Today is international women’s day, and one of the biggest topics of debate is equal pay for equal work. Well, Iceland is about to take steps to make sure that becomes less of a concern in the small European country. Today, the Icelandic government announced that it will introduce a law that will require all companies with 25 employees or more be able to prove that they practice pay equality.

Iceland is hoping that this measure will eliminate the pay gap in the country by 2022. And it’s not just about the gender pay gap. The law mandates that public and private companies pay employees equally “regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality, or nationality.”

Icelandic Equality and Social Affairs Minister Thorsteinn Viglundsson says that it’s time that the country do something “radical” about the issue. He stated: “Equal rights are human rights. We need to make sure that men and women enjoy equal opportunity in the workplace. It is our responsibility to take every measure to achieve that.”

The proposed law has received some criticism–mostly concerns that it will become burdensome for companies and slow down the pace of business, as it requires that any company with over 25 employees obtain a certificate from the government.

There are a lot of arguments about how large the gender pay gap actually is in individual countries. Iceland is often cited as one of the best nations for equality, but according to a study from Expert Market, a UK-based data firm, Icelandic women earn 14 percent less than their male counterparts. In October 2016, Icelandic women protested the pay gap by walking out of work.

Way to go women of Iceland! Yesterday they protested 14% pay gap by leaving 14% early from work at 2:38pm! https://t.co/fGE9zByatE pic.twitter.com/fx1xjuJznI

— Women Thrive (@WomenThrive) October 26, 2016

Certain nations have policies that involve equal pay certificates. And in Minnesota, “certain contractors must provide equal pay certificates in order to conduct business with the State of Minnesota or certain governmental agencies.” But Iceland is believed to be the first nation to try to implement a law that mandates proof of equal pay.

Iceland is a very small country, so if this measure succeeds it may not be too useful of a model for other nations. But it’s nice to see a country making an effort to advocate for equal pay. After all, we still live in a world where op-eds are published about how women shouldn’t be paid equally. So, carry on, Iceland, and happy International Women’s Day!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iceland Proposes Law to Mandate Equal Pay for All by 2020 appeared first on Law Street.

When we take a moment to think about women in combat, oftentimes a picture of the 1997 Demi Moore film, “G.I. Jane” comes to mind with a scene that looks a little something like this:

However, women have not been allowed to work in all combat units despite G.I. Jane’s portrayal implying it was possible…that is, until December 3, 2015.

“There will be no exceptions,” stated Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter in his announcement, during which he informed United States officials and citizens that women would be able to hold positions and jobs within all combat units of the military. Secretary Carter went on to address that women would have these opportunities so long as “they qualify and meet the standards,” marking a significant and positively well-earned turn in the tide for the rights of women within the military.

The breaking and encouraging news comes on the heels of the first two women, Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver, who graduated the grueling Ranger training on August 21, 2015 and were not allowed to join a combat unit following their training and the acquisition of their new titles like their male counterparts. Now, for the likes of women like Ms. Griest and Ms. Haver, they will finally have the well-deserved opportunity to put their training into practical use.

The secretary excitingly highlighted the ability of the military to utilize a level of skill, insight, and point of view that had yet to infiltrate combat units thus far–the sensible woman’s touch, if you will. Secretary Carter was supported by all of the top leaders in the Army, Navy, and Air Force in his decision, but met negotiating terms by the Marines in which he refused to indulge special requests or exceptions, stating that his decision would apply to all branches of the military equally.

General Joseph Dunford, a commandant in the Marines, provided the Secretary with a detailed recommendation and data pertaining to mixed-gender units versus all-male units, showing that women were more likely to get injured in the training process and did not perform better than the men. However, Secretary Carter was not swayed, due to his own “evidence-based” research, and found that mitigating factors during the implementation process would account for any of the issues outlined by the Marines. General Dunford was not present for the announcement, but the secretary assured that the general would take full part in the implementation process.

