Gender and Work - Masculine or Feminine Work - Essay Example

Gender and Work - Masculine or Feminine Work In economics and sociology, work is defined as “the activities and labor necessary to the survival of society. The major activity of early humans was hunting and gathering food. As early as 40,000 BC, hunters began to work in groups to track and kill animals. Younger or weaker members of the tribe were more naturally suited to gathering food. It seems likely that women, because of the requirements of pregnancy and nursing, did not generally participate in hunting”. (Encyclopedia Britannica: Work, eco) Therefore from the start of our history a distinction was established. Any activity which led to the seeking of subsistence means was covered in the heading of “work” while all other activities of “reproduction” and assuring the sustenance of life cycle (nursing) were reduced to “limitation”. Unfortunately, the later was what women were supposed to do by default and therefore men took the charge of more proactive role of sustenance of family like tracking and killing animals for food. This natural evolution of role created “myths of work” for men and women. The simple myth which evolved was that what men do is “work” while what women does back at home does not fall in the definitions of work or we can say that the distinction was laid down as masculine or feminine work. With the advancement on the course of history the women’s influence in different fields has changed and now women are also out in search of sustenance means for their family, thus blurring the primitive masculine and feminine myth of work. However, the age old psyche was not that easy to overcome as the women came in the field with the “the same old myth” attached to her. Resultantly, either woman was given “inferior jobs” presupposing that the jobs pertaining to men could not be done by them befittingly. Although, the increase of women’s role in the domain of men “work” and success in that continued the attack on the masculine and feminine myth of work but initiated another dimension in it. More work, with an assumption that women are not able to go through such rigors of intensive work, entered the scene. This ability to work for long hours was equated with success and a general perception was created among people that working long hours is important for career advancement. This development made both men and women so involved in their jobs and working places that they grade their work place as “a place for (their) soul to recreate itself, a place for self-improvement, and a place for spiritual training . . . [the worker] looks for the reason of his being or identity in hard work’ (Schwenkter, 1995). All these factors brought to the forefront following important facts: 1. The myth of masculine and feminine work. 2. The myth of inferiority of work associated with women. 3. Firstly women cannot do all the work men can and if women step in the “work world” or role of “masculine work” it is taken as a privilege given to women while it is understood that the “feminine work” still remains her responsibility. Therefore, women enters the work outside the confines of house with two in built limitations:- a. They still remain responsible for the feminine work. Thus by moving and working outside the house she is taking an extra duty. b. Over the period of time the complexion of perceived less important work which the woman does i.e. “reproduction and nursing” changed and the unimportant ness was shifted from work towards women. Resultantly, women became unimportant and even if she worked as well as men in many spheres she was not appreciated to the same extent as men. 4. The increase in the quantity of work initially to abort the increasing women influence effected men also and thus disturbing the work/life balance in societies. From above we have seen that with the continuous evolution of the life pattern women had been suffering by sharing more responsibilities yet being perceived to be lower in importance. We must admit that even the presence of women in many previously man dominated fields is a big way forward. It is this progress which has enabled us to understand masculinities in more detail. “Masculinities convey that there are many socially constructed definitions for being a man and that these can change over time and from place to place. (It) relates to perceived notions and ideals about how men should or are expected to behave in a given setting. Masculinity and femininity are relational concepts, which only have meaning in relation to each other. Masculinities are configurations of practice structured by gender relations. They are inherently historical; and their making and remaking is a political process affecting the balance of interests in society and the direction of social change.”9 Therefore, the state is more fluid in nature than it seems. The social change as these masculinities is “perceived notions” and if the perceptions are changed and correctly placed the balance in gender and work can be maintained. The above mentioned developments lead us to a complex sociology of work. In any organization there are different dynamics working which makes it complex and unpredictable. These dynamics range from the complexities created by the complexity of organizational structure, complexity of the task being carried out, complexity of the nature of sub tasks being carried out within same organization, and the ever existent interconnectedness of all these complexities. Add to these complexities the complex sociology which is generated by the introduction of both genders in an organization. Although, research has shown that on intellect, temperament and other personal traits, there are no measurable differences between men and women and when differences do appear, they are small in comparison to variations within each of the sexes. The environment created by the presence of two genders who had been on a defined dominant and subservient role for ages when interact in a set piece of environment will definitely lead to complications. With the passage of time advancement of women in different fields slowly made the old masculinities redundant. More fields started to accommodate women most of the times initially at a lower stature than a man. As the women proved the parity of intellect her incursion in male domains was inevitable. Especially in those areas which are thought to be “masculine work” like police force. As “weapons are the embodiment of violent, often militarized models of masculinity, which, in turn, have broader socio-political ramifications” (MYRTTINEN: Disarming masculinities) women initially were not thought