Gender Discrimination (30): The Politics of the Female Body

(source)

Exploitation can be beneficial to the exploited, human rights violations can be self-inflicted, and people can internalize stereotypes about them and behave accordingly.

Some examples. Take the case where A and B have unequal bargaining power. A sells bread in an isolated village where the people don’t have the means to produce their own bread. A overcharges for the bread because B doesn’t have the means or the strength to find another seller. The sale of bread makes B better off, because without bread he would be worse off. Yet A takes unfair advantage of the buyer’s condition. A exploits B, yet B is better off and can decide to accept his exploitation.

Examples of self-inflicted human rights violations are school drop-outs, the undeserving poor, contestants in privacy invading reality shows etc. – to the extent that these people’s actions are really voluntary and based on informed consent, they impose rights violations on themselves.

Stereotype threat means that the threat of stereotypes about your capacity to succeed at something negatively affects your capacity: when the belief that people like you (African-Americans, women, etc) are worse at a particular task than the comparison group (whites, men, etc) is made prominent, you perform worse at that task.

Jacques Lacan

These three phenomena converge in the lives of many women in present-day western societies. Few of them are ruthlessly oppressed, few of their rights are grossly violated, and sexist stereotyping has become unfashionable. And yet, it’s arguably the case that many western women show signs of having internalized patriarchal power relations. It wouldn’t be correct to depict these women as unconscious victims who can’t choose for themselves – that would be just as bad as the sexist stereotypes of the past – but there are signs that some of them have been taught to participate in their own oppression and subordination.

How else could we explain the beauty ideal, women modifying their bodies, starving themselves, re-sculpturing their silhouettes and conforming in all possible ways to male expectations and prejudices? It’s like they have internalized the male gaze (in the sense given to that word by Jacques Lacan) and look at themselves the way many men do.

I don’t claim that this internalization of stereotypes is beneficial to women in the sense that some forms of exploitation are beneficial to the exploited, although in some cases that may be true – some women may reap some advantages from conforming to stereotypes. Neither do I claim that the internalization of stereotypes is self-inflicted in the sense of a voluntary act. In most cases we’re probably dealing with some form of indoctrination, and it’s fair to say that women and their bodies are still highly regulated, in a way that’s different from but not unlike the way it is in more traditional societies (for example in some Muslim societies). However, we shouldn’t exclude the possibility that some women do in fact voluntarily accept stereotypes. Again, the view that women are passive victims of indoctrination isn’t much better than or different from the view that women conform to more traditional stereotypes.

More on body politics is here. More on gender discrimination is here. And more on the Muslim headscarf is here.

Related Articles

• Do we cling to stereotypes even when information about the individual is available? (bakadesuyo.com)
• The patriarchy is dead … but the kyriarchy lives on | Nichi Hodgson (guardian.co.uk)
• The Devil is sexist (greedygoblin.blogspot.com)
• The New Sexism (time.com)

Human Rights Maps (157): Homicide in NYC is Primarily a Problem of and for Male African Americans

Apparently, it’s more dangerous to be a male black person in NYC than a person of any other race or gender:

(source, where you can find an interactive version of these maps)

African Americans represent only 25% of NYCs population, but 61% of murder victims. The racial distribution of the perpetrators is strikingly similar to the racial distribution of the victims; and men are not only the main victims but also the perpetrators in 92% of cases.

A note of caution: correlation doesn’t imply causation. In this case, this means that the race of most of the perpetrators shouldn’t lead you to the conclusion that black people are more likely to engage in murder because they are black. A third element, hidden in the correlation and more common among blacks, is most probably the cause of the high murder rate (perhaps poverty). In which case, distorted homicide rates may be a symptom of racism and discrimination.

Another note of caution: a common feature of a lot of statistical data in map form is that they exaggerate the prevalence of the phenomenon that is measured, and so it is with these images of murder in NYC. The town is full of it, if you can believe the images. But that’s obviously not true. 500 or so homicides per year, on a total population of 8 million, amounts to one murder per 16.000 people, only slightly higher than the 1 in 18.000 for the US nationwide (it’s not surprising that it’s higher for a densely populated urban area).

