The Glass Ceiling Gone for Women - Research Paper Example

? The Glass Ceiling is Gone for Women The ‘glass ceiling’ is a commonly used term that is used to describe working environments in which women face limitations regarding both career advancement and wages because of an unwritten corporate policy for systematic gender discrimination within the chain of command of an organization. Civil rights activists along with women’s groups have distorted government statistics in an effort to ‘raise the alarm’ regarding the disparity of career opportunities for women as compared to their male counterparts. The ‘glass ceiling’ is a flawed expression founded on distorted facts and actually did not ever exist. Of course, examples of favoritism in the workplace of some form will likely always take place but suggesting that somehow there has been a secretive, concerted, global conspiracy by immoral companies directed against women is ludicrous. This essay discredits the glass ceiling myth by exploring the arguments by the faction who would support the premise and by introduce perspective and context into the discussion. Before examining the multiple aspects of the imagined wage gap in the workplace between women and men, one undeniable facet should be addressed. This country functions on a capitalistic system. Companies small and large, in every service and industry, have one central objective which is to make money, the more the merrier. Consequently, it is an economic certainty that if a corporation could employ women who would agree to 25 percent less salary than a man to do the same task, as is commonly claimed, they would only hire women. Since this hasn’t occurred either nationally or locally, it can be assumed that there exists no gender-based discrepancies in wages, no unspoken scheme to discriminate against females, no glass ceiling. A study which surveyed almost 900 companies of assorted sizes found that approximately half said that it was at least somewhat probable its next CEO would be a woman. Forty years ago this would not have been the case when women, motivated by economic need, began entering the workforce in greater numbers. However, forty years later, after women gradually became more career oriented, they are just as likely to assume the top position in businesses as men, right on schedule. It is only realistic to assume that there was a discrepancy among the genders in holding the upper echelon positions in the early years of the historic role redefinition that began in the early 1970’s. However, “the rhetoric of the feminist movement in those early years decrying the gap in pay and position has not changed since that time even though that gap has been all but eradicated as a result of the natural evolutionary assimilation process.” (McNutt, 2002). In spite of all evidence to the contrary, the glass ceiling myth continues and has advanced to the point of being broadly thought of and accepted as true, but the circumstances have evolved over the past four decades. According to a national survey, today, a women’s paycheck is about 97 percent the rate their male colleagues receive. The statistic that is usually cited when comparing women’s earnings is they earn only 75 percent of what men are paid. This was ‘substantiated’ by the Women’s Policy Research in conjunction with the AFL-CIO. The cooperative study only included woman aged 50 and older, most of which were not as highly educated as their male colleagues. When today’s young women are in their 50’s, this circumstance will not be the case, in fact, and the opposite will be. “As opposed to the ‘disco era,’ now, the majority of associate, bachelor and master degrees are awarded to women. Forty percent of doctorate degrees are accepted by women. This illustrates again how the times have changed but the arguments supporting the existence of glass ceiling have not” (McNutt, 2002). Other research has shown that women, universally, earn about three-quarters what men receive. Assuming this information is up to date, which is generous at best, the number is misleading because it only refers to the average salary of both men and women. This research does not take into account hours worked, education, experience or occupation. Any one of these factors or all of them is plausible rationalizations to explain this difference in salary. When these considerable aspects of the equation are taken into consideration, the gender gap in wages all but evaporates. When these important aspects are factored in, such as in the study assembled the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, “among people ages 27-33 who have never had a child, women’s earnings are actually 98 percent of men’s” (“Equal Pay Day”, 2001). Another misperception commonly considered as fact is that discrimination is the reason for the difference in wages. This custom has always been reprehensible but