Image courtesy Of [Utah National Guard via Flickr]

So how exactly will this change be implemented?

That seems to be the question that everyone is pressing Secretary Carter to answer. The secretary has not provided a concrete answer. However, he has provided a timeline: January 1, 2016 is the due date for plans to be submitted on how to open up the combat jobs to women and April 1, 2016 is the date by which those plans have to start being integrated into military procedure. We will have to wait for the start of the New Year to see how plans and integration unfold.

Now up for debate–will women be subject to the draft as a consequence of participating in combat units and what is the constitutionality of the decision if they are not?  Women, ages 18-26, are the only group entirely exempt from the military draft under the Military Selective Service Act–even non-U.S. citizens, such as male refugees between the ages of 18-26, are subject to the draft in a time of war when troops are short-handed. The Military Service Act’s constitutionality was challenged under the Fifth Amendment in Rostker v. Goldberg. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality finding that Congress acted within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies when it proposed and authorized the registration of men and not women. Justice William Rehnquist, in authoring the opinion, noted that Congress’ decision to exempt women from registering for the draft stood as women were not in combat at the time. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented in Rostker, stating that the exemption “categorically excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation.” Since the combat restrictions no longer exist, the issue may be revisited in legal dispute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause within the Fifth Amendment.

So we wait. We wait for the plans and implementation to unfold and to see if a constitutional challenge is brought against the Military Service Act in light of Secretary Carter’s decision to open combat unit jobs to women.

But while we wait, we can share in Rep. Martha McSally’s (R-Ariz.) sentiments on the underlying change in combat units:

It’s about damn time…Women have been fighting and dying for our country since its earliest wars. They have shown they can compete with the best of the best, and succeed. We are a country that looks at people as individuals, not groups. We select the best man for the job, even if it’s a woman.”

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women in Combat: Making Moves Toward Gender Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, I talked about the gender gap as it appears in Hollywood’s hiring practices. This week, gender bias has reared its ugly head once more–with the Nobel Prize.

In a recently released analysis by Fortune, it is disturbing–though not all that surprising–to see that when it comes to the highest honor a person can receive in their field, most of the honorees are men.

The Nobel Prize was first awarded in 1901, and for those that don’t want to do the math, that was 114 years ago. In that time, we have had some truly remarkable female laureates. Malala Yousafzai is the youngest winner in history; at just 17 she received the Nobel Peace Prize for her work against the suppression of education. Marie Curie was one of the few people who won the prize twice, in physics and then in chemistry, for her breakthroughs in the world of science. Yes, women have contributed quite a bit to humanity, and have sometimes been recognized for it. But the numbers, as always, don’t lie. Since 1901, men have won the prize 825 times, and women have won just 49 times.

Out of all the Nobel Prizes awarded to individuals, only 5.6 percent of them went to women.

According to Fortune’s analysis, the category with the most female winners is Literature; 12.5 percent of the winners were women. The category with the fewest women is Physics, with a whopping 1 percent. While those numbers seem disappointingly low, Fortune calls it “drastic improvement,” if only because the number of female laureates has gone up from four in the prize’s first two decades to 49 in 2015.

I’m going to have to disagree with Fortune on this one.

“Drastic” literally means extreme or radical. It should not be considered “drastic” for one gender to still have such a small representation in one of the highest honors in the world. Now, we don’t want Nobel Prizes going to people just because there is a gender gap that needs filling, but once again, the gap is just too big to be explained away by “maybe men are just better at [insert category here]”.

It isn’t necessarily the Nobel Prize committees’ fault, though. The pool of female candidates in certain categories, especially physics, chemistry, medicine, and economics, is relatively small. So, that 1 percent of women who have won in physics seems a lot bigger when you realize that the entire field of physics only has a relatively small percentage of women associated with it in the first place. So, it isn’t the prize’s fault, but what these numbers highlight is a greater need for women in all fields, especially the sciences. And when there aren’t a lot of female role models for potential scientists to look up to, increasing that percentage is going to be difficult.

