Women and Work: Is equality attainable

Womans and Work: Is equality come-at-able? Careers and the universe of work

The inquiry of equality within the kingdom of work has been widely debated and a figure of issues have been explored. Some observers have noted how the different forms of employment and the divergency in calling waies between work forces and adult females are rooted in a history of patriarchal dealingss in British society. This patriarchal political orientation, it is argued, has served to disfavor adult females in many ways, peculiarly economically. It seems that businesss, administrations and domains of work are deeply influenced by gender, every bit good as other factors such as societal category, ethnicity and geographical location. Indeed, the ways in which work itself is construed, both in the public and private spheres, are cardinal to the argument about equality.

Hire a custom writer who has experience.
It's time for you to submit amazing papers!

order now

There seems no uncertainty that there has been much grounds to warrant a focal point upon the unfairnesss and unfairnesss impacting disproportionately upon adult females in the universe of work. In recent old ages, nevertheless, the discourse on gender and work, in peculiar, has seen a reinterpretation of the issues to concentrate on acknowledgment, and jubilation, of gender difference. It is argued, therefore, that, instead than endeavoring for gender equality in the universe of work, it is more utile to seek to understand and encompass gender differences and how they may be constructed to function the involvements of both work forces and adult females.

Some authors, such as Hatt ( 1997 ) and Crompton ( 1997 ) , have noted how the different work that work forces and adult females have undertaken, within the context of the ways they have organised their lives together, has changed and evolved over clip. Crompton ( 1997 ) , for illustration, describes how the outgrowth of industrialization in Britain generated, and deeply reshaped, the gender division of labor. By the terminal of the nineteenth century, work forces became progressively identified with market, paid work, whilst adult females were associated with non-market work and the family. The male breadwinner theoretical account of gender dealingss, therefore, began to rule efficaciously set uping separate, distinguishable domains for work forces and adult females in which “the place and domestic domain was defined as belonging to adult females, whilst that of the outside universe – including the workplace – was defined as that of men” ( Crompton, 1997, p.8 ) . A new political orientation of muliebrity was born which, it is argued, served to except adult females from paid work in the market topographic point.

There can be small uncertainty that presuming the chief duty for child-rearing and family undertakings has had a important impact upon women’s engagement in the labor market. The thought that this duty is someway ‘natural’ appears to be cardinal to many family-related accounts for women’s behavior in market work, nevertheless, this is clearly a combative issue. The position that the gender division of labour evident in today’s society is rooted in biological differences between the sexes has many protagonists, including Hakim ( 1995 ; 1996 ) and Browne ( 1998 ) . Hakim ( 1995 ) , for illustration, seeks to explicate the clearly different forms of employment between adult females and work forces in Britain. She draws on findings from socio-biological research which has cited hormonal differences between the sexes as the determiners of, for illustration, male traits such as laterality, fight and aggressiveness. These ‘natural’ masculine traits are seen as instrumental in the differential engagement of work forces in the employment sphere every bit good as their sensed success therein.

Along the same lines, Browne ( 1998 ) argues, that biologically-based sex differences in behavior significantly act upon the occupational picks made by work forces and adult females in the employment sphere. Whilst clearly denouncing outright sexual favoritism, Browne suggests that “much of the glass ceiling and gender spread is the merchandise of basic biological sex differences in personality and disposition playing in the context of the modern labor market” and that these differences are the merchandise of “differential generative schemes followed by the two sexes during the class of human evolution” ( 1998, p.5 ) . Both Browne ( 1998 ) and Hakim ( 1995 ; 1996 ) are critical of feminist observers on women’s employment, such as Walby ( 1990 ) , who have suggested that occupational segregation by gender has been instrumental in adult females being consistently denied entree to occupations by work forces. As Browne ( 1998 ) argues, it seems that alternatively of denying the world of natural sex differences and prosecuting socially constructed accounts for the ‘gender gap’ , it may be more productive for women’s rightists, in peculiar, to encompass them and integrate them into future discourse on gender and work.

