International Political Economy: Beyond States and Markets’ in Foundations of International Political Economy (Palgrave 200) pp. 36 – 41.

Parker, D. and Martin, S. (1996) “The Impact of UK Privatisation on Labour and Total
Factor Productivity”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy.


aldana alsaud M00610352

You educate a woman, you educate a generation!

If anyone ever says that the world doesn’t need a feminist movement because women have achieved most of their rights, then ask them to come and visit Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the classic example of a society where women’ oppression and patriarchy continues to thrive. Moreover Saudi men are unapologetic oppressors. They don’t See women beyond the theological perspective – seeing them as mere bodies to reproduce and labourers to take care of the house. They take pride in oppressing their women and the world knows the condition of Saudi women. And the reason people are silent is because Saudi Arabia justifies its archaic treatment of women as being all about religion.

Saudi Arabia is a non-secular Islamic theocratic monarchy. The state edicts are aimed at controlling women living in the country. Islam clearly does not encourage oppression of women; in fact one could argue that Islam gives women more rights than most religions. Yes, there are instances in the Quran which mention that man is considered to be the ‘caretaker’ or ‘prior’ to the woman. The Saudi men have taken caretaker in all its fallacious contexts. The women of Saudi can’t even acquire education without the consent of the male guardian. Furthermore, in a lot of cases, the women think that they are at fault for asking for their rights because they are making God angry. Religion is injected in them in a way that they cannot even raise their voices for themselves. Pleasing their male guardians has become the purpose of their lives. The employment rate of women in Saudi Arabia is comparatively low. According to World Bank and International Labor Organization data, only 20% of physically capable women are in the workforce, of which 21% are unemployed (World Bank).

The bottom line is that men are suppressing women in the name of culture and religion and women seem helpless. The oppression is not limited to the private sphere; the state oppresses women too. From getting your driving license, education, Identity or to working as a professional, you need a male guardian for every legal issue. The fact that women stay hand by hand and do not allow the unfair behavior to change them is the most surprising fact in Saudi Arabia. There are a lot of women who stay strong and try to speak and be other woman’s voice. Wajeha al-Huwaider is a founder of the association for the protection and defense of women’s right in Saudi Arabia, she is a female activist and a writer. She said “And you, Saudi women: what are you waiting for?… You do not hesitate at all to help and support others but you hesitate greatly to help yourselves… I would like to understand why you hesitate to initiate the demand for your right.” (Middle East Media Research Institute 28 December 2006)



World Bank. (n.d.). Unemployment, female . Retrieved from World Bank:

World Bank. (n.d.). Labor force participation rate, female. Retrieved from World Bank:

Badran, M. (2013). Feminism in Islam: Secular and religious convergences. Oneworld Publications.

Seedat, F. (2013). When Islam and feminism converge. The Muslim World , 103 (3), 404-420.

Seedat, F. (2016). Beyond the Text: Between Islam and Feminism. Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion , 32 (2), 138-142.

“Women’s Activism in Saudi Arabia.” Wikigender,




The Lies of Brexit

Joe Linnett


Boris Johnson Tours Dorset In The Vote Leave Battle Bus

¹ Boris Johnson speaks as he visits Reidsteel, a Christchurch company backing the Leave Vote on the 23rd June 2016 (Picture: Getty)

Many an outlandish claim was made in the Brexit referendum and two of the key ones were, ²“leaving would mean taking back control”, and that there would be an extra ³“£350 million pounds a week for the NHS due to leaving the EU”. Although it is the dawn of post-truthism and according to Mr Gove, ⁴“the age of experts is over”, should we really be worried if our political leaders use at best hyperbole, and at worst, lie to us?