to be a pertinent element in the police force. In 1914 Margaret Dawson and Nina Boyle founded Women Police Service. The aim was to take advantage of places emptied by men during the war and with the hope to occupy those places permanently for women. Initially Commissioner Sir Edward Henry permitted them to patrol the streets undertaking rescue work among prostitutes but denying their enlistment in Metropolitan police, while the (male) police was to assist them. It was probably the inertia of the psychological aftermath of war which compelled the then “masculinity” to become redundant with a clear intention, as was indicated by the temporary nature given to the force, to be reverted to status quo in near future. It was in 1915 that Grantham swore in Mrs Edith Smith as first proper police woman in Britain with full powers of arrest. This laid the foundations of the “change in perceived notions” about police force. Ironically in this entire evolutionary course the masculinities are made redundant not to be eliminated but to produce new ones. Therefore, the tensions created in the sociology of work within an organization by the presence of men and women do not diminish instead take new dimensions. We should understand that in an organization as that of a police force the women are prevented by the organization to challenge the existing status by four interrelated factors (What Is Gender at Work’s Approach :3):- 1. Lack of political access: There are neither systems nor powerful actors who can bring women’s perspectives and interests to the table 2. Lack of appropriate accountability systems: Organizational resources are steered toward quantitative targets that are often only distantly related to institutional change for gender equality 3. Cultural systems: The work family divide perpetuated by most organizations prevents women from being full participants in those organizations as women continue to bear the responsibility for child and elderly care 4. Cognitive structures: Work itself is seen mostly within existing, gender-biased norms and understandings Any policy which has to address the working women problem has to be encompassing all above four elements. It has been observed that our efforts are more inclined to address the achievement of political access to women. Most of our effort start to attain a position for the women from where women friendly and women “understanding” rules and policies can be generated. In reality this approach is too narrow and is primarily being adopted because of its “show off” value. Other spheres of problems like lack of appropriate accountability systems, changes required in cultural systems and cognitive structures are hardly being addressed. The reason is that changes in these spheres are time consuming and are not likely to bring dividends to the ones who will initiate them. Our change managers being short sighted concentrate more on the changes which can be immediately felt therefore, efforts in the above spheres are either not at all present or if present are so less that they are not bringing the requisite change. The police gender agenda laid down suffers from the same short coming. It is more cosmetic in nature and states (Gender Agenda):- 1. For the Service to demonstrate consistently that it values women officers; 2. To achieve a gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation balance across the rank structure and specialisms consistent with the proportion of women in the economically active population; 3. To have a woman’s voice in influential policy fora focusing on both internal and external service delivery; 4. To develop an understanding of the competing demands in achieving a work/life balance and a successful police career; and 5. To have a working environment and equipment of the right quality and standards to enable women officers to do their job professionally. All the above points do address the women issues when they are in service in competition with men. However, the above points do not address the women issues in totality as it does not address the women role off duty. A police women or any working woman is in fact on 24/7 duty. When she is away from her professional obligations she takes over the duty of her age old role of household. Resultantly she is in a continuous stress. The case is different with men. As soon as they enter the house they take over the role of a man coming back from the “mythological work” of earning bread and butter for the family and thus qualify or think him to be qualified for rest. The impact is that a working woman is always striving to do the impossible i.e. doing all things right both at work and home and that is when “super woman syndrome” sets in. In reality it is not possible to perform such mammoth tasks to perfection 24/7 by any one but the inability of women to do so have caused depression in women workers. These all organizational and complexities in real world cannot be addressed till the time we take a realistic approach to the problem. Irrespective of how much legislation we pass and how many seminars we hold we have to address the mentality of men and women. Men have to be educated about the stresses women go through. Organizations should call the husbands/boyfriends or partners with whom their employee are living, and educate them about the amount of work which women does in their tenure of duty. Then such partners may be able to contemplate the situation in which women is going through. Similarly, there is a need to educate women also. Women has to understand that they cannot take full responsibility of house and work on them if they and their partners decide on her being a working woman. Therefore, she should not strive for perfection and admits mistakes. Try to devolve some of her “feminist works” to the male partner. Till the time such adjustment is not realized by both men and women a true change in this regard is not likely to come. Even in an evolutionary change the direction has to be right. "work." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007. Schwenkter, W. (1995), `Work and Culture in Early Modern Japan’, in P. Gouk (ed.), Wellsprings of Achievement (Aldershot: Gower). Connell, R.W., Masculinities, University of California Press, 1995, p. 44. MYRTTINEN Henri, Disarming masculinities,2003, available on line, 10 May 07, http://www.unidir.org/pdf/Gender/6%20myrttinen.pdf What Is Gender at Work’s Approach to Gender Equality and Institutional Change? available on line 9 May 07 http://www.genderatwork.org/g@w_approach.pdf British association for women in policing, Gender Agenda, Available on line, 7 May 07 http://www.bawp.org/New/Documents/GenderExec.htm Read More