Are Men the Victims of Equality - Essay Example

Are Men Victims of Equality in Contemporary Organizations Introduction Gender issues are usually evaluated from the women’s perspective as they are the ones who are generally considered oppressed, disadvantaged or the “weaker sex” and hence perceived as victims. Owing to this popular notion of how women are perceived several considerations and privileges are offered to them like: easing the burden of family responsibilities or eliminating organizational and labour market practices which discriminate against women, maternity leave and even protection for part-time workers. These practices are aimed at protecting women from any gender discrimination. The fact that such practices exist indicates that organizations are not gender neutral. Just like certain issues can place women in a disadvantaged position, there could be issues that can place men at disadvantage. It is this exclusion along with the perceived improvement of the position of disadvantaged groups that has contributed to the perception that men have been disadvantaged by equality (Burke and Black reading) However, with the magnitude of such special policies incorporated by organizations for women perhaps they are now putting men at a disadvantage. Besides, the gradual increase of women in workforce could pose the threat of marginalization to men in the organization. This paper discusses if men are turning into victims of equality in contemporary organizations. Given that they have always been the dominant sex and wielded power over women, can they really be victims? The paper discusses factors that may or may not contribute to men’s disadvantaged position. Are Men Really Victims? Given that men have outnumbered women in organizations it is difficult to conceive how they can be victims. Traditionally women have been perceived to be the victims of male domination in organizations. They are the ones who face the glass ceiling and find it difficult to get entry into senior positions. If they do manage to get there it becomes difficult for them to sustain at the top due to the isolation they feel from male dominated social network at top management levels. Current research builds on the findings that senior executive leadership is dominated by corporate masculinity, which accommodates women as ‘token’ or ‘other’ (wallaby.vu.edu.au/adt-VVUT/uploads/approved/adt-VVUT20070911.142850/public/03Chapter2.pdf)-Sinclair 1994; Maier 1999; Halford and Leonard 2001). According to Kanter’s Tokenism Theory (Kanter 1977-find articles) it would be the women who hold a token position in organizations. Since they have been the one to be considered as a minority group special policies were formulated to serve their interest. As men formed the majority group, they have not even viewed themselves in a gendered way and hence privileges and powers given to them have been invisible to them. Carrerism and leadership has traditionally been easier for men than women. So if men outnumber women and are not a minority group it raises the questions as to whether men can actually be the victims in an organization. The answer is that the gender mix is changing which creates new dynamics in organizations. Do they feel victimized or “visible”? These new dynamics motivate researchers to evaluate gender dynamics in organization from the second sexism perspective now. Men as Victims 1. Organization Policies As discussed above the threat of marginalization is real for men in the changing scenario and men can be described victims in this alternate gender mix in organizations. -Kanter (1977), has argued that when any group represents less than 15% of an organization, its members will be subject to predictable forms of discrimination. That is, they will suffer from their minority status. If evaluators are aware that the majority of job incumbents to be supervised are female, they are likely to select a female manager. Bias against males has been demonstrated when the majority of subordinates to be supervised were female Rose & Andiappan, 1978). Organizations today recognize the importance of family friendly and flexible policies and practices for better work life balance. While this is commendable, the policies have been largely paradoxical. These policies are mainly deigned keeping women in mind. As pointed by pdf1 “in some cases parental leave is only available to women (and is called "maternal leave"). In some countries, Australia for instance, employment statistics show that it is mainly women who have part-time and casual employment, while time-budget studies show most men have done little to increase their contribution to domestic labour. Thus "family friendly" policies may actually reinforce the gender division of labour”. While it is true that the principle of equality is meant for everyone in the organization the fact is that most policy initiative are targeted as disadvantaged groups and men are not defined as such. It is this exclusion along with the perceived improvement of the position of disadvantaged groups that has contributed to the perception that men have been disadvantaged by equality (Burke and Black reading) 2. Locked by their own pre conceived notions Researchers point out that men do not perceive themselves in a gendered context. They associate marginalization and special privileges only with their female counterparts since they consider themselves privileged and powerful (Robinson, 2000 p.3 PPT 5). The contrary view to this is that visibility (as in the case of minority groups like women) leads to special treatment and exposure to developmental opportunities. Instead of any “role traps they experience less defining role pressure” (Simpson, 2005- PPT3).One could argue that men are getting trapped in their own pre conceived notion that they are powerful and privileged and lose on developmental opportunities that are available to their female counterparts. They become victims of their own thought process and pre conceived ideas. 