Crompton ( 1997 ) cites Hartmann’s ( 1982 ) lineation of the principle behind occupational segregation by sex as the mechanism through which work forces are able to procure their high quality over adult females in the workplace. By implementing lower rewards for adult females in the labor market in order guarantee their dependance on work forces. Hartmann ( 1982 ) asserts that by guaranting lower rewards for adult females in the labor market, work forces have been able to perpetuate women’s dependance upon them ( Crompton, 1997 ) . She remarks that “men benefit from both higher rewards and the domestic division of labour” ( Crompton, 1997, p. 11 ) . Hakim argues against this analysis, nevertheless, proposing that adult females besides benefit, peculiarly from the domestic division of labor. She asserts that differential engagement in the labour-force and work committedness is due instead to women’s picks harmonizing to their gustatory sensations and penchants. Hence, some adult females choose to give more precedence to their domestic function and child-rearing and less to their employment callings, through, for illustration, choosing for less demanding businesss and/or working part-time ( Hakim, 1996 ) . Indeed, it can be argued that work forces are disadvantaged in this regard, in that most of them do non hold these picks.

Hatt ( 1997 ) analyses the issue of gender and work from an economic position, indicating out that the labour resources of an economic system include adult females and work forces prosecuting in productive activity in both the labor market and the family. The working population, nevertheless, is a phrase most frequently used, peculiarly by economic experts, to depict those adult females and work forces who are gainfully engaged in paid employment or self-employment, within the market place. Those people who are non therefore engaged are officially registered as unemployed and this efficaciously excludes all those adult females or work forces in the unpaid sector and full-time housewifes. In 1993, 71 % of all work forces and 53 % of all adult females in the 16 to 64 age group were take parting in the on the job population ( Hatt, 1997 ) . In the same age group in 2004, the Equal Opportunities Commission reported that over 83 % of work forces and 70 % of adult females were ‘economically active’ ( EOC, 2005, p.8 ) . Notwithstanding the demand for cautiousness in comparings between different statistical sets, these figures indicate that historically there have been more work forces than adult females in the working population although the spread would look to be shutting.

Many authors have charted the alterations in the employment forms of work forces and adult females in recent decennaries, indicating out that whilst there has been a diminution in male employment since 1980, female employment since that clip has increased. Hatt ( 1997 ) , for illustration, cites the official nose count informations from 1994 which revealed that the addition in female employment has mostly been due to a greater proportion of female parents come ining paid work. It has been well-documented that within the labour market, adult females play a different function from work forces. As Hatt observes, every bit good as take parting more than work forces in parttime work, adult females besides “work in different industries from work forces, occupy different places even within assorted industries and are under-represented in senior positions” ( 1997, p.17 ) .

Womans are concentrated in peculiar businesss and industries, such as catering, clerical and administrative work, cleansing and the lovingness sector whereas work forces are more frequently found in countries such as the fabrication and technology sectors and the building industry ( Hatt, 1997 ; Franks, 1999 ; Moe, 2003 ) . Even when adult females and work forces are found in the same sector, adult females are more frequently situated in the lower ranks while work forces occupy more senior places in the hierarchy ( Hatt, 1997 ; Franks, 1999 ) . Hatt ( 1997 ) records that, “women are under-represented at senior-levels throughout all occupational categories” ( p.21 ) . Crompton ( 1997 ) has presented a elaborate expounding of the banking industry as an illustration of the response to labor market demands for low-level clerical workers. She notes how, along with other service industries such as insurance and local authorities, the banking sector has contributed to the coevals of “a mass feminized clerical labor force” ( Crompton, 1997, p.107 ) .

Crompton ( 1997 ) describes how prejudiced patterns, both direct and indirect, against adult females within peculiar Bankss were exposed resulting in some important policy alterations being made through force per unit area from the Equal Opportunities Commission. Crompton ( 1997 ) cites structural factors, such as the demand for labor and the organisation of the labour procedure alongside male exclusionary patterns as the chief subscribers to the unequal place of female employees within the banking sector. Whilst she acknowledges that major paces have been made in employment patterns in the fiscal sector with respect to gender equality, in recent old ages, Crompton ( 1997 ) besides concedes that adult females continue to far outweigh work forces in footings of their business of low-level places in the fiscal services sector.