One of the key issues emphasised by the Brexit campaign was taking back control of immigration into the UK, and that doing this would have little impact on the British economy as the UK would still have access to the single market and be able to make trade deals with countries outside the EU. However this is proving to be not so simple as the bluster of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage would have had us all believe. This is because to end free movement into the UK from other EU countries, would mean an end to free movement into the UK, and in the eyes of the EU forgo the right to have tariff free trade with EU member states, free movement of people is one of the 4 freedoms that comes with EU membership and that they are linked– free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour – so our economic prosperity is linked to our migration policy. If this is the case and the UK is no longer allowed to trade in the single market it could be argued that both sides would suffer, according to some Global Political Economists ⁵“free trade makes all those involved better off as it is a zero-sum-gain for both sides”. If no agreement is reached the UK will undoubtedly be worse off as the EU is the world’s biggest single trading block and the UK will no longer have access to it, meaning the quality of life will not increase at the same pace of the EU member states. People did not vote for economic hardship and did not understand the relationship between these four freedoms.

Furthermore, even if it was true that there would be an extra £350 million a week to reinvest into the NHS it would be needed to just replace the⁶“10% of doctors and 7% of nurses who are EU nationals”, many of whom may return to their EU countries of origin as they no longer feel welcome and their status as residents in the UK has become a bargaining tool. It is a significant portion of the NHS staff nearly 1-in-five that could be needed to be replaced. This could be difficult, particularly if that extra money is as fictitious as suspected. The NHS struggles to get new recruits anyway, even more so since the student nurse bursary has been withdrawn, meaning it is now too expensive for many UK nationals to pursue these careers. This means that there will be an increasing understaffing in this area that will needed to be filled somehow. Having said that who really cares if nurses and doctors in the NHS are over worked, underpaid and unappreciated as long as they are British?


⁶ Baker, C. (2017). NHS staff from overseas: statistics. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

² BBC News. (2017). Reality Check: Migration to the UK. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

⁴ Deacon, M. (2017). EU referendum: who needs experts when we’ve got Michael Gove?. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

³ Gordon Rayner (2017). Exclusive: Boris Johnson – Yes, we WILL take back £350m from EU for NHS. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

¹ Metro (2017). Boris Johnson bus brexit £350. [image] Available at: [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

⁵ O’Brien, R. and Williams, M. (n.d.). Global political economy. 5th ed. palgrave, pp.7-21.

The Gender PAY GAP Still EXISTS?

“Does the gender wage gap mean that women get to leave work 23% early today? 🙂 ”

Gender inequality has been around since the beginning of time and the gender pay gap is a glaring issue that continues to reinforce gender discrimination. Particularly, women have suffered in society because of the gap between them and the male population. There is gender division in almost everything including employment positions, wages, and rights etc. Women have been facing discrimination in areas such as education, employment and health insurance.

Inequality based on gender is commonly known across all sections of the world. From developing countries to developed countries there are gender inequalities, and men are always put first way ahead of women. Sometimes women cannot even get their rights and no one listens to their voice at all. Women represent approximately more than 50% of the world population, and obviously, this also affect their families and the global economy. The economy grows in a positive manner when women are getting paid equal.

Women continue to take part and to work in global markets on an unequal basis with men.  Global employment trends show that during 2013 the percentage of male employees was at 72.2%, at the same time, the percentage of females was 47.1%. In most countries women only earn 60 to 75 per cent of men’s wages.

According to ‘Empowering Women 1881’,  In 2016 , employed men in United States were getting 20% more than what women were getting paid despite women working full-time and working in the same position.  United States of America is considered one of the most powerful country on the earth in terms of economy, military and liberty etc, yet the glaring gender inequality is evident. Additionally the United States of America always says that we are the country which there is no gap between on each ethnic, religion and gender (etc.)

This instance is not limited to just the United States of America, women are still powerless everywhere, for example, according to the Eurostat during 2015 , women’s gross hourly earnings were on average 16.3 % below those of men in the European Union and 16.8% in the euro area .

Personally, inequality between men and women are around for only one reason; a lot of people think that women cannot do the same kind of jobs as men and think that they are incompetent which is totally incorrect and misunderstood. Women are always seen as inferior to men and they are constantly viewed as a sexual object or a housewife, they are limited only to work in household with chores such as cooking, washing clothes and taking care of the children, which is wrong and unfair. However people are not old minded anymore, they are open minded and educated and they should know by now that it is unfair to discriminate against women in this way and that men and women are and should be equal for the better of society. Women are just hard-working as men. Perhaps they can even do more than is expected of them.  Women are an integral part of society, economy, and politics of the world. In order to have an equal world there should not be any country or profession that has gender divisions. 

