A Woman Has to Be Twice as Good as a Man for the Same Job - Essay Example

Women in a Man’s World The expression, ‘a woman has to be twice as good as a man for the same job’is based on credible evidence. Employers continue to discriminate against women, not only in the in selection process for many types of employment but also by offering proportionately lower wages once employment is secured. This reality is a dual battle that almost all women face in the workforce. This battle forces them to double their efforts to obtain and to then retain employment. Societal stereotypes that reflect past attitudes of women’s roles as subservient to men still prevail showcased by the continued imbalance of employment opportunities. Workplace segregation remains prevalent as high concentrations of female employees are associated with relatively low rates of pay. Higher levels of part-time working, often positions filled by women, are associated with lower rates of pay, even after other factors have been taken into account. Womens employment is highly concentrated in female-dominated occupations which are often the lowest paid. Women are still under-represented in the higher paid jobs within occupations. Qualified women are characteristically denied top level jobs in corporations, but instead of terming it what it is, sexism and discrimination, this form of unequal treatment is referred to as the ‘glass ceiling’ effect. Women do indeed have to perform twice as well as a man to retain the same pay and position at similar occupational arenas. This discussion will examine barriers to equality in the workplace, the reasons for this cultural phenomenon and evidence to support this claim. Occupation Segregation and Discrimination Women must struggle to cope with discrimination in the workplace as is evidenced by occupational segregation. This terminology refers to the reality that women tend to work in different sectors of the economy and occupy different employment standings than men within the same occupational group. Government statistics reveal that women are highly concentrated in certain jobs as 60 per cent of working women are employed in just 10 per cent of available occupations (“What is the Pay Gap” 2006). While about one-half of workers are in sex-dominated employment, women are engaged in a narrower scope of occupations than men. There are seven times more male-dominated non-agricultural jobs than female. ‘Sex-dominated’ occupations are defined as when workers of one sex constitute more than 80 per cent of the labour force (Anker, 1998). In the UK, women constitute just 30 per cent of managers, 25 per cent of executives and 10 per cent of company directors (EOC, 2002). This is not surprising given that the old boss/secretary mentality is not yet extinct. Almost four out of five women still believe there is a bias in favour of male staff in the office. 84 percent of female employees surveyed reported they have to work harder than male colleagues to prove themselves to their employer and 78 per cent of women believe their gender is a barrier to career progression compared to male counterparts. The survey of more than 2,000 staff members in the UK also illustrated that two-thirds of women felt they had been harassed in the workplace by male colleagues (Millar 2005). Women may decide to abandon a certain professional path because they anticipate discrimination or feel hindered to begin at all. Despite increasing levels of labour market participation, women still are not equally represented, especially at higher positions within organisations. This includes those companies that cater specifically to women consumers. This clearly observable fact of life has been called ‘the glass ceiling.’ The term refers to the “invisible, artificial barriers that prevent qualified individuals from advancing within their organisation and reaching full potential” (Hewitt & Roche 2003). This is not defined as simply an artificial plateau, beyond which women are denied the opportunity to advance to upper levels of executive management (Castro & Furchtgott-Roth 1997). The glass ceiling exists throughout the workforce in varied historically male-dominated positions. These barriers, which have been in place since the beginning of mankind, resulted from institutional and psychological practices that remain in place to a wide extent (Hewitt & Roche 2003). Women who find themselves under such a ceiling may not, at first, even notice that a barrier was in place which separated them from higher levels because the glass is clear. But when they try to pass beyond a certain point in an organisation, they quickly discover that this ceiling prevents them from the advancement they seek. Some have attempted to justify the concept and utilization of the glass ceiling based upon several reasons. “First of all, to become a CEO or president of a major corporation means forsaking, or at least subordinating nearly all other aspects of life to one’s career. Such a level of responsibility along with its attendant financial success requires putting in seventy or eighty-hour weeks” (Feldman 1997). The argument supposes that men, much more so than women, are willing to completely submerse themselves in their work. Men will more readily dedicate their life to overseeing both the short-term and long-run needs of an organisation. This viewpoint speculates that women, on the other hand, would be less likely to sacrifice the loss of time spent with family or in the pursuit of leisure activities. It also relies on studies that have found that, on average, women are less likely to accept jobs that require the additional time a longer commute entails than are men. This is largely due to time constraints on women trying to balance career and parental responsibilities. This can impact on womens pay in that they have a statistically smaller pool of jobs from which to choose. Also, more women wanting work in the same location near to where they live correlates to lower wages for those fewer jobs (“What is the Pay Gap” 2006). Many women, however, are less family-oriented and more job-oriented. Women as well as men abandon ambitious business careers in favour of the less materialistic rewards that are presented by flexibility in their work schedules. This