There have been two cardinal pieces of authorities statute law in the UK, introduced thirty old ages ago and designed to straight turn to the issue of equal chances between adult females and work forces in the workplace. The first is the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which promoted the basic rule that work forces and adult females should non be less favorably treated by virtuousness of their sex or matrimonial position. The other is the Equal Pay Act 1975 designed to criminalize favoritism between adult females and work forces in the employment sphere, in footings of their wage and working conditions, such as contracts of employment. This latter Act was subsequently amended in 1984 to integrate the Equal Pay for Equal Value rule. In add-on to this statute law, the UK is besides bound by Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome to uphold European Community equal intervention and equal wage directives ( Griffin, 2002 ) .

The 1975 Sex Discrimination Act spawned the puting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission which serves as the adept administration on equality between adult females and work forces. The EOC was charged with a remit to “work towards the riddance of favoritism ; to advance equality of chance and to maintain under reappraisal the effectivity of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts” ( Griffin, 2002, p.11 ) . As Griffin ( 2002 ) observes, it seems that although the spread between male and female net incomes has narrowed over the past 60 old ages, this tendency has been an inconsistent 1. For illustration, an EOC Report ( 1999 ) found that female directors and decision makers earned 55 % of the one-year net incomes of their male opposite numbers on 1970, compared to merely 33 % of the same in the mid 1920s. This disagreement, nevertheless, narrowed by merely 1 % in this field of work between the mid 1950s and 1970. Since 1970, this spread has narrowed significantly with adult females gaining 63 % of the wage of their male opposite numbers, compared to 81 % for 1998. However, it has besides been noted that “in all cultural groups, work forces have higher mean hourly net incomes than women” ( EOC, 1999, p.5 ) .

This statistical grounds for the steady narrowing of the gender wage spread appears promoting from the female position. However, it represents merely one portion of the overall image in footings of the equality docket. Griffin ( 2002 ) observes that there are other relevant factors. She records that, when we look at all beginnings of income, including net incomes from employment and self-employment, investing and benefit income and occupational pensions, women’s income, as a whole, is significantly lower than that of work forces. For illustration, figures taken from the EOC for the twelvemonth 1996-7 showed that 45 % of adult females, compared to 20 % of work forces, had an income of less than ?100 a hebdomad ( Griffin, 2002 ) . More latterly, the EOC has recorded that “the gender spread between adult females and men’s average single incomes in 2002/3 was 46 % ” ( EOC, 2005 ) , bespeaking that the rift between the overall incomes of work forces and adult females remains significantly wide.

Forms of labour force engagement by adult females and work forces, nevertheless, are both distinguishable and different. Pilcher ( 1999 ) explores the links between women’s engagement in paid work and the phase reached in their household life class, peculiarly whether or non they have kids and the age of their kids. Womans of working age with a kid of pre-school age, for illustration, are least likely to be economically active and least likely to work full-time. Pilcher observes that, “as the age of the youngest dependent kid additions, so does women’s engagement in both full-time and parttime work” ( 1999, p. 37 ) . Work force, unlike adult females, are more inclined to be continuously engaged in full-time, paid work throughout their grownup lives and this besides means that women’s lifetime net incomes are much less than men’s, as is their entree to pension entitlements in retirement ( Pilcher, 1999 ) .

As the statistics clearly show ( EOC, 2005 ) , work forces are much less likely to work on a parttime footing than adult females. Observers seem divided as to the accounts for this phenomenon. It has been suggested, by Walby ( 1990 ) , for illustration, that the enlargement of portion clip employment represents a sort of capitalist, partriarchal confederacy to keep the subjugation of adult females. Walby ( 1990 ) asserts that employers, preponderantly male, have efficaciously secured women’s cheap and docile labor, whilst at the same clip purporting to ‘free’ adult females to go on set abouting domestic labor in the place. It has besides been pointed out that “part-time work….has a repute of being insecure, low-paid and with small by manner of preparation or publicity prospects” ( Crompton, 1977, p.33 ) . Pilcher ( 1999 ) reiterates this, pulling on research grounds which has found that adult females returning to work after holding kids were less likely to see a downward move in employment if they had earlier been engaged in professional businesss.

Crompton cites Beechey and Perkins ( 1987 ) who suggest that certain businesss were really constructed as part-time because they were seen as ‘women’s jobs’ , constantly low graded and seldom defined as skilled ( Crompton, 1997, p.33 ) . Further grounds from research by Rubery et Al ( 1994 ) , suggests that non merely is parttime work less flexible than full-time work and of inferior quality, but besides it has been developed mostly to accommodate the demands of employers. Other authors, such as Hakim ( 1996 ) , nevertheless, as mentioned above, deny the averment that employers have sought to build ‘poor work’ for adult females, proposing alternatively that it is adult females themselves who have demanded parttime work to suit in with their other domestic duties and employers have merely responded to run into this demand. It is pertinent, nevertheless, to indicate out that since most parttime workers are adult females, it is inevitable that adult females will be most affected by the disadvantages associated with this manner of work.