Also, the numbers have trended downwards in NYC:

(source)

Apparently the same pattern can be seen in Chicago:

(source)

And Washington DC as well – data are here:

(source, where you can find an interactive version)

More maps on violence are here, and more human rights maps in general are here.

Gender Discrimination (28): Occupational Sex Segregation as One Cause of the Gender Pay Gap

It’s common knowledge that women tend to earn less that men, even in countries that pride themselves on their respect for gender equality. Here are the data on the gender pay gap in the U.S.:

(source)

One of the causes of this gap is occupational sex segregation, meaning that women and men tend to work in very different occupations. Coincidentally or not, “men’s jobs” are generally better paid than “women’s jobs”:

(source, click image to enlarge)

Now, “segregation” in this context may be too strong a term, since there are no longer a lot of legal restrictions on the employment of women, at least not in the U.S. Women aren’t segregated into very specific occupations, at least not by law. Cultural pressures may still exist, however. Women often feel obliged to choose occupations that mix well with family responsibilities, and those occupations tend to be less profitable. Such a sense of obligation is not a sign of gender equality.

It’s also not clear to what extent women – voluntarily or not – choose jobs that are less well paid, and to what extent employers decide that jobs chosen by women merit less pay.

And finally, let’s not forget that there’s a gender pay gap even within professions. Occupational sex segregation therefore can’t explain the whole pay gap. Hence, the gender pay gap may be an indication of different types of gender discrimination:

• forcing women into jobs that are less well paid
• paying less for the types of jobs that women tend to choose
• paying women less than men within the same types of jobs
• failing to give women and girls the same opportunities to enter some types of jobs (e.g. because of unequal education, child marriage etc.)

More on the gender pay gap here.

Gender Discrimination (25): The Plough as a Cause of Gender Inequality

Gender inequality means different levels of protection of human rights according to gender. No need to say which of the two gender’s rights are usually violated more or protected less rigorously. Gender inequality occurs in many areas of life:

• in political representation or participation
• in income or labor market participation
• in labor sorting (when women are relegated to certain professions)
• in family life (when women do not have the same marriage or divorce rights, inheritance rights etc.)
• in criminal justice (when the testimony of women is considered less valuable) etc.

Too many areas to mention, unfortunately.

When you read about the causes of gender inequality, the usual suspects are religion, patriarchy and all sorts of anti-women prejudice. A different and interesting perspective, focused on inequality in the labor market, is the following:

Ester Boserup … argues that gender role differences have their origins in different forms of agriculture practiced traditionally. In particular, she identifies important differences between shifting and plough cultivation. The former, which uses hand-held tools like the hoe and the digging stick, is labor intensive and women actively participate in farm work. The latter, in contrast, is more capital intensive, using the plough to prepare the soil. Unlike the hoe or digging stick, the plough requires significant upper body strength, grip strength, and burst of power, which are needed to either pull the plough or control the animal that pulls it.

Because of these requirements, when plough agriculture is practiced, men have an advantage in farming relative to women. Also reinforcing this gender-bias in ability is the fact that when the plough is used, there is less need for weeding, a task typically undertaken by women and children. In addition, child-care, a task almost universally performed by women, is most compatible with activities that can be stopped and resumed easily and do not put children in danger. These are characteristics that are satisfied for hoe agriculture, but not for plough agriculture since large animals are typically used to pull the plough. …

[T]his division of labor then generated norms about the appropriate role of women in society. Societies characterized by plough agriculture, and a resulting gender-based division of labor, developed the belief that the natural place for women is within the home. These cultural beliefs tend to persist even if the economy moves out of agriculture, affecting the participation of women in activities performed outside of the home, such as market employment, entrepreneurship, and participation in politics. (source)

And there does seem to be a strong statistical correlation between historical plough use and prejudice against women. More human rights facts here.

Gender Discrimination (24): Gendercide in India

sex selection ad

(source)

About 6.2% of potential female births are aborted in India because ultrasound reveals the sex. That’s 480,000/year, which is more than the number of girls born in the UK each year. The estimates suggest that Indian families desire two boys and a girl (source). And things seem to be getting worse, as is evident from the sex ratio:

(source)

More on gendercide here. More on India here.