So what do we do? We encourage. We tell young girls and women that they can be anything they want to be, whether that means a housewife, musician, actress, physicist, or doctor. Women already in scientific fields can stand up and be role models for those just starting out in those careers. Only then will the percentage of female candidates increase, as well as the number of female Nobel laureates.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Gender Gap is Everywhere: Disparity in Nobel Prize Winners appeared first on Law Street.

In what seems like an action that should have been taken decades ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched an investigation this month into the hiring practices of Hollywood; specifically, how many female filmmakers are being excluded from the job pool based on gender bias.

The EEOC reportedly sent a letter out to about 50 women filmmakers, requesting interviews to see what actions could be taken against the worst offenders of gender discrimination in the film industry.

They have a lot of work to do.

The numbers have always been discouraging for women who want to pursue careers behind the camera. In an annual study released by San Diego State University’s Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film, in 2014 women represented just 17 percent of “behind-the-scenes” roles in the 250 top-grossing films. These roles were defined in the study as including directors, writers, executive producers, producers, editors, and cinematographers. Even more disheartening is the proportion of female directors for those films: just seven percent.

Television hasn’t fared much better. The Directors Guild of America (DGA) released its annual report on the demographics of television directors in August. It found what the DGA is calling “modest improvement”: out of nearly 4,000 episodes produced in the time span studied, 16 percent of those episodes were directed by women (this was a “modest improvement” from last year’s 14 percent). Only three percent of that 16 were minority women.

“The uptick in the number of episodes directed by women–modest but hopeful–is just a drop in the bucket of what needs to be done…before we can begin to realize equal opportunities in television for our members,” said DGA President Paris Barclay. “Without employers making a concerted effort to bringing a more diverse mix of new entrants to the hiring pool, we won’t see meaningful and lasting change.”

Just how can we tell if employers for films and television are open to diversity? Hopefully, the EEOC will find out in its interviews. Obviously, we don’t want companies hiring women just to fill a void. Directors, writers, producers, etc. should be hired based on merit and creativity. However, that huge gap indicates a problem that can’t be explained away by “maybe men are just better at [insert job description here].”

Those percentages are just the tip of the iceberg in indicating how male-centric Hollywood–and media in general–actually is. It doesn’t just apply to women behind the camera. Going back to those studies conducted by SDSU, just under half of major television characters (42 percent) are women, with the majority of those characters belonging to ABC–thank you, Shonda Rhimes. That is a really positive number, but diving a little deeper into it, we start to see the inequality in that misleading 42 percent. According to the study, most of those female characters belonged to reality television programs, were younger than their male counterparts (very few of them were over 60), and 77 percent of them were Caucasian. So, you see, it isn’t just about the numbers. Representation can also be discriminatory.

We see these issues the most in film. With only 12 percent female protagonists in the top 100 films of 2014, a bias toward male characters is obvious.

Now, how many of those films with female protagonists can actually pass the well-known Bechdel Test? All it calls for are two female characters (they don’t even have to be named) talking to each other about something other than a man. It is surprising how many films fail such a simple criteria. While the Bechdel Test may not be a champion for feminist ideals or for great filmmaking, it is a good jumping-off point to see the commonality of gender stereotypes.

So what can the EEOC do with all this information, and the insights it will gather from its upcoming interviews? Class action lawsuits are the most likely,  and unfortunately, it might not even come to that. What truly can affect change will be the actions of the women already in the industry. They can move forward with their own careers while reaching out to more women like them–hopefuls wanting to direct, write, produce, or act. Writers can create more dimensional parts for women. Producers can push for shows with more accurate female representation. Actresses can refuse parts that stereotype them. The more everyone becomes aware of the gap, the more we can all work together to close it.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Gender Discrimination in Film is Still the Norm appeared first on Law Street.