References: (2017). Gender pay gap statistics – Statistics Explained. [online] Available at: [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

Global Employment Trends. (2014). [online] Available at:—dgreports/—dcomm/—publ/documents/publication/wcms_233953.pdf [Accessed 30 Sep. 2017].

World Economic Forum. (2017). America is falling behind other countries in gender equality. The next president must fix that. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 Sep. 2017].

Report, G. (2017). [image] Available at: [Accessed 30 Sep. 2017].

Inequality. (2017). [image] Available at: [Accessed 11 Oct. 2017].


How to get FREE money !!! (Valeriy Zhdanov)


At least once in our life, we have been through annoying advertisements such is in the title. In fact, there is a way, without any conspiracy behind, to get paid without literally doing anything. I am referring to the ‘Universal Basic Income‘ concept. UBI means

“(…) a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.” (BIEN, 2017)

that should be enough to cover the basic needs, which honestly sounds marvellous.

First and foremost, it is crucial to underline that this idea is far from being recent. It has appeared in the 16th century, developed and lastly implemented in the following centuries, up until now.

According to the Non-Profit Organisation Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), Britain was among the first countries which tried to follow this path of basic income for everyone. But it has failed within. Nonetheless, the idea expanded to the rest of the world. Instead, the Labour Party came up with the Welfare State policies, which served to tackle down poverty and unemployment rate. The fruits of Welfare State are social security, National Health Services, free education, council housing and full employment, which still exist (Briggs, 1961). Yet, some even argue that the list of provided above are too essential, and are not up to date with our times and needs.

There are few resemblances between the UBI and Welfare State. The most important here would be the coverage of it. UBI is made to be delivered to all individuals no matter what their wealth is, so is the welfare state, which covers all citizens, without seeking their resources. Another likeness is their aim, which is social reconstruction. Whereas welfare state emerged from a post-war social crisis, UBI is raising its concerns towards technology, for instance, automation which is leaving people without their jobs.

The Basic Income organisation from the UK explains its advantages. Some could be, for instance, better working conditions, as people would be sure about an income paid by the State so they would not be afraid of challenging and even leaving their jobs due to lack of conditions. As well as, it could possibly contribute to fewer hours at work, thus better delivery of employment, resisting to unemployment. But mainly, it would end the poverty levels and reduce inequalities, as the income would be taken from the wealth produced by the whole society.

However, this idea is not supported by everyone, as there are few critiques about the lack of implementation of it, especially in a globalised world. So is thought about the paralysation of productivity,

therefore the economy, as people would stop work. Indeed , it is up to the countries to choose the way of implementation, and where the money would be coming from, some adepts defend that it should come from the most ‘productive’ sectors of national economies. So that is why some countries are discussing and another testing this approach. Most of them are part of the European Union, which is known to be of a social reformist view. Exactly, those are Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, and Finland, which is already experimenting (McFarland, 2017 and BIEN, 2016).

A survey made by a company called Dalia shows that most of Europeans are in favour. To be precise, in 2016 64% agreed upon a basic income, and this year, the percentage increased by 4%. The survey also shows that just 8% are considering to work less, which refutes some of the critiques mentioned before.

Admittedly, economic nationalists (realists) would not be in favour of such drastic implementation, whereas their focus is not on the individual, but rather in the nation, and in their view, politics are upon social life. These factors would make them think twice before heading ahead with the basic income. Why? Because, as they defend a self-sufficient state, firms and companies, especially foreign ones are subordinated by the state, so in case of clashing with political or economic problems, those are first to leave the country. In the other hand, we have got the liberal economic theory, which focuses on the individual rather than in the state. Liberals start from the analysis of the individual’s preferences and come up with an organisation to put into practice. So this would be the way it could be implemented in liberal thinking states if the citizens would approve so. Also, it would enable individuals to seek prosperity and productivity through self-interest, if so, the economy would be even healthier (O’Brien and Williams, 2016).