Gender Discrimination (23): Reverse Gender Discrimination in Criminal Justice

Using data obtained from the United States Sentencing Commission’s records, we examine whether there exists any gender-based bias in criminal sentencing decisions. … Our results indicate that women receive more lenient sentences even after controlling for circumstances such as the severity of the offense and past criminal history. …

Studies of federal prison sentences consistently find unexplained racial and gender disparities in the length of sentence and in the probability of receiving jail time and departures from the Sentencing Guidelines. These disparities disfavor blacks, Hispanics, and men. A problem with interpreting these studies is that the source of the disparities remains unidentified. The gravest concern is that sentencing disparities are the result of prejudice, but other explanations have not been ruled out. For example, wealth and quality of legal counsel are poorly controlled for and are undoubtedly correlated with race. …

The findings regarding gender in the case of serious offenses are quite striking: the greater the proportion of female judges in a district, the lower the gender disparity for that district. I interpret this as evidence of a paternalistic bias among male judges that favors women. (source)

More on unconscious discrimination and incarceration rates.

Related Articles

• Defendant’s gender affects length of sentence (sciencedaily.com)

Religion and Human Rights (26): What Motivates Female Suicide Bombers?

I’ve discussed the possible causes of terrorism before on this blog. (I don’t think I need to spell out the ways in which terrorism is a human rights issue; beyond the obvious violations of the human rights of the direct victims of terrorism there are serious human rights implications of the so-called ”war on terror“). I looked at unemployment and poverty and lack of education, but found that the evidence isn’t there. I also looked at the influence of radical media (see also here), but most people would say it’s simply religion. I don’t think it’s as simple as that. I found this interesting quote that possibly sheds some light on the motivation of female suicide bombers:

O’Rourke proposes an interesting theory that many female suicide bombers are in fact operating out of very traditional instincts. They want to restore gender norms that they have somehow violated. They are, she writes, “women who realize they have deviated, intentionally or unintentionally, from the gender behavior norms of their society and may feel pressure to reaffirm a connection to it.” They have lost their rightful place by being raped, or divorced, or infertile, or failing to get married, and bombing restores them to a place of honor in their community. Female suicide bombers, for example, tend to be a few years older than their male counterparts, and past marrying age. One failed Palestinian bomber O’Rourke profiles, for example, is 35 and tomboy-ish, maybe even transgendered. When asked what motivated her, she said, “Who would want to marry someone like me?” (source, source, source)

More on suicide bombers and on terrorism in general. More on gender. More on the causes of human rights violations in general.

Types of Human Rights Violations (3): Lighthouse Violations and Searchlight Violations

violence against women cartoon

(source, cartoon by Angel Boligan)

I think it may be helpful to distinguish two types of human rights violations. Or, to be more precise: two types of effects of human rights violations, because many violations will show characteristics of the two types. I’ll call the two types “lighthouse violations” and “searchlight violations”. To clarify these weird sounding names, I have an example.

In the UK, about 85.000 women were raped in 2006. In the US, during the same year, 92.455 rapes were reported. Real numbers are much higher, of course, because there are many unreported cases. In South Africa, one in four men admits to having raped someone. One in 8 more than once. Rape, as well as other types of violence against women (but not only women), is obviously a wide-spread social practice and not merely acts of sick individuals. (More on rape here).

As with any case of widespread rights violations, one can understand this in two ways. One can believe that these violations are what I call lighthouse rights violations. In our example, the very fact that rape is a widespread phenomenon makes women aware of the dangers and forces them to adapt their behavior so that they limit the risks. (I talked about human rights and risk here). So the optimist view would be that there are certain automatic restrictions operating in order to limit the number of human rights violations.

The other, more pessimist view, would call widespread human rights violations searchlight violations. If we take the same example, the widespread occurrence of rape can give (certain) men the impression that the practice is normal and acceptable. As a result, the practice becomes even more widespread. Moreover, the practice not only benefits those men who actively engage in it, but men in general because it creates uneven gender relationships, female subjugation, inferiority complexes in women etc. Hence, also women who are not directly victimized by rape tend to be harmed by the practice. Rape shapes cultures, mentalities, gender roles etc.

This is of course a “glass half full or half empty” thing. Rape is both a lighthouse and a searchlight human rights violation. However, I think the more optimist view is probably more correct. If not, we would have to see ever increasing numbers of rights violations, which isn’t the case (at least that’s the intuitive conclusion; human rights measurement is still not a very sophisticated field of research).

