Similarity between Straight women and Homosexual Discrimination in Workplaces - Essay Example

Similarity between Straight Women and Homosexual Discrimination in Workplaces. College Year Similarity between Straight women and Homosexual Discrimination in Workplaces Sexual orientation discrimination has been with us for so many years both in the workplaces and even in public social places. This may take different forms depending with which place we are referring to and in what context. In the work places, this absurd but justified act in the face of the perpetrators may manifest in the form of an employee being subjected to non-professional screening before employment (negative employment action), harassment and being denied certain rights and privileges that he or she should be getting. This character has been campaigned against by different human rights organizations, government of USA and like-minded individuals. The same public education has been done through different media outlets thereby changing the initially sour public perception about the same (Julianne Ohlander, 2005). The government has helped fight this problem by enacting legislations and passing bills that would enable acknowledgement of such individuals. The same has been done by defining the harassment so that every individual might know when his or her actions amount to sexual harassment and which one does not. Whatever reason for the discrimination at the workplace, the resulting effects can be detrimental to the person being discriminated against and by extension the overall organization which obviously will be dependent on the job of the person being discriminated. Sexual discrimination can basically be explained as treating an individual differently just because of his or her sexual alienation or preference or orientation. Most of the people discriminated against are homosexuals specifically gays and lesbians. However, even the heterosexual do encounter such discriminations though not very common. In fact sexual discrimination may cover a wider area like sex (male or female), gender, disability, marital status and others. In this discrimination definition, there are three words that forms its pillar. The following is their explanations; Harassment: This includes being forced to experience unfavorable comments about your orientations, sexual jokes, and request for sexual favors, unbecoming sexual behaviors like touching, gestures or even some portraits that may show one in bad light. At the workplace, this may be fellow colleagues, employer, supervisor or even a customer. Different Treatment: This may involve being given or subjected to different treatment from the rest of the colleagues. This may not being hired, promoted or disciplined just because you’re superior thinks your sexual orientation is uncultured or untraditional. On the other hand, it may involve being treated favorably because the responsible person wants sexual favor in return. Benefits Discrimination: This may take the form of the company you are working for promoting or paying certain benefits which can be health insurance, paid leaves and others that every heterosexual spouses or families get yet you as a homosexual does not get any, even if one has a partner. Some counties and states have already enacted the anti-discriminatory laws or working with executive orders that make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. This has been aided by the action of equal employment opportunity commission, which has been working to ensure that there is a legal avenue for individuals who have been discriminated at the workplaces (Workplacefairness, 2015). Whichever the type of discrimination that is meted on the individual victim, one fact stand out clearly and that is that there is sexual discrimination at the workplace. However, this discrimination do take a similar or different path depending on the sexual orientation. Most scholars and researchers have often identified some differences and similarities in the discriminations at the workplace. Lesbians and gays exhibit almost the same discrimination but show a difference in the way in which they are remunerated. Straight women on the other hand have their share of discrimination and compared with their counterpart men, they too do experience wage discrimination. What is funny though is the way in which this wage discrimination occurs. Men are normally paid higher wages compared to straight women. The probable reasons that are proposed by many scholars is that men spent most of their time at the work places and this is specifically true to blue collar jobs which require a little masculinity, something that straight women lack. Women on the other hand are likely to concentrate on taking care of her family in terms of attending much to the children and taking leave days for the same. For the blue collar jobs, straight women are argued not to be able to handle the tasks that their male counterparts do. Some scholars also suggest that the reason that the male counterparts may be favored in wages is probably because during hiring, the employers do assume that since they are men, they always have a family comprising of a wife and children to attend to (Morgan, 2015). This is in line with the traditional thinking that men are always responsible for the family upkeep in most homes (Kurdeck, 2007). This was confirmed by Leslie in her global research of companies in Mexico where managers were preferring to hire female workers for the line manager position not because they qualify more but because they could be paid less wages. The reason was that their husbands were being paid better in whichever places they were working at (Salzinger, 2003). This however, is not the case with homosexuals. The opposite is true. Lesbians in fact, have been found from different researches to be earning more than the gay counterpart has. Some scholars suggest that the possible reasons why a lesbian worker may be paid more than the straight women who have the same qualification and experience may be related to leave factors. They suggest that unlike straight women who are most likely in the period of employment to request and insist on paid maternal leave. Lesbians don’t ask for leave related to paternal or maternal. This is because they don’t bear children and if they do, then it is adopted