It is of import non to overlook the fact that women’s experiences of paid work vary non merely harmonizing to gender but besides by virtuousness of other factors, such as age, ethnicity, societal category and location. For illustration, grounds from EOC informations demonstrates that for adult females with dependent kids “economic activity rates for cultural minority adult females are by and large lower than those for Whites, and particularly so amongst adult females of Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin” ( Pilcher, 1999, p.43 ) . In footings of societal category, besides, Pilcher ( 1999 ) notes that adult females in higher socio-economic groups are more likely to be in employment, in full-time instead than parttime work and to keep their work histories through an increased ability to pay for kid attention. Finally, geographical location besides impacts differentially upon adult females in the workplace. Womans in the North of England, Wales and Scotland are reported as less economically active, with or without dependent kids, than their opposite numbers in the South of England ( ONS, 1998 ) . Pilcher ( 1999 ) summarises the grounds on diverseness and difference in experiences of paid work by emphasizing that adult females are non uniformly disadvantaged. It seems that gender interacts with a myriad of other factors “making some adult females ( immature, white and English ) less disadvantaged than others ( old, black and unqualified ) ” ( Pilcher, 1999, p.45 ) .

It seems clear that the interconnectednesss between labour market work and family, or domestic, work, have served to disfavor adult females, peculiarly economically. Glucksmann ( 1995 ) has explored the inter-dependence between these two types of work which she describes as the entirety of labor. Sociologically, she sees the market and family economic systems as representing two cardinal spheres embedded within a larger construction of production and reproduction. Crompton echoes this point, proposing that “any history of the enlargement of women’s employment can non be divorced from the wider alterations taking topographic point in the construction of employment as a whole” ( 1997, p.129 ) . These alterations include the diminution in the handiness of work within the fabrication industry, the displacement to serve employment, increased employment diverseness and flexibleness and, of class, the immense growing in the sphere of information engineering.

As adult females engage in more paid employment, their traditional function in transporting out domestic work and lovingness will progressively necessitate to be fulfilled through other agencies. This needfully generates the creative activity of more occupations in countries such as takeout repasts, creches, baby’s rooms and retirement places which, by virtuousness of holding been historically considered as ‘women’s work’ , is likely to be ill paid. Crompton ( 1997 ) has suggested that this could be avoided nevertheless, if certain occupations were afforded a higher position through greater societal protections such as vacation entitlements, ordinance of working hours, sick-pay and pension strategies together with more family-friendly policies. The qualities and accomplishments involved in the field of lovingness, for illustration, as many have noted, should have greater acknowledgment as highly valuable and indispensable to society as a whole. If decently regulated, recompensed and organised, caring constitutes a beginning of worthwhile employment for both work forces and adult females. However, as Crompton ( 1997 ) and others have pointed out, these alterations require a displacement in attitude, peculiarly on the portion of work forces, which may non be easy achieved.

Crompton highlights the increased exposure of work forces whom she maintains are “ill-prepared for the workplace and household flexiblenesss that are progressively required today” ( 1997, p. p.136 ) . Pahl ( 1995 ) , besides, remarks that “it may good be that most work forces experience women’s turning success in all domains as a sort of menace they are loath to acknowledge” ( p.191 ) and that work forces, in general, “are having really small support and apprehension for the alterations they are forced to undergo” ( Pahl, 1995, p.194 ) . Crompton ( 1997 ) , along with others, acknowledges that households, families and communities, in general, have become more delicate as more adult females take up paid employment. She however concludes optimistically that, on balance, “the gender division of labor between the sexes is going progressively blurred, and with more classless outcomes” ( p.5 ) .