More on violence against women. More on feminism.

Gender Discrimination (17): Gender Based Violence in Conflicts, and the Dubious Role of Peacekeepers

peacekeeper, photo: AP / Hussein Malla

(source)

[This post is by guest-writer Line Løvåsen].

Bodies as battleground

The use of rape, genital torture and other types of sexual violence (or gender based violence) is common in most military conflicts, and is often a conscious strategic choice rather than exceptional excesses by individual soldiers. This kind of violence now kills and maims more African women than the combined effects of cancer, malaria, road accidents and war (see here). The conflicts in Congo, Rwanda, Liberia, Sudan and in other countries, also outside Africa, have left countless women and children the victims of sexual atrocities.

Violence against women has been called “the most pervasive yet least recognized human rights abuse in the world” (see here) and can be exercised on many different levels: that of the individual and the household (domestic violence), the level of culture or ethnic groups etc.

In the conflicts in Congo, for example, all parties have used sexual violence, including the UN Peacekeeping Forces (called MONUC, see here). I want to disrupt the automatic association that peacekeeping is the alternative to military violence. I want to show that peacekeeping may increase conflicts and insecurity. While the gender relationships in certain ethnic groups are seen as unequal and violent by the West, we in the West often judge without examining our own behavior. Gender violence doesn’t get the attention it deserves, especially gender violence in or by the West.

What if peacekeeping equals violence?

What happens when the solution to a conflict is another problem? The presence of UN peacekeepers may indeed keep the peace, but may and does sometimes lead to gender based violence inflicted by the peacekeepers on the local population. Peacekeeping missions may encourage prostitution by local women, especially if poverty levels are such that this is the only trade these women have (Martin 2005:15-16). As in all prostitution settings, rape is often disguised as prostitution.

However, the problem is not limited to sexual violence. Peacekeeping troops may also experience a culture shock that can escalate into racism and even racist violence. In the Somali mission, Somali men were seen as homosexuals (as in Somalia it is common for men to hold hands). In addition, the extreme situations in which peacekeepers often find themselves, can provoke attitudes like “Why even bother, these people are backward and barbarians”.

In the eyes of the local populations, peacekeeping can be seen as military conquest (Jeong 1999:22-23), especially when the violent actions of these peacekeepers isn’t of a sexual nature but the result of abuses of power (Martin 2005:15-16). Such abuses are linked to the impunity and immunity that normally apply to peacekeeping forces.

Accusations of sexual violence or abuses of power by peacekeepers are hard to investigate, either because the local judicial system has collapsed (which is often the case when there is a need for peacekeepers), or because the international community and/or the country of origin of the peacekeepers fail to take notice. An incident in Somalia when a boy was tortured for hours and killed by UN peacekeepers forced people to notice the often contradictory nature of peacekeeping.

It is important to keep in mind the culture where peacekeepers come from (F&N 1994:14-15), because a culture shock can lead to violence or other types of human rights violations. Moreover, we shouldn’t forget that peacekeepers are soldiers, and some of the assumptions that guide military behavior are detrimental to conflict resolution processes. Current military training and logic still contains strong “them-us” and “win-lose” dichotomies and condones human rights abuses in the name of security. Moreover, the presence of armed forces can escalate the sense of threat and disagreements, and can convince local populations that the use of force is the normal type of social interaction (F&N 1994:18). They will be tempted to ask the question: if those peacekeepers can fight violence with violence, why can’t we do so as well?

How to improve peacekeeping?

According to Fetherston (1993:22-24) we must first address and understand our assumptions of what is success. Traditional diplomacy operates from negative peace-assumptions. Violent conflict is seen as a natural state of affairs and success is a settlement or a compromise. This, however, often means reinforcing existing power structures rather than the mitigation of discontent. Contrary to this, we need to move towards conflict resolution. Success here is positive peace tied to basic human needs. Violence is not seen as natural, but caused by social and environmental conditions and the frustration of human needs. These things can be changed (Fetherston 1993:6-7).

The focus must be on larger long term processes of reconstruction, rather than short term suppression of conflict. Peacekeepers must lead by example, and hence they must develop skills such as empathy and cultural awareness rather than purely military skills (Fetherston 1993:14). When peacekeepers derail, there should be a more effective criminal prosecution system. One could also attempt to increase the number of women in peacekeeping troops.