one. This fact seems to auger well with employers who value very much the working time an employee give to the company (Weichselbaumer, 2002). Other scholars also suggest that lesbians may be paid higher than the straight women with same qualifications and their gay counterparts because lesbians possess the muscles that are normally evident in straight men and can as well be employed in the factory floor to handle blue collar jobs. They are documented to behave like men especially when it comes to assertiveness hence becoming a preference of employers (Badget M, 2001). They also unlike straight couples have been known not to practice the traditional division of labor and specialization in their families. This means anybody can do any role and no specific person has the role of shouldering the family responsibilities like is the case with heterosexual families. Therefore, it is hard to say that this particular person is the one to be paid highly because of such roles (Weichselbaumer, 2002). In spite of all this bias in favor of heterosexual males and lesbians in the job market, research still shows that homosexual still faces discrimination more than the heterosexual in workplaces does. Either way, it is evidently true that gays and heterosexual women face almost a similar discrimination at the workplace. This is in form of how they are paid their wages and even the preference in the factory setup or workplace generally. Critique analysis of The Sex of class: Women Transforming American labor by Dorothy Sue The book by Dorothy Sue Cobble about the sex of class—women transforming American labor talks about women and the challenges they have faced in their places of work. Dorothy writes about how women have been steadily rising on the ladder and therefore should be heard and the problems they face in trying to form formidable labor unions to represent their interest. The book is about the class detailing the rise of class inequalities in USA how labor unions rise and respond to the same. The book is also portraying how the work place has been feminizing in America over time. Dorothy also alleges that women population have always been at the bottom and still remains there. From the way Dorothy represents her arguments, it is obvious what her reasoning is and her bias towards the plight of men can be seen in page two. While she introduces the content of the book, Dorothy alleges that even though men have been experiencing declining income, women to have been having their problems and should be considered first. If it is class disparities is what the author is concerned about, then she should recommend a remedy for both sexes rather than recommending action that will remedy only women problem. That shows a bias for women. Her terming of more women activity as feminizing the workplace is also in bad light. She acknowledges that women have risen up the ladder, occupying positions that were held majorly by men yet they still have no functional social movement. That being true as she suggests, the question is who is to blame and how is there inability to form a labor union an effect of men being prioritized? This to everyone concerned about the truthfulness of information may tag some doubts. She explains that women have been exposed to poor working conditions especially those without college degree. This truly is unsubstantiated because the most of the work places that were categorized as poor working conditions were majorly factory floor categorized with blue collar jobs something that is dominated by men. She claims that understanding women’s problem is the beginning of understanding the experience of majority of workers. This again may not be very factual considering that she had previously stated that women occupy only 46% of the workforce population. Surely, how can a minority represent the major problem-facing majority of the workforce. She also claims that women now working in different sectors of the economy that was not previously the case. She then relate this to changing roles of men and women in homes by suggesting that this shows women are becoming the bread winners without supporting it with facts to show how activity of women in the sectors of the economy relates to changing roles of gender in families (Cobble, 2007). Again, by insinuating that notable change is observed from white college educated women is a discrimination to other races who have also made such progress but do not belong to the college educated white women. A better term that would sound inclusive of all races and sexes should have been more appropriate. Dorothy’s concern with the labor unions activity and lack of women representativeness is a better cry but the way the author puts it makes it sound so biased by all angles from gender, race and reasoning. It is for these aforementioned weaknesses that I choose not to agree with the author on most of her reasoning but do agree on her concern. For the above reasons, the American labor force is being transformed by a new thinking from both sexes and not just women. Even though women can do some tasks that were initially reserved for men, men can as well do their once reserved tasks plus there are some tasks that only lesbians or men can do better than straight women (Badget M, 2001). References Badget M, V. L. (2001). Money, myths and change: The economic lives of lesbians and gay men. London: The University of Chicago press. Cobble, D. S. (2007). The Sex of class: Women Transforming American labor . ILR Press. Julianne Ohlander, J. B. (2005). Explaining educational influences on attitudes towards homosexual relations. Social Science Research, 788-799. Kurdeck, L. (2007). The allocation of household labor by partners in Gay and lesbian couples. Journal of family issues, 132-138. Morgan, M. L. (2015). Economic consequences on Gays and lesbians of Heteronormativity in the workplace. Blacksburg Virginia: Virginia stste University. Salzinger, L. (2003). Genders in production: Making workers in Mexicos global factories. Mexico: University of California Press. Weichselbaumer, D. (2002). Sexual Orientation discrimination in Hiring. Labour Economics. Workplacefairness. (2015). Sexual orientation Discrimination. Retrieved June 22nd, 2015, from Workplacefairness: http://www.workplacefairness.org/sexual-orientation-discrimination Read More