Women, Work and Family - Essay Example

? Women, Work and Family (24.11.11) Introduction After the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, much progress has been made in the context of women’s rights but women still continue working in jobs that are labeled as female jobs. It is common knowledge that in most jobs women are still getting lesser pays as compared to men. Limits are often imposed on women regarding promotions to higher positions in management, primarily because of intentional as well as unintentional sexual bias. Moreover, they continue to face sexual harassment at the work place in spite of enhanced employer consciousness regarding employers’ obligations to initiate remedial and precautionary actions in implementing equitable employment policies. Pregnant women also experience discriminatory practices in recruitment, promotions and performance appraisals at work, because of false assumptions relative to their capacity to work. It is also assumed by employers that women responsible to care for family members do not meet employer satisfaction. In fact employers continue to be insensitive towards the family responsibilities of their women employees. Additionally, women of color are more likely to face discrimination at the work place because they have to cope with the combined barriers relative to gender and race (Stange, 2011). This paper holds that women are treated unfairly in the workplace due to the assumptions that employers make about women and their personal balance between work and family.  Main Body It is noteworthy that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced to combat the deeply embedded discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, religion, race and nationality. In 1967, Congress took initiatives in prohibiting discrimination at the work place following which many states in the US introduced legislation that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender. The anti Discrimination Act of 1991 provides that it is illegal to discriminate against workers on the basis of family responsibilities, sexuality, gender identity and sex. Unfair practices at the workplace in the context of women primarily refer to unfavorable treatments on the basis of gender. It is noteworthy that federal laws do not permit discrimination in the context of many work related areas such as hiring, performance appraisals, training and promotions. Violating equal employment opportunity laws in favor of males is as good as adopting unfair practices by employers. However, all these interpretations are subjective and different people have different interpretations. In the US, unfair practices in regard to women at the workplace can be determined by ascertaining whether the following laws are being complied with. Wage discrimination is prohibited by employers on the basis of sex under provisions of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which is a part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 disallows workplace discrimination in regard to reducing workforce, firing, hiring and sexual harassment Discrimination of pregnant women is prohibited under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. If assumptions are made on the basis of previously established practices about the working roles of women and men, women can be said to be discriminated against if they are being denied opportunities on the basis of such assumptions. This becomes an unfair practice because then, women are treated unfairly on the basis of gender. An employer cannot make assumptions about the kind of work that a woman is able to do and then reject her application. This too is an unfair practice because opportunity is denied at the work place. However, given that discrimination has become quite ingenious many women continue to suffer from unfair discrimination in employment. Fairness at the workplace requires a consistent commitment in eliminating illegal discrimination and unless this objective is achieved, the American values of equal opportunity and fairness will not be met (Wilson, 2003). It is ironical that as per data provided by the Census Bureau (Stange, 2011), women still earn only $0.75 for every dollar earned by men, which is a decline of 1.5 percent as compared to 1995. Although the wage gaps have reduced during the last thirty years, 60 percent of the decline is because of declining wage levels of men instead of increasing wages of women. As per a study conducted by Stange (2011), during a 15 year period from 1983 to 1998, women were found to be earning an average amount of $275,000 while men earned $732,000. This means that over their major period of earning, women were able to earn only $0.39 for every dollar earned by men. This position actually defines the extent of women’s discrimination as this data considers the combined impact of the cumulative earnings of women relative to their dual role of balancing between family and work. This data highlights a major problem in American society; biggest being that the US government does not provide any guarantee for protecting women with children, which is evident from the fact that in the US there is no provision of paid parental leave or subsidy for child care. This is indeed an unfair practice because most other developed countries realize the significance of paid parental leave and in these countries such leave averaged 36 weeks for every woman with children (Stange, 2011). Catherine Hakim had published an article titled Five Feminist Myths about Women’s Employment in 1995, which focused on the following: There has been stability in women’s employment rates since 1851 Women tend to favor conventional role models as compared to men; especially women that work part time prefer to work only part time; otherwise they will not work. Hakim divided all adult females into two distinct groups. Her first group comprised of women who are committed to making a career and thus pursue training and academic qualifications to eventually get good jobs, which they continue with for most of their lives. The second group attaches higher preference to getting married and raising families. They do not give much credence to becoming professionally qualified and are prone to consent doing part time work if the bread winning husband permits her. According to Hakim, such women choose unchallenging jobs that are not characterized with responsibility and excessive demands. They are happy with the convenience these jobs offer although there is no opportunity for growth and career advancement. Hakim holds that child care does not stop women from dong jobs; instead childcare is an outcome of decisions taken by women so that they can engage in part time work or to avoid it completely. According to Hakim (1995), a large percentage of women do not wish to work full time. In contrast with men, women have the option to easily leave the work force and assume the work of child caring. It is thus evident that she entirely relies on the concept of women’s preferences in pointing out the heterogeneous working patterns and values of women. However, there are several contradictions in Hakim’s theory because in today’s working environment it is more important to analyze the role of constraints in ascertaining the disparities and their causes. It is not correct to assume that women do not act in homogeneous ways and should thus be divided into different groups. The current workplace in the US has almost 50 percent women and amongst women, there are only between ten and thirty percent that are entirely focused on work only, in attaching top priority to their jobs. It is also known that almost the same proportion of women is focused on their homes and families and prefer not to work. It thus appears that about forty to eighty percent of women satisfy Hakim’s criteria of forming the adaptive group that adjust work with family and home responsibility. However, Hakim’s arguments are valid only if more women are ready to remain at home and to raise children. In this context, home care allowances will work better than maternity leaves and result in better child care. But this perspective is not acceptable by women that prefer to focus on their careers and to lose no