As it was said above, this is far from being recent, but even though, there is little that we know about its implementation. Accordingly, that is why several experiments are occurring around the world, some even successful.


The Myth of the 21st Century … (The inadequacy of the Security Council decision making process)


“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”,

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law”. 

Articles 1 and 7 of the United Nation declaration of human rights appears to be the fairytale of our contemporary international relations. The creation of the United Nations in 1945, after WWII, was the turning point of international politics, the end of wars, and the rise of human rights and equality.

When you read the history of the UN creation and its principles, optimism, hope and belief in a new world order fills your mind, until the moment when China and Russia veto placing sanctions on the Syrian regime in October 2011, after the usage of tanks and soldiers by the army against the civilian protests in Syria, which killed approximately 2,700 civilians. Since 2011, Russia has vetoed at least 6 resolutions on Syria, ending with the gas attack on Idlib province in April 2017, which caused the death of dozens of people including children (McKirdy, 2017).

470,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict till 2016 (HRW, 2017), and what the UN has done was helpless!

HENG-081.jpgHeng – Singapore via Cartooning for peace

2006 – 2015 Cartooning for Peace – All rights reserved –


Nevertheless, when you look at the many cases failed by the UN – Vietnam war in 1961, Israeli-Palestinian conflict 1929 – ?, the Bosnian massacre in 1992, Iraq invasion 2003, and an endless list of failures – the UN failure to end the bloodshed in the Syrian Conflict is not something unexpected. In the case of Vietnam war, the five superpowers were of opposing interest, where the US was issuing the war on Vietnam and the USSR was actually supporting the Vietnamese guerillas. Similarly, the US and the USSR were supporting different sides in the Korean war in 1950. Furthermore, the case in Iraq is summed up by the words of Canada’s Prime Minister Chretien rejecting the Invasion:

 “That is not the debate at the UN .. You know, China might say, well we have a problem somewhere and you we’re know, we don’t like the regime and going to change the regime. It’s why its dangerous. You know, everybody will take that as a pretext”. In that sense the future of states, is quite directed by the superpower’s interests and plans” (Chretien, 2003)

The security council structure, is created according to the realist approach to ensure a balance of power. However, this gives the permanent members superiority over all nations (Gavrila, 2013). Additionally, In a lot of cases the superpowers have opposing interest, which makes it too hard to compromise. Therefore, world security and the prevail of human rights is obstructed (McWhinney, 2007). In other words, the UN decision making process, is countering its purpose on the protection of human rights, and letting down the promise it gave to the oppressed people. Thus, there are two options for the UN to follow. Either, reform its structure, or simply … Shut it down!


Yet, who told Roosevelt that we want them to “police” our world? (Eichelberger, 1977).



Unbalanced United Nations Security Council

Kofi Annan -26 September 2004

© 2012 – 2017 Zapiro (All Rights Reserved)
Printed/Used with permission from”


Eichelberger, C. (1977). Organizing for peace: Personal History of the Founding of the United Nations. 1st ed. New York: Joanna Cotler Books, pp.236-237.

Euan McKirdy, C. (2017). 8 times Russia blocked a UN resolution on Syria. [online] CNN. Available at: [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].

Gavrila, M.A. (2013) Liberal and realist considerations of UN effectiveness. Available at: (Accessed: 23 November 2016).

Human Rights Watch. (2017). Syria. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].

McWhinney, Edward. “Canada and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Prime Minister Chretien’s Gloss on the UN Charter Principles on the Use of Force.” Canadian Yearbook of International Law 45 (2007): 271-290.

Ohn, C. (2010). The Causes of the Korean War, 1950-1953. International Journal of Korean Studies, [online] 14(2). Available at: [Accessed 19 Oct. 2017].

the Guardian. (2011). Russia and China veto UN resolution against Syrian regime. [online] Available at: [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].

By: Zainab – M00610385 – Dubai Campus





Do women really have the same human right when compare to men?