allows the individual to invest more time in raising the family and participate in leisure activities. Seemingly, however, men more than women, are willing to commit themselves to the schedule demanded by the laborious objective of corporate achievement. An upward progression mentality in the business world frequently can be traced to values and ideologies that most men subconsciously learn while children. Corporations operate in much the same method that team sports and the military ‘chain-of-command’ teaches. “Women who fail to understand the importance of office politics, going through the proper channels, and being able to make decisions quickly put themselves at an automatic disadvantage. Even for many women who devote their full attention to career issues, many fail to adequately understand how much of the corporate world works” (Wells, 1997). Corporate life is a contest seldom perceived as fair for either men or women, but it remains more advantageous to men as the inner structure of advancement within organisations emulates what is already deeply entrenched in the male. “Whatever the objective merits or shortcomings of the different goals selected by men and women, the reality of those differences provides a sufficient explanation for most situations” (Himelstein 1997). It has become unspoken standard operating procedure to disallow many qualified women top level positions which were merited by their performance. “The ‘glass ceiling’ barriers toward women are nothing but an insidious form of sex discrimination, in violation of law” (Feldman 1997). Glass ceiling barriers exist almost unimpeded at all levels of organizations affecting women at different levels and in various types of business. Businesses which continue to hire only males for top level positions out of a desire to maintain a male dominated environment will inevitably “find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with rivals who promote more competent, underpaid females to do the same kind of work” (Wells 1997). The Wage Gap Government figures have shown that gender bias is still prevalent in UK office work, with women earning 18 percent less for full-time and 40 per cent less for part-time positions (Millar 2005). The jobs women have traditionally filled are not low-skilled as compared to those jobs traditionally filled by men. Sewing, for example, is a skilled art form seldom mastered by men. Women are more likely to be employed in jobs such as catering, cleaning and care-based professions because these are the types of jobs women have traditionally undertaken at home for no pay. Because of this, these types of jobs are undervalued, an attitude from the past that lives on today. Those that would argue that women should earn less than men point to the common perception that employing women ultimately costs a corporation more than employing men because of the time off work and extra benefits paid due to pregnancies. However, research covering five countries refutes the conventional conviction that employing a woman is more costly than employing a man. The study concludes that the added cost of “employing a woman worker and having to cover maternity protection and childcare expenses is very small as this component of non-wage costs amounts to less than two per cent of the monthly gross earnings of women employees” (Abramo & Todaro 2002). If all non-wage costs are taken into consideration, then the additional cost of hiring a woman comes down to less than one per cent. This figure includes training, compensating work injuries and others which apply to different categories of workers, both men and women. In many industrialized countries, the progression of women into ever expanding and higher paying jobs has led to a rise in the earnings of the top echelon of women compared to average income for men in the same capacity. This has resulted in greater gender equality but at the cost of higher inequality between women as the majority of them remain concentrated in ‘women’s jobs’ that are of low salary and status (Bruegel & Perrons 2002). With a goal of gender pay equity, particularly for part-time workers, the UK introduced a national minimum wage in 1999. Women accounted for 70 per cent of those who benefited from this measure. The pay gap between men and womens part time hourly earnings and mens full time hourly earnings is particularly large and because so many women work part-time, this is a major contributor to the gender pay gap. Some of this gap is due to part-time workers having lower levels of qualifications and less work experience. However, it is also due to part-time work being concentrated in less well-paid occupations normally possessed by women. The gender pay gap between mens and womens average full-time hourly wages is 13 per cent in the UK. “This means that women working full time are currently paid, on average, 87 per cent of men’s hourly pay” (“What is the Pay Gap” 2006). In the UK, women constitute just 30 per cent of managers, 25 per cent of executives and 10 per cent of company directors (EOC, 2002). “Why does this happen? It’s not because women are not prepared. The number of women holding bachelor and post graduate degrees has steadily increased. More and more postgraduate degrees are in the field of business management and law, the credentials that are now considered to be prerequisites for senior management positions” (Well, 1997). This does not imply that women are not moving up the corporate ladder. “Surveys show that between 1982 and 1992, the proportion of women holding the title of executive vice president rose from 4 to 9 percent. Those at the senior vice president level rose from 13 to 23 percent” (Feldman 1997). Conclusion While opportunities for women in business have improved considerably and steadily over the years, it remains apparent that the door to the summit of business is not readily open to them. A 1993 survey indicated that 37 percent of women who left their jobs “were tired of battling the glass ceiling” (Feldman 1997). The eradication of discrimination of wages is vital to achieving legitimate gender equality. No permanent progress in the economic status of women can be expected on condition that the market rewards their time at a lower wage than that