First paragraph must be an introduction to what is gender inequality...and that the issue is one of the most controversial in HK society. Last part must be some suggestions on how to better cope with the situation and conclusion. The most important is the middle part which may consists of many paragraphs, may talk about gender roles, gender stereotypes and gender inequality particularly in the workplace or reflect the number of females involving in professional jobs is still smaller than that of males eventhough the overall education level of females in HK already risen to a level as high as that of the opposite sex. On the other hand, u may add some actual implementations or legislation of HK government, e.g. HK laws regarding gender inequality and how HK government actualize it by signing United Nations Agreement like "Beijing Platform for Action"...May also talks about how females are rejected to participate in religious events, eg. we will never see a female "priest" etc...
In conclusion, the argument that gender equality in the workplace is not a priority for business is supported by convincing evidence. Board positions in Australian companies are currently dominated by males, with fewer than five percent of positions in the largest three hundred companies occupied by women. Furthermore, few businesses are proactively instigating measures to combat gender inequality but rather have been compelled by legislation. Disparities of income exist at all levels of organisations with females in senior management positions sometimes earning half that of their male counterparts.
Publication of the journal Race, Sex & Class (changed afterwards toRace, Gender & Class), in 1993, signaled the convergence of thosepolitical and intellectual interests into a new social scienceperspective that soon acquired enormous visibility, as demonstratedby the proliferation of journal articles and books with race,gender and class in their titles. This perspective, put forthprimarily but not exclusively by social scientists of color,emerged as a reaction to feminist theories which neglectedracial/ethnic and class differences among women, theories ofracial/ethnic inequality which neglected sexism among men of colorand, predictably, as a corrective to Marxism's allegedshortcomings. For example, Jean Belkhir, editor and founder ofRace, Sex & Class, prefaces an article on this topic as follows:"The "Failure" Of Marxism To Develop Adequate Tools and AComprehensive Theory of Ethnicity, Gender and Class Issues isUndisputable" (Belkhir, 1994: 79). The list of putative "failures"could be as long as we wanted it to be but what would that prove,beyond the fact that Marx's and Engels' political and theoreticalpriorities differed from those of contemporary social scientists? Less biased, albeit debatable, is the conclusion that Marxism,although offering "crucial and unparalleled insights" into theoperation of capitalism, "needs to develop the analytical tools toinvestigate the study of racism, sexism and classism" (Belkhir,1994: 79). To refer to class as "classism" is, from the standpointof Marxist theory, "a deeply misleading formulation" (Eagleton,1996: 57; see also Kandal, 1995: 143) because class is not simplyanother ideology legitimating oppression; it denotes exploitativerelations between people mediated by their relations to the meansof production. Nevertheless, it is the case that neither Marx norEngels devoted the intensity of effort to the investigation ofgender and race (and other issues) that would have satisfiedtoday's critics. It is (and any literature review would supportthis point) far easier to emphasize their "sins" of omission and --in light of current political sensibilities -- commission, than itis to use their theoretical and methodological contributions totheorize and investigate those aspects of capitalist socialformations that today concern us. Notable exceptions are Berberoglu(1994), who has examined the underlying class forces leading togender and racial divisions in the U.S. working class, linkinggender and racial oppression to capital accumulation, and Kandal(1995), who has forcefully argued for the need to avoid theracialization and feminization of social conflicts while minimizingor overlooking the significance of class.
The results on perception in this study were mixed, and it is difficult to draw solid conclusions on how the gendered perceptions of risk influence adaptation. Further analysis is required to understand differences in perception in a broader gender context. We argue that rather than being an inherent difference, perceptions reflect inequalities in many ways. In fact, the causes and effects of vulnerability are twofold and commutable. Furthermore, economic and physical marginalization, and marginalization more generally, are highly relevant to perceptions of risk. Men who are exposed to discrimination and feel vulnerable have higher perceptions of risk (Finucane et al. ). For example, research has shown that white males have a relatively low perception of climate risk, which is known as the ‘white male effect’ (Finucane et al. ). However, recent studies in countries where inequalities between men and women are less prevalent have challenged this view by identifying no significant differences in perception between men and women (Olofsson and Rashid ). Several scholars have called for further study on differences in risk perception between various groups, to be carried out in a less deterministic way using an inequality lens. We agree that the societal inequality effect is a more likely explanation for divergent perceptions, than inherent differences between men and women. Several papers included in this analysis went further than a deterministic interpretation of men’s and women’s divergent perceptions of climate variability. They attribute those differences not to inherent, fundamental, and natural differences between females and males, but rather to the context of inequity in which those perceptions were established and shaped. For example, Cherotich et al. () and Safi et al. () argue that women may perceive the risk of environmental change to be more acute due to a lack of gender equity and differentiated political power. They reinforce their findings by citing studies in countries with greater gender equity, where no difference in the perception of risk was found (Olofsson and Rashid ).