Recently, it is fascinating to hear that the South Korea president Moon-Jae-in fulfil his pledge through providing more Cabinet positions for women ( Jiyeun Lee: 2017). In fact, more feminists concern about the women in development(WID) and the role in international political economy(Jan Jindy Pettman,1996), however, according to the statistics from ISS Corporation Solutions, it indicates that even in France, no more than 35% of women in Asia Boardrooms. The enhancement of women political power does not definitely imply the equality of power between men and women worldwide. All of these statistic remind us gender balance in decision of policies and political participation should not be ignored if we want to demonstrate the world with no discrimination.

3872Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo


For the formation of gender inequality, some feminists indicates that one of the reasons attributes to a stratification system. Its system makes gender ranks women below men of the same class and race and thus oppress the power of women(Judith Lorber, 1994) For instance, some feminists argue that the human right between men and women is different, such as manifestation in the formulation of moral judgements and moral arguments and further critized that the government should take the responsibilities of international human rights they have signed up to .(Jill Steans, 2013)
Take women in Afghanistan as an example, they would be sent to moral jail if they have sex before marriage, being raped or fleeing abuse. (Ritu Mahendru, 2017) Under this situation, men could be viewed as patriarchy. In their views, women are viewed as commodities and could be controlled. Their life freedom are so restricted, let alone gaining the reasonable political, social and political resources. Importantly, according to United Nations Human Right, it states that in regardless of our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status, human rights could be gained without discrimination. It is definitely unbearable to see women emotionally, physically, economically, socially being hurt by violence as the exploitation of women right violates the universal value.


The protection of universal human right is the cornerstone of social stability. In 2010, Arab Spring began and involved six countries: Tunisia,Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. Not only men, but also women stood out on the frontlines of protests for demarcation and more vital things: their human right. Although the local government intentionally haunted them to join the protest, they still fought for their justice. (Ishaan Tharoor: 2012) Those voices just shouted to the world that women needed freedom to strive for what they want.


Apart from the political side, in accordance with Pew Research Center, the pay gap between women and man still exist, take women in US as an example. In spite of working for the same hours, the income of women was 16% less than men. (Megan Friedam:2015) . With the same effort, both include physical and intelligent ability, women should not be discriminated due to gender. For the global economic side, according to United Nation survey, on average, women in the labor market overall still earn 24% income less than man. In fact, our society is not farming society anymore so that the physical advantages are not the reasons for male gaining more power than female. The communication skills, leadership skills, professions of women talents are also needed to be taken considerations.


Human right is fundamental element in order to build up the society with justice. According to World Bank, there are nearly 49.7% of women constitute the world. They also need to be respected and strive for the right equal to man, including the protection of law, opportunities of education, freedom of marriage and so forth.

By On Chun Koon M00644146


1)Jiyeun Lee, (2017). Korea Beats Japan and China to Get Women into Power. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 9 Oct. 2017].

2) Jan Jindy Pettman, (1996). ‘Working Women: a ferminist international politics, international’, Thomson Publishing company, pp.157

3.Tracy E.Ore, ( 2013). ‘The Social construction of difference and inequality : Race,class, gender and sexuality’, Saint Cloud State University, pp.115

4) Steans, Jill. (2013). ‘Gender and international relations: an introduction’, Oxford,pp. 82-84.

5) Ritu Mahendru, (2017). The Women in Afghanistan’s Moral Prisons. [Online]Available at :

[Accessed 9 Oct. 2017].

6) United Nation Human Rights, (2017). Your Human Rights. [Online]Available at : [Accessed 9 Oct.2017].

7) Ishaan Tharoo (2012). After the Spring: Women of the Arab Revolution[Online]Available at : [Accessed 9 Oct.2017].

8) Megan Friedam (2015). 14 Ways Women Still Aren’t Equal to Men[Online]Available at :

[Accessed 9 Oct.2017].

9) United Nations(2014). Gender Equality: Why It Matters,[Online]Available at :  [Accessed 9 Oct.2017].

10) The World Bank (2016). Population, female (% of total) [Online]Available at :  [Accessed 9 Oct.2017].