of men. While people in upper management progressively recognize the value of work force diversity, particularly at the management levels, glass ceiling barriers continue to disallow women the chance to compete for and secure supervisory level titles. Low pay is not just an issue for women but for their children whose quality of life depends solely on these wages. The discrimination of women in the workforce is in the direct interest of capitalism. By giving women the worst work, with no job security and low wages, an organisation creates an economical workforce, which they can replace at-will. Corporations keep their labour costs low and their profits high by hiring women as casual or part-time workers. By keeping women’s wages low, they divide the working class and keep all wages low as women workers can be used to threaten the job security of male workers. Women are often dependent on men because they, on average, are paid lower wages, a potentially dangerous circumstance to those women that find themselves in an abusive relationship or supporting children on their own. Women comprise the preponderance of single parent households and the rate at which they have entered the work force has grown. The proportion of female-headed households has also increased in many developing countries. “Despite the redistribution of financial responsibility within the family, the burden of household duties and care functions still continues to fall largely on women’s shoulders, thus reflecting the endurance of well entrenched assumptions about work, family, society and gender roles in these spheres” (Sirianni & Negrey 2000). From the beginning of recorded human society, tasks pertaining to care of the family were considered woman’s responsibility. In recent times, economic and social behavior patterns have questioned specific gender roles at home and in the workplace. This is an important aspect of wage differentials between men and women. Even if women were paid the on the same scale as men and were afforded equal opportunities to advance within a corporation, they still would be expected to care for the household and everyone in it. Modifying social attitudes concerning the separation of duties at work and at home is essential if women are to gain full equality. Generally speaking, men have recently begun to share some of the home duties, but this must become a truly equal share for there to be any chance of true equality. If not, the old stereotypes will persist and women will continue to be second-class citizens in jobs where they perform at or above the level of their male counterparts. Persistence is the key. Those who complain about glass ceilings should keep in mind that glass can be shattered if one strikes it hard enough and long enough. References Abramo, L. & Todaro, R. (2002). Cuestionando un mito: costos laborales de hombres y mujeres en América Latina [Examining a myth: Labour costs for men and women in Latin America]. Lima, International Labour Organization. Anker, R. (1998). Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the World. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Bruegel, I. & Perrons, D. (Spring 1998). “Deregulation and Women’s Employment: The Diverse Experiences of Women in Britain.” Feminist Economics. London, Routledge Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 103-125. Castro, Ida L. & Furchtgott-Roth, Diana. (1997). “Should Women be Worried About the Glass Ceiling in the Workplace?” Insight on the News. Vol. 13, N. 5, p. 24. Feldman, Gayle. (1997). “Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Women Have Had a Long Hard Struggle to Reach Their Current Status in the Industry.” Publishers Weekly. Vol. 244, N. 31, p. 82. Hewitt, Patricia & Roche, Barbara. (29 January 2003). “Improving Life at Work: Advancing Women in the Workplace.” Women & Equality Unit. Department of Trade and Industry. London: Crown Copyright. Himelstein, Linda. (1997). “Breaking Through.” Business Week. N. 3514, p. 64. Millar, Michael. (7 September, 2005). “Women Perceive Male Bias in the Workplace.” Personnel Today [online]. 12 March, 2006. Sirianni, C. & Negrey, C. (March 2000). “Working Time as Gendered Time.” Feminist Economics. London, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 59-76. Wells, Jennifer. (1997). “Stuck on the Ladder.” MacLean’s. Vol. 15, N. 3, p. 162. “What is the Pay Gap and Why Does it Exist?” (February 2006). Women and Equality Unit [online]. Crown Publishing. 12 March, 2006. Bibliography Abramo, L. & Todaro, R. (2002). Cuestionando un mito: costos laborales de hombres y mujeres en América Latina [Examining a myth: Labour costs for men and women in Latin America]. Lima, International Labour Organization. Anker, R. (1998). Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation of Occupations in the World. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Bruegel, I. & Perrons, D. (Spring 1998). “Deregulation and Women’s Employment: The Diverse Experiences of Women in Britain.” Feminist Economics. London, Routledge Journals, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 103-125. Castro, Ida L. & Furchtgott-Roth, Diana. (1997). “Should Women be Worried About the Glass Ceiling in the Workplace?” Insight on the News. Vol. 13, N. 5, p. 24. Feldman, Gayle. (1997). “Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Women Have Had a Long Hard Struggle to Reach Their Current Status in the Industry.” Publishers Weekly. Vol. 244, N. 31, p. 82. Hewitt, Patricia & Roche, Barbara. (29 January 2003). “Improving Life at Work: Advancing Women in the Workplace.” Women & Equality Unit. Department of Trade and Industry. London: Crown Copyright. Himelstein, Linda. (1997). “Breaking Through.” Business Week. N. 3514, p. 64. Millar, Michael. (7 September, 2005). “Women Perceive Male Bias in the Workplace.” Personnel Today [online]. 12 March, 2006. Sirianni, C. & Negrey, C. (March 2000). “Working Time as Gendered Time.” Feminist Economics. London, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, Vol. 6, No.1, pp. 59-76. Wells, Jennifer. (1997). “Stuck on the Ladder.” MacLean’s. Vol. 15, N. 3, p. 162. “What is the Pay Gap and Why Does it Exist?” (February 2006). Women and Equality Unit [online]. Crown Publishing. March 12, 2006. Read More