The Equal Opportunities Commission produced a briefing in 2000 called “the work-life balance” , foregrounding the interplay between life styles, work and lovingness. The briefing drew on research reasoning that there was now a mismatch between the demands of inflexible working forms and the existent demands of those people with lovingness and rearing duties. The Commission stressed the demand for family-friendly, work-life policies characterised by a greater flexibleness in working hours, job-sharing and signifiers of leave which would include one-year, maternal and parental leave every bit good as survey leave and employment interruptions. The EOC finally called for “a decrease of long hours working ; more encouragement for work forces to take an active function in rearing and greater protection from favoritism for carers and others with household responsibilities” , ( 2000, p.1 ) .

The complex relationship between paid, unpaid work and lovingness is peculiarly illustrated through the issue of solitary parentage. Perrons ( 2000 ) reports the recorded estimation of over one million lone parent families, overpoweringly led by adult females and including about two million kids, by the twelvemonth 2000. The New Labour government’s concerns over this issue, particularly the intolerably high costs to the province of individual parentage, led to the debut of the New Deal for Lone Parents in order to travel these parents from public assistance into work ( Harman, 1997 ) . Two associated policies were the Fairness at Work enterprise ( HMSO, 1998 ) , designed to increase chances in paid work for adult females, and the National Childcare Strategy ( HMSO, 1998 ) which has aimed to spread out the proviso and handiness of high quality, low-cost kid attention.

A review of these authorities enterprises has questioned the equitability between those parents who are subsidised for taking up paid work, while other parents, whether lone or otherwise, attention for their kids themselves wholly at their ain disbursal. The contested nature of these enterprises has besides been highlighted by Perrons ( 2000 ) . She observes that whilst enterprises such as the National Childcare Strategy, the New Deal for Lone Parents and the Working Families Tax Credit Scheme are likely to increase kid attention proviso and aid with kid attention costs for low-income households, there will go on to be no fiscal support for caring undertakings for higher paid adult females or for those who choose to remain at place.

These schemes can be seen as functioning merely to perpetuate the masculine theoretical account of work and employment whilst go oning to disregard, and downgrade, the value of the domestic domain and kid attention. The end of low-cost and high quality kid attention, for illustration, appears to incorporate an built-in contradiction which efficaciously perpetuates disadvantage for adult females. Ungerson illustrates the disk shape of this state of affairs compactly by observing that “it is normally adult females in low paid occupations who pay a high proportion of their rewards to low paid, chiefly female, childcare workers” ( 2000, p.641 ) . Perrons summarises the quandary by indicating out that “as long as either single or corporate attention is disproportionately supplied by low-paid female labor so category divisions between adult females will increase and gender unfairness will remain” ( 2000, p.110 ) .

It seems that the rule of set uping a better work-life balance, as advocated by the EOC, is cardinal to a declaration of the quandary of workplace equity for both adult females and work forces. The differentiations between what counts as work, leisure and lovingness are going progressively blurred. It would look that the cardinal issue is to see how we can allocate people’s demands and the division of labor between the sexes more equally between these activities so that everyone may profit. Perrons ( 2000 ) highlights the efficaciousness of the Universal Caregiver Model, devised by Fraser ( 1996 ) which basically advocates tapping into the resources of all those people in both paid and caring work which are soon untapped. “Formal hours would be reduced for those in paid work, enabling more people to take part in income earning” which would potentially “provide chances for all to portion in attention work” ( Perrons, 2000, p.111 ) .

McKie and co-workers ( 2002 ) knock public policy which they consider has non demonstrated an consciousness of the mundane demands on people, peculiarly parents, across the life class. They propose a new theoretical theoretical account of paid and unpaid work combined with caring which they call ‘a caringscape perspective’ . They point out that both attention and work demands change over clip as kids grow as do parents’ working and caring forms. A caringscape position, harmonizing to McKie et Al ( 2002 ) , addresses the “complexity of spatial-temporal frameworks” through which a assortment of picks about lovingness and working are mapped and shaped by those involved. It inquiries the association between female biological science ( gestation and childbearing ) and feminized undertakings, such as housekeeping or child care, and the historical association made between ‘naturalness’ and the lovingness responsibilities expected of adult females.

It seems that research which seeks to uncover the persistent inequalities, both in the place and in the workplace, which render adult females disadvantaged and charges them with the greatest duty for informal lovingness, will go on to be needed. Equally, nevertheless, it seems besides of import to research the “structural barriers to caring experienced by work forces who would prefer to ( or should ) go more involved with informal lovingness in the home” ( McKie, 2002, p.918 ) . At the really least, research into the myriad of lived experiences of the lovingness and working lives of both work forces and adult females would look to offer a more constructive model for researching the significance of sensed differences and what adult females and work forces truly want.