opportunity of creating a stronger position for themselves at the workplace. Hakim’s work turns out to be relevant a few decades back but her work is not readily accepted by academics and researchers espousing the cause of women’s rights and work place equality. Not many are inclined to agree with Hakim’s contentions because majority of te women favor a working environment for themselves in which they can meet their aspirations and contribute to the earnings of the family. I am myself not in agreement with Hakim because a wage gap exists between men and women, which exist primarily because of gender discrimination at the workplace. It is implied through the principal of respect for women that employers must not violate the dignity of female workers. The law provides for action to be taken if employer actions relate to conduct that adversely impacts women’s dignity. Sexual harassment is defined as a conduct that is not acceptable to employees and proves to be insulting for the recipient. Employers cannot engage in conduct or actions that directly or indirectly form the basis for decisions that impact the woman’s accessibility to training programs, work and consistency with the job. The employer is not supposed to create circumstances that lead to women’s harassment, intimidation or humiliation at the workplace. All these conducts are indicative of being contrary to the principles of equal treatment and keeping with the dignity expected at the workplace. The law provides for action to be taken if the required code is not being implemented by employers relative to women’s working environment. Gregory (2003) has held that profit appears to be the only value that continues to be operational in the business context but it cannot justify the poor treatment of female workers. In the present business environment, it appears that only the government has any means to interfere or to find solutions relative to discrimination of women workers. The government too often gets involved in unfair discrimination; when a business discriminates against women on the basis of anything except productivity, the mechanism of the market imposes unavoidable penalties on profits. Over some time period such penalties act as a forceful means to make businesses to adopt better strategies to overcome the difficulties that surface. It is practicable for businesses to adopt hiring policies whereby their profits are not adversely impacted. Rather, they aim at hiring people that will add value to the productivity and bottom line of the company. They do not want that losses should keep mounting with every business sale. Employers wish to maximize profits and hence look out for hiring people that entail the maximum possibility of productivity. For instance, a company looking for people for marketing will prefer to hire males that are young and aggressive in not being impacted with a hectic and demanding work schedule. Under the circumstances, if faced with the choice to hire a man or a woman with similar capabilities, the employer will prefer to hire the man because of the added potential of profitability from him. However, these practices are discriminatory and amount to gender discrimination. Ginn et al (1996) have criticized Hakim because they hold that women do not make their choices from infinite possibilities but from a limited range of options that are available at the given time. Their attitudes are shaped by the circumstances in which they live, such as women opting to work only after their children grow up and start going to school. They hold that there is no polarized concept as highlighted by Hakim (1995) that they are either career women or house wives. The most significant conclusion that can be drawn from Ginn et al (1996) is that labor market preferences cannot be assumed from research conducted on specific characteristics of women’s patterns of employment. It required considering the context and circumstances that influence people’s preferences and choices. A woman’s choice process is impacted because of cultural and structural issues and the main point of disagreement with Hakim (1995) relates to the causal roles relative to orientation of work. The issue arises whether women work part time primarily because they attach immense significance to family life and prefer to give more importance to family than a working career. Another issue is whether women opt to work less because of difficulties in coping with the pressures of family and job responsibilities. It is also possible that the woman’s occupation may be offering limited career opportunities because of which she makes adjustments in her ambition and aspirations. But it cannot be denied that young women are considerably attached with the labor market in terms of participation (Ginn et al., 1996). According to Saul (2003), the concept of fairness in employment has its origin in the concepts of equal opportunities at work. In the context of treatment of women, there is now a global consensus that women need to be empowered so that they can actively participate in the economic sphere across all areas and in all aspects of economic activities. This is essential in order to create strong economies and to achieve stability in the social structure. Moreover, positive developments towards giving equal treatment to women will lead to achievement of globally agreed objectives of developing human rights. Past patterns have shown that creating strategies for women’s empowerment needs a specific kind of understanding of the prevailing gender dimensions and anticipated impacts. However, despite the understanding, not much initiative has been taken in the global business environment to articulate the possible solutions. In fact, a broader participation is required to ascertain that global and local perceptions are captured from all levels of businesses and industries. Global corporations need to adopt and implement strong initiatives to achieve gender equality through adoption of measures such as the implementation of employment practices and policies that entirely remove gender inequality in issues such as promotion, pay and recruitment. Major elements in this regard will include the payment of the legal wages to women and ensuring fair and comparable working conditions such as retirement benefits, working hours and wages. In keeping with global practices, new initiatives should include confirmable actions whereby women are given equal opportunities in terms of representation. The maximum attention needs to be given to introducing measures for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marriage status and parental status while taking decisions about promotions and employment. This also includes actions focusing on ensuring job security, which permit interruption in the job because of maternity leave, parenting leave and family related responsibility. Global organizations can improve the system relative to equality of women in the workplace by taking initiatives of implementing impartial policies towards women engaged in contractual work and temporary work. Layoffs need to be managed in ways that women are not impacted disproportionately. It is thus true that global employment needs global justice whereby employers cannot treat female employees in ways they would not treat male employees. In addition to taking strong initiatives to achieve gender equality they have to create a work life balance for women as well as create career advancement opportunities for them. Works Cited Saul, Jennifer Mather. Feminism: Issues and Arguments, Oxford University Press, 2003. Hakim, Catherine. “Five feminist myths about women’s employment” The British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1995): 429-455. (Print)  Ginn, Jay, et al. “Feminist fallacies: a reply to Hakim on women’s employment” The British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 47, No. 1 (Mar., 1996): 167-174. (Print)  Gregory, Raymond F. Women and Workplace Discrimination: Overcoming Barriers to Gender Equality, Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2003. Stange, Mary Z et al. Encyclopedia Of Women In Today's World, Sage Publications, 2011 Wilson, F. Organizational Behaviour and Gender, Ashgate, 2003 Read More