it’s also been illegal thus actionable in court since the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963. This Act was strengthened in 1964 by the Civil Rights Act. Discrepancies in wages are dictated by market forces. Full-time employees are paid a higher hourly wage than part-time and a supervisor’s salary is more than a mail room clerk. The demand for a specific position determines rate of pay as does the skill level needed and a person’s willingness to work odd or longer hours or under unsafe conditions. Many explanations exist for variances in salaries. This discrepancy in pay is rarely an indicator for sexual discrimination in a place of work. Another falsehood regarding discrimination are claims that women are funneled into low-end positions by a male-dominated society. It is also commonly accepted that jobs such as administrative, Human Resources, sales, clerical and service-oriented jobs offer less pay on average because these are customarily staffed by women. This is offered as further evidence that discrimination is widespread and conspiratorial in nature. However, this false impression disregards the facts. First, “the value of a job is determined by the supply and demand of able and willing workers” and second, “women who might be able to hold a better-paying job often choose a job that pays less but provides more flexibility” (“Equal Pay Day”, 2001). This cannot be described as discrimination, but instead is an individual life preference generally shared by many women. An explanation for pay discrepancies which is frequently ignored or overlooked is the fact that women have an inclination to avoid certain kinds of employment such as service and construction jobs (electricians, plumbers, etc.) and agricultural. According to the Jobs Rated Almanac, “94 percent of the positions in what they consider the ‘worst 25’ jobs are occupied by men.” (Hawkins, 2007). This offers an explanation as to why males account for 92 percent of all work-related deaths. Jobs classified as ‘dangerous’ normally pay higher wages which have to be factored in to any ‘pay-discrepancy’ equation if it is to be regarded as credible information. “Men work more hours a week than women do. Men represent 92 percent of work force deaths because they take dangerous, dirty jobs that pay better. Women tend to select jobs that are safer, more pleasant with a lot of human interaction” (Hawkins, 2007). According to The U.S. Labor Department’s ‘Glass Ceiling Report’, there is “an invisible but impenetrable barrier between women and the executive suite, preventing them from reaching the highest levels of the business world regardless of their accomplishments and merits” (The Northwest Research Group, 2001). This report, which taxpayers paid an untold sum of money, is outrageously inaccurate. The report assumes, wrongly, that women are habitually denied promotions which they not only pursued as enthusiastically but were also as equally competent to fill as were their male colleagues. The report laments the fact that only five percent of Fortune 2000 senior executives were women. The report also mentions a study that reveals that male graduates of Stanford University Business School were about eight times more likely to become a CEO a decade following graduation than were women. The study did not consider, however, that women are inclined to make different life choices than are men, choices that significantly affect their career aspirations but again, this cannot be construed as gender discrimination. “Though the feminist movement does not like to admit it, it is common knowledge and backed by numerous surveys that women who are employed in all levels of management ultimately put their family’s interests before their job” (Chavez, 1995). In these instances, it is the women themselves who put limitations on their career, not companies. Climbing the corporate ladder typically requires enormous personal sacrifice which includes travel, long hours and the ability to relocate when the situation warrants. It requires a fanatical dedication to the corporation which usually takes precedence over all else. In many cases women are not willing to make these sacrifices. If they choose to have children, their professional aspirations are severely interrupted. Research conducted of women MBAs who left their job temporarily to have a family earned about one-sixth less than women chose not to have children. Not quite half of the women who interrupted their climb up the corporate ladder achieved the senior management level. Compare this to the 60 percent of women who did not make the choice to take a break in employment. “Shattering through that ‘glass ceiling’ risks deep cuts into a woman’s personal life that many of us would simply rather forgo. Women often make different choices than those men make choices that profoundly affect their careers but which