In drumhead, so, there is a wealth of grounds for the being of inequalities in the sphere of employment which have served to disfavor adult females. The inextricable links between gender and a assortment of other societal factors, such as societal category, age, race and location merely add to the complexness of this disadvantage. There are clearly contrasting accounts for the different forms of labour force engagement between adult females and work forces and this argument is likely to go on. It seems of import to stay watchful to prejudiced policies and patterns in employment and for these to be addressed whenever they are found. However, the fact that inequalities have persisted in malice of statute law and governmental enterprises designed to turn to them suggests the demand for a different attack, one which embraces, instead than denigrates, diverseness and difference. It is argued that a more constructive attack would see the significance of work in its widest sense within the context of those other cardinal characteristics of life, caring, domesticity and leisure, with which work is closely connected. Merely when work is reinterpreted and redefined within this wider context can a qualitative alteration be brought about towards greater equality in the lives of both adult females and work forces.



Browne, K ( 1998 )Divided Labors: An evolutionary Position of Women at Work,Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London

Crompton, R ( 1997 )Womans and Work in Modern Britain,Oxford University Press, Oxford

Equal Opportunities Commission ( EOC ) ( 1999 )At the Millennium,EOC, Manchester

Equal Opportunities Commission ( EOC ) ( 2000 )The Work-Life Balance,EOC, Manchester

Equal Opportunities Commission ( EOC ) ( 2005 )Facts about Women and Men in Great Britain,EOC, Manchester

Franks, S ( 1999 )Having None of it: Womans, Men and the Future of Work,Granta Publications, London

Glucksmann, M ( 1995 ) ‘Why “work” ? Gender and the Total Social Organisation of Labour,Gender, Work and Organisation, 2 ( 2 ) , pp. 63-75

Griffin, G ( erectile dysfunction ) ( 2002 )Women’s Employment, Women’s Studies and Equal Opportunities 1945-2001,University of Hull

Hakim, C ( 1995 ) ‘Five Feminist Myths about Women’s Employment’ ,British Journal of Sociology, 46 ( 3 ) : pp. 429-55

Hakim, C ( 1996 )Key Issues in Women’s Work,Athlone Press, London

Harman, H ( 1997 ) ‘Childcare is portion of our economic infrastructure’ ,Department of Social Security Press Release, July 15

Hatt, S ( 1997 )Gender, Work and Labour Markets,MacMillan Press Ltd, Basingstoke

HMSO ( 1998 )Fairness at Work,Stationery Office, London

HMSO ( 1998 )Meeting the Child Care Challenge: a Framework and Consultation Document, Cmnd 3959,The Stationery Office, London

McKie, L, Gregory, S, Bowlby, S ( 2002 ) ‘Shadow Timess: The Temporal and Spatial Frameworks and Experiences of Caring and Working’ ,Sociology, Vol. 36 ( 4 ) , pp. 897-924

Moe, K ( Ed ) ( 2003 )Womans, Family and Work,Blackwell, Oxford

ONS ( Office for National Statistics ) ( 1998 )Social Trends 28,Government Statistical Service, London

Pahl, R ( 1995 )After Success,Polity Press, Cambridge

Perrons, D ( 2000 ) ‘Care, Paid Work and Leisure: Rounding the Triangle’ ,Feminist Economicss 6 ( 1 ) , pp. 105-114

Pilcher, J ( 1999 )Womans in Contemporary Britain: An Introduction,Routledge, London

Rubery, J ( 1994 ) ‘Occupational Segregation: Plus Ca Change? ’ , in Lindley, R ( erectile dysfunction )Labour Market Structures and Prospects for Women,Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester

Ungerson, C ( 2000 ) ‘Thinking about the production and ingestion of long-run attention in Britain: Does Gender still count? ’ ,Journal of Social Policy, 29 ( 4 ) , pp. 623-43

Walby, S ( 1990 )Speculating Patriarchy,Basil Blackwell, Oxford


Entire words: 4,509

Brief 211550: Categorisations of Homicide and<< >>What sorts of linguistic features distinguish

About the author : admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.