References

Fetherstone, A. B. (1993) Making UN pk more peaceful: Relating Concepts of “Success” to Field Reality Working Paper (Australian National Unversity. Peace Research Centre); NO 139 National Library of Australia
Fetherstone, A. B. and Nordstrom, C. (1994) Overcoming conceptual habitus in conflict management: UN peacekeeping and warzone ethnography, Working Paper (Australian National Unversity. Peace Research Centre); NO 147 National Library of Australia
Jeong, H-W. (1999) “Concepts of Peace and Violence” in Peace and Conflicts Studies: An Introduction. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 19-30.
Martin, S. (2005) Must boys be boys? Ending sexual exploitation & abuse in UN peacekeeping missions, Refugee International, http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/publication/detail/6976

If you want to learn more about gender based violence in different countries and the campaigns for change, here are some links:

http://www.theirc.org/what/gender-based-violence.html
http://www.who.int/gender/violence/en/
http://www.unfpa.org/gender/violence.htm
http://www.hhri.org/thematic/gender_based_violence.html
http://www.irinnews.org/IndepthMain.aspx?IndepthId=20&ReportId=62814
http://www.igwg.org/priorityareas/violence.htm
http://www.popcouncil.org/genfam/violence.html

What is Democracy? (38): Equal Representation and the Share of Women in Parliament

In a representative democracy, one can reasonably expect to have a parliament that is roughly representative of the population in general: poor people should have their representatives or delegates just like rich people, women just like men, minorities just like majorities. This representativity or representativeness isn’t an absolute requirement. One can have a democracy without it. The people, after all, may decide that their views are best represented by an all-male, all-white body of parliamentarians for example.

However, it seems statistically unlikely that this would be their decision in each consecutive election in each democratic country. Imbalances in the demographics of parliament that persist over time and space are probably not the result of the choices of voters but of other factors, such as discrimination, unequal opportunities etc. If that’s the case, we are dealing with an imperfect democracy because democracy means equal influence and an equal chance to get elected (art. 21 of the Universal Declaration and art. 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

And that is the case. Take the share of women in parliament for instance. In almost every major democracy of the world, election after election, women are a (tiny) minority in parliament. It’s very unlikely if not impossible that women are systematically less competent than men to serve in parliament, or that the voters sincerely, rationally and objectively believe this to be the case. There must be other, more deeply embedded psychological motives for such a choice, related to the generally inferior position of women in patriarchal societies.

Here are some data:

(source)

(source)

A complete up-to-date data set is here. More on women’s rights in general here.

Human Rights Maps (6): Gender Inequality

(source)

More on gender inequality.

Gender Discrimination (5): Matriarchy in the USA

(source)

Although many indicators still point to the existence of gender-discrimination in the US, there are hopeful signs.

But first the bad signs:

• The US still ranks only 31st in the Global Gender Gap Index (an index of equality between women and men, published by the World Economic Forum) behind Cuba, South-Africa, the Philippines etc.
• Only 69% of Americans believe men and women make equally good leaders. 21% believe men make better leaders; 6% women (source).
• Less than 20% of governors and members of Congress are women.
• There’s only one woman on the Supreme Court.
• Women in the US still earn less than men:

(source)

Now for the good signs:

• Women earn 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 59% of master’s and 50% of doctorates.
• Boys are more likely to drop out of high school than girls.
• Men are more likely to commit crimes and end up in prison:

(source)

• Men are more likely to get themselves murdered:

(source)

• Men are more likely to kill themselves:

(source)

Small nuance: I don’t think it’s a “good sign” that more men than women get killed or kill themselves. I think it’s a good sign that less women do.

My personal opinion: it’s about time you girls catch up, and good luck to you.

More on gender-equality and gender-discrimination.

Discrimination (1)

I’ve written before on discrimination, especially gender discrimination (also here) and discrimination based on sexual orientation. This post tackles the subject more generally.

Definition of discrimination

Discrimination, in its non-political and non-legal sense, simply means the recognition of differences. In the political and legal sense, it means unjustifiable differences in treatment between groups of people, most often the unjustifiable denial of the equal enjoyment of human rights.