3.. The number of women increasing at mid and junior management- It is at the middle and junior management level that the question as to whether men are victims of equality is the most relevant. Suddenly it appears that the tables have turned and men are taking on token positions. As pointed by while men may do extremely well at higher level in organizations given that often glass ceiling exists for women but women are increasing their numbers at junior ((wallaby.vu.edu.au/adt-VVUT/uploads/approved/adt-VVUT20070911.142850/public/03Chapter2.pdf) Parker and Fagenson 1994) and middle management positions (Talmud and Izraeli 1999) and at these career levels men tend to face the “visibility” diasdavantage. Historically, management positions have been included among the traditionally male jobs, though the proportion of women filling lower and mid-level management positions in recent years has steadily increased (-Dalton & Kesner, 1993). Given this situation it is now seen that male token positions are more common in junior and mid management level. This raises the issue that while so far it was women who were considered minority and victims of equality, that tenet may well apply to men now. It has been noted that number of women has been increasing in traditional male jobs (). Additionally, from 1981 to 1991 the percentage of women managers in the workplace increased 14 percent (from 27 to 41 percent) (-Dalton & Kesner, 1993). It appears that females are now being accepted as viable management candidates in many arenas and may even be the preferred candidates in some jobs. Stover (1994), for instance, found that in universities, women were likely to be found managing departments with a high proportion of women in them. It is now observed that for the same reason that women faced marginality especially in senior positions, men are now facing marginality in junior and middle management positions. Just like the old boys network in senior positions, men may find it difficult to enter women’s social networks at the lower and mid management levels. This can be especially jeopardising for men since these networks also help pave way for upward mobility. According to Nilson (1976) did find that male nurses were rated lower in prestige than female nurses. Additionally, males applying for secretarial, receptionist, or office clerk jobs have been clearly discriminated against in hiring decisions (-Levinson, 1975; Business Week, July 31, 1995) Surprisingly, it is not just mid management and junior level positions where men are becoming token but there is indication that even the glass ceiling is set to break and while one may argue that breaking the glass ceiling is for the sake of equality, often times the woman’s entry to senior jobs may also be part of the privileges offered through HR policy initiatives. For example, (-Pazy (1992) actually found profemale bias among subjects asked to rate applicants for promotion to a management position in a gender-neutral job. Why are men open to adopting the role of victim? Why do they want to be seen as victims? 1. Backlash The liberal feminist perspective actually poses threat to men in the organizations since its idea is not to put merirtorious candidates on top but only women? The liberal feminist perspective argues that empirically the organisation is not neutral in its treatment of women and that organizations are essentially male dominated. The strategy they adopt is to redress or capture it back. So if women’s situation is defined as a case of imperfect participation in an organisation, the answer is full participation and if men run organisations the answer is more access, putting more and more women into top levels of organisations until balance is achieved. This results in backlash from men who try to reclaim power. Faludi (PPT4) points out that backlash occurs when women are seen to be gaining ground. Men begin to perceive themselves as victims because now they not only have men to compete with but women too. The idea of male victim is often presented as a backlash against groups such as women/feminists. According to (PPt4/5Mobley, 1992) m Male backlash is intensified by a number of factors: Lack of communication about equality and diversity initiatives Exclusion of men from development of equity programmes Blaming men for disadvantage of e.g. women Refusal to see men as part of the solution to inequality as opposed to its cause Backlash is more intense in those organizations that have successfully recruited non traditional employees Cox (1996-PPT4 or5) refers to backlash as ‘competing victim syndrome’: i.e. tendency to compete over who is the greater victim. Why they want to be seen as victims It is possible that equal opportunities encourage men to feel they are being left out. With the increase in number of service organizations versus manufacturing organizations (considered characteristically male) they may feel that women are more valued in service sector and that their skills and attributes are being less valued in modern organizations. This may contribute to ‘backlash’ discourses and representations of a ‘crisis’ in masculinity as men perceive themselves to be disadvantaged(PPt4). According to Robinson (PPT5 2000:3) white masculinity has a vested interest in being both visible and invisible. One notices that there are reasons as to why men want to be seen as victims. “Invisibility is a privilege enjoyed by social groups who do not, thus, attract modes of surveillance and discipline; but it can also be felt as a burden in a culture that appears to organize itself around the visibility of difference.”. They have an interest in being invisible (their gendered power and privilege hidden within the norm). They also have an interest in being visible (like women, to be seen as victims and to gain advantages of anti-discrimination laws, EO policies which they feel excluded from) i.e. there are advantages of being a visible victim, to identify with the disadvantaged. Read More