don’t constitute discrimination” (Chavez, 1995). There are exceptions to this circumstance, of course, which have principally been made possible by the universal acceptance of the shifting gender roles in society during the past four decades. For example, Maj. Gen. Janet Hicks was able to achieve and preserve her rank because her husband stayed at home with the children, commonly known as a ‘house-husband,’ a phrase that was unheard of 40 years ago. Hicks said that had she been the spouse who was responsible for the primary care of their kids, her chosen career path would not have been possible. “Though ‘house-husbands’ are becoming more common by the day, the vast majority of care-givers are women which lowers their overall earnings potential.” (Ferris, 2005). The Hicks family situation is not as rare as it once was and is becoming more popular but is not considered when promoting the idea of the mythical ‘glass ceiling’ because doing so would diminish the argument that it exists. This myth regarding the glass ceiling effect, that women are prohibited from the higher level corporate positions by the ‘ole boy’ system is not true. “Their finding was politically useful but statistically wrong. It was based on the number of women in the total labor force, rather than the number of women actually qualified through education and experience to hold top positions” (“Equal Pay Day”, 2001). Women are making continual gains in the business world. In 1973 women occupied boardroom positions in only 11 percent of corporations. This percentage increased to 72 percent 35 years later and continues to grow and as time passes, women are continually making great strides in catching their male counterparts in terms of equity in the workplace. For most all of the history of mankind women have been relegated to being the house-wife but in recent times have rapidly reached equality both in the home and the workplace. This phenomenon would have been impossible had the accusations of a ‘glass ceiling’ been at all accurate. “Women’s progress in the workplace shows that if a glass ceiling ever did exist, women have long since shattered it” (Lehman, 1999). All available evidence demonstrates that a ‘glass ceiling’ does not exist, at least not anymore. If examples of inequality regarding women are happening in the workplace research has shown them to be in the lower levels of management. “On the basis of the data analyzed here, the disadvantages women face in acquiring authority are, if anything, greatest at the lower levels of the managerial hierarchy, not the upper levels” (Yamagata et al, 1997: 578). The ‘glass ceiling’ describes the alleged barrier to higher management levels. Because women did not instantaneously rise to a similar level as men in the upper levels of management in the 1970’s, numerically speaking, reactionary feminist groups alleged discrimination. However, this was an example of unreasonable expectations that have long since been fulfilled. The ‘glass ceiling’ was as much a myth then as it is today. This figure of speech should be re-examined by persons who still consider it to be a fact. If there is an unresolved issue of workplace gender discrimination; it’s at the lower end of the workplace ladder, not at the top which is where the spotlight is concentrated. It’s not a perfect world; therefore discrimination, prejudice and bias will probably always be present not only in the business world but in other parts of society. However, it does a disservice to create conspiracy theories using flawed reasoning, logic and facts and title it the ‘glass ceiling.’ Works Cited Chavez, Linda. (March 25, 1995). “Glass Ceiling Myth: Reality is Women make Different Choices.” Milwaukee Sentinel “Equal Pay Day 2001: Economic Choices for Women.” (April 3, 2001). Independent Women's Forum. Accessed August 3, 2011 from Ferris, Nancy. (April 14, 2005). “Women Atop IT Ladder say Glass Ceiling not Apparent.” Federal Computer Week. Accessed August 3, 2011 from Hawkins, John. (2001). “An Interview With Kate O’Beirne.” Right Wing News. Accessed August 3, 2011 from Lehman, Joseph. (November 3, 1999). “Shattering the Myth of the ‘Glass Ceiling’.” MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Accessed August 3, 2011 from McNutt, Lindsay. (December 17, 2002). “The Glass Ceiling: It Can’t be Shattered if it Doesn’t Exist.” I Feminist. Accessed August 3, 2011 from Northwest Research Group. (2001). “Self-Audit for Gender and Racial Equity Conducted for the Glass Ceiling Task Force.” Washington: The Glass Ceiling Task Force. Accessed August 3, 2011 from Yamagata, Hisashi, Kuang S.Yeh, Shelby Stewman, and Hiroko Dodge. , (1997). “Sex Segregation and Glass Ceilings: A Comparative Static Model of Women’s Career Opportunities in the Federal Government over a Quarter Century.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 103, N. 3. 566-632. Read More