Types of discrimination

Groups of people are discriminated because they have certain group-specific attributes that set them apart from the rest of society and that warrant, in the eyes of the people who are discriminating, less favorable treatment. One can make the following distinctions:

• Discrimination can come in different degrees, affecting large or small numbers of people to a large or small extent: from government policy to an unspoken mentality of a small part of the population, and everything in between (such as states not acting to counter discrimination, very active and outspoken discrimination in some parts of the community, entrenched cultural practices such as the caste system etc.).
• It can be exercised in different ways. People may be discriminated on the grounds of their race, gender etc. They can be discriminated in relatively harmless ways (denial of a promotion because of a likely pregnancy for example) or very brutal ways (slavery, denying of equal education etc.). They can also be discriminated in many different fields of life: education, employment, justice, health care etc.

Some people have the misfortune of finding themselves in a state which has an overt and active policy of discrimination, and in different discriminated groups at the same time (black lesbians in Apartheid South-Africa for example). As a result, they may also be discriminated in different fields of life at the same time (employment, family law, education etc.).

There are many types of discrimination, and the concept of discrimination is often linked to others such as racism, agism, sexism, xenophobia, intolerance, religious fundamentalism, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc. Whereas all these phenomena undoubtedly have a dose of discrimination, they are not the necessary result of discrimination. Discrimination can be much more limited.

One can distinguish between types of discrimination according to the groups that are discriminated, and the ways in which these groups are discriminated.

Groups:

• racial discrimination
• gender discrimination
• discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation
• discrimination based on one’s language, culture or national origin
• discrimination based on one’s religion or one’s status within a religion
• discrimination based on one’s political convictions
• age discrimination
• health discrimination (e.g. discrimination of HIV patients, disabled persons or obese persons)
• etc. (when it comes to cruelty, man’s imagination has no limits I’m afraid)

Ways:

• economic discrimination (e.g. persistent differences in poverty levels between groups)
• employment discrimination (e.g. discrimination in career opportunities, pay, “Berufsverbot” etc.)
• housing discrimination
• family law discrimination (e.g. the inability of homosexuals to marry or to adopt)
• education discrimination, different levels or quality of education for different groups
• discrimination of the access to public service or elected positions
• judicial discrimination, discrimination in the justice system
• health discrimination, different levels or quality of healthcare for different groups
• cultural practices such as honor killings, female genital mutilation,…
• legal discrimination such as Jim Crow or segregation
• etc.

Causes of discrimination

• racism, sexism etc.
• a history of discrimination, creating a burden on future generations
• immigration
• xenophobia
• recession or economic scarcity
• education
• cultural practices (e.g. the caste system)
• religious doctrine
• legislation (e.g. the Jim Crow laws or other types of legally enforced discrimination)
• etc.

Article 2 of the Universal Declaration prohibits discrimination:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”

Some data

The following graph shows that discrimination is a that also exists in countries with well-developed legal protection mechanisms. The graph gives information on perceived discrimination in minority groups in the Netherlands (click on the picture to enlarge):

(source)

(Perceived discrimination is not the same as real discrimination: people can believe they are being discriminated against without there being any actual discrimination, while actual discrimination may not be perceived as such).

The following graph show the perception of the worsening plight of African Americans in the U.S.:

(source)

However, when asked for the reasons, most consider discrimination not to be the most important one:

Discrimination and poverty

Although poverty has many causes, discrimination is undoubtedly one of them. Large differences in wealth between groups (for example racial groups) may indicate the existence of discrimination. Here are some data on the situation in the US:

(source)

Discrimination and justice

Statistics on the differences between races in incarceration or execution rates may indicate the existence of discrimination in the justice system, although these differences may have other causes besides discrimination, e.g. differences in poverty rates (see above), differences in levels of education etc. Of course, the latter differences may be caused by discrimination so that discrimination is indirectly the cause of the differences in the application of justice. Here again are some data on the situation in the US, showing that blacks, although they make up only 12% of the population, account for more than 1 in 3 of the prison population and of the executions. 5% of black men are in jail, compared to less than 1% of white men.

Blacks are also about twice as likely as whites to be a victim of a crime.

Here’s a post on affirmative action or positive discrimination, a common tool to counteract discrimination.