Is Equality Completely Out of Reach?
Sexual discrimination in the workplace is something
that many individuals have to deal with. This is not to be
confused with sexual harassment, rather different treatment
an individual(s) receives because of their gender. I chose
to speak to this issue because it seems that no matter what
is done, this idea, or 'tradition,' of men being superior to
women will not fade out.
Sexual discrimination is a major factor in how some
stereotypes are derived. Men, on the average, are taller,
stronger, and more aggressive than women (Harriman 69). It
is believed that women have a slight advantage over men in
communication skills and creativity. Women are perceived as
delicate and are definitely the only part of the human
population capable of bearing children, therefore, working
conditions that were set for men were considered to be too
dangerous for women (Harriman 47).
Consider this scenario. A woman goes to college for
four years. She put everything she had into getting an
education that would give her an edge on the competition in
her field. When she steps out into the world to strive
towards her dream career, she finds that doors are being
slammed in her face because she is not the right 'man' for
the job.
It disgusts me to think that I, or any man for that
matter, could cause a major downfall in a company (which
could also hurt the economy) because I was hired as a male
instead of a qualified employee.
One may in theory have equal opportunity to demonstrate
skills in certain types of employment, but if one lacks
money for decent clothes, or in some cases social
standing, [or their sex], one is less likely to be
interviewed...
-Gross 105
This unfair treatment cannot be abolished by just
snapping your fingers or closing your eyes and clicking your
heels together. Certain step must be taken to work towards
equality.
I propose that the concept of comparable worth be re-
evaluated and revised to help better categorize the types of
comparable work. I entice all workers to show enthusiasm
towards integrating the workforce. There also exists a male
bias (that operates in favor of men as a gender and against
women as a gender (Elson 3)) that needs to be addressed.
The concept of comparable worth, a policy of equal pay
for work of comparable value (Remick ix), is proof, just in
its existence, that there is a problem. Women have been
fighting for equality in the workplace for a number of
years. The concept has been brought up many times, and in
the past forty years, the wages of women have only increased
a mere six percent. In 1955, women were paid sixty-four
cents for doing a job that a man would be paid one dollar
for. In 1991, the number only increased only to seventy
cents on the dollar (Sorensen 3-5). Between this time (1955
and 1991) women's pay went
up to 72 cents then back down. In Britian, the same types
of legislation (Anti-Discrimination Acts, etc.) was being
passed, and over this period of time, women's relative pay
went up and stayed up (Zabalza 3). So why hasn't our (the
U.S.') policy worked? Zabalza suggests that the level of
discrimination that exists in the U.S. may have been higher,
requiring the need for different actions (1).
In Minnesota a Clerk Typist was classified as
comparable to Delivery Van Drivers (Sorensen 3). The typist
was considered a female-dominated field and the driver was
male-dominated. Despite the fact that these two occupations
were considered 'equal,' the maximum salary for a Clerk
Typist was $267 a month less than that of a Delivery Van
Driver. This caused women to feel that their work was
undervalued because they were being paid less for a job of
comparable skill, effort, and responsibility (3).
The change that needs to b made for comparable worth
to be an effective policy is as follows. Comparable worth
should not put two different fields (for example, comparing
the Clerk Typist to the Delivery Van Driver) in the same
category. In deciding wages, the work (or the output
produced) by one typist should be compared to that of
another typist.
Let's say that a Librarian was in the same category as
a Carpenter (Librarian being female and the Carpenter a
male). Is she being paid less because she isn't sweating
while on the clock? Or is he being paid more because his
work is seen as more productive by society? I am willing to
bet that
if they were to switch jobs (provided each had the skill to
do the other's work), the male as a Librarian would be paid
a higher wage than the female as a Librarian, and the female
as a Carpenter would be paid less than the male as a
Carpenter. This particular example seems to illustrate a
lose/lose situation for the woman.
One reason that comparable worth seems to be an
unworthy policy could be that there is not enough
integration (of males and females) in the workforce
(Sorenson 42). It is a fact that there are not a lot of male
elementary school teachers and that field is classified as
female-dominated (Williams 113). There are some cases where
a male teacher is being paid more to try and entice other
men to join this line of work (113). There is some obvious
discrepancy here because the work of one third grade teacher
can not be all too different from the teacher down the hall.
A man doing a woman's job has to deal with something
that most other men don't; the fact that they are looked at
as queer or maybe unsure of their abilities. These men are
dealing with the meaning of masculinity every day (114).
This problem (of having to deal with questionable
masculinity) has been somewhat remedied though. If a man is
doing a woman's job, for exaple: a male secretary, he would
not have the same label as a woman. The male would be
considered an assistant or a technical officer (141). Going
back to the
problem at hand, this 'assistant' would probably be paid
more than a female secretary.
Integrating the workforce could help revise the
comparable worth policy. By putting more men in 'womens'
work and vice versa there will be more opportunities to
compare the two for doing the same job. However, there also
exists a male bias that poses yet another problem.
It poses a view that women's issues can be tackled in
isolation from women's relation to men. It gives rise
to the feeling that the problem is women rather than
the problems women face. It would even suggest that women
are asking for special treatment rather than for redress for
injustices and for removal of distortions that limit their
capacities. It also tends to encourage the treatment of
women as a homogeneous group with the same interests and
viewpoints.
-Elson 1
Part of the problem of male bias is that it tends to
hamper women from forming well-defined notions of what they
want. Women submerge their own interests beneath those of
men and children (Elson 5).
This bias tends to look at all men as the head of the
household or the provider for the family (5). This possibly
helped start the classification of what is considered to be
'men's work' and 'women's work'.
The industrial sector of the work force is male
dominated. That's not to say that no women are in that
field. The kinds of jobs that women do in the industrial
sector are unlikely to provide them with opportunities to
acquire skills, contacts and savings needed for successful
self-employment, whereas those jobs held by men hold out
some possibilities for advancement (Elson 20).
Over half of all emale workers are still concentrated
into traditionally female fields; clerical, sales, and
service work (Sorenson 130). One in every five women work
in blue collar jobs or managerial positions (labeled as
traditionally male dominated fields). Occupational
segregation in the labor market results in lower pay for
women's work. This is responsible for 27 percent of the
total pay gap between men and women (130).
Male bias is contradictory in that while it preserves the
subordination of women as a gender to men, it also has costs
for society as a whole.
Male bias distorts resource allocation by denying women
adequate access to productive inputs. This lowers women's
productivity and reduces total output in comparison with
what would be achieved if resource allocation were free
of gender distortion.
-Elson 6
Thus, male bias is a barrier to the achievement of
development objectives such as growth of output. Why don't
men show eagerness to overcome male bias? If women's
productivity is enhanced because male bias in resource
allocation is reduced, total output may rise, but so may
women's bargaining power.
Jane Wheelock states, in her book: Husbands at Home,
that Mr. Ward (using the name Ward to preserve anonymity),
being out of a job, leaves himself and Mrs. Ward in a very
depressing state.
I think that men being considered head of the household
is a somewhat selfish view (and discriminatory). Yes, it is
a great feeling knowing that you (a man) are providing for
your family, but why is it that men (in general) feel
worthless if they are not the major breadwinner in the
family? Isn't it a joint
responsibility, or a team effort, between the husband and
wife to provide the roof and the vittles?
The possible solutions brought up in this paper may or
may not abolish the problem, but I am sure that they could
help a great deal. One can only wonder if it is going to
take women 150 years to gainthe 30 percent (wage
differential) they have left to go.
Bibliography
About the Author
Back to The Full Cup
Send comments to:
tucci@imap1.asu.edu