Women in the Workforce and Gender Disparity - Essay Example

GENDER PARITY: WOMEN IN THE WORKFORCE Customer Inserts His/Her Name Customer Inserts Grade Course Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name 03 September 2008 Why is there gender disparity? This question has been rooted in number of feminist theorists and others since last three to four centuries and still is a hot topic of debate among various feminists and other sociologists and the concrete reason is not yet found. The complexities of its answer lay deep into the various versions given by many feminists who consider the gender disparity arising from the social fabric of society. As conceptualized by Walby who said, “It is sustained around the concept of patriarchy.” (Pilcher 2001: 75) Where on one hand, women are occupying their space in the workforce and showing their caliber in the male dominated areas but on the other hand, they are taking the burden of the crises produced by capitalism heavily felt on their shoulders. Marx targeted at the profit-making tendency of capitalism of 19th century, which occurred at the expense of exploitation of women and children. Marx wrote in the first volume of Capital, “The labour of women and children was, therefore, the first thing sought for by capitalists who used machinery. Compulsory work for the capitalist usurped the place, not only of the children's play, but also of free labour at home within moderate limits for the support of the family.” (Munoz & Woods 2000: Online) Within the patriarchy society, the main source of female oppression is capitalism and her inferior position is a result of the initiation of the ownership of the private property, and is considered as owner of men and first oppressed section of the society. Her economic dependency on men in the society made her reserved and oppressed labor force. In first half of 20th century, the women wages were just over fifty percent than that of men regardless of the responsibilities in Australia. (Bryson 1994: 183) In America only, around 40 million women have been in the productive work since last 50 years and in Europe, 30 million women are employed. Though these statistics show women enjoying their independence from the domains of domesticity, enjoying full independence and enjoying all liberties yet they become the most easy source of cheap labor and are kept as a reserve force duly attracted whenever required and then discarded. This scene was witnessed during both the world wars when women were called upon in factories as a substitute of men who were sent to army during war and then made them return back home when the war ended. They again allowed their entry into the mainstream of productive economy during 1950s and 1960s when the capitalism was at its peak and occupied as a cheap labor-their role considered similar to immigrant worker. The woman’ was confined to work under several conditions in class society, devoid of any political power, without any union and was submissive. But from this submissiveness, they began to assert their independent right to react through the power of media and church and from here, they began to witness the change and now they no longer have to confine themselves into their domestic role of “Kirche, Kücher and Kinder (Church, Kitchen and Children)”. (Muniz & Woods 2000: online) This phenomenon throws the progressive approach that women have entered into, full of dreams to endow the positive fortune for her in future. Yet, the third world is a picture of combined force of liberated women and women who are still not less than slaves. Each year 500,000 women succumb to several complications of pregnancy, and a round 200,000 touch the deathbed resulting from abortions. The developing nations only spend 4 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health, that come to around on an average $41 per person head, as compared to $1900 in the developed nations. The main reason behind the growth of poverty is the misutilization of resources owing to the several laid down compulsive conditions of trade and the debt amount they owe to the World Bank. The big monopolistic companies like Disney and Nike tap their profits from the cheap labor conditions of Haiti. Amidst all, unemployment rate is on the rise resulting in giving lesser opportunity to women in labor market. Though they are getting opportunity to work as part time and temporary, their wages are less than the causal laborers. The reason being they enter a secondary labor market rather than primary labor market where there is narrow range of occupations, are poorly paid and moreover mothers have to lead fragmented lives. (Bryson 1994: 183) In Germany, this kind of employment is called “minor employment” and according to many economists the work is getting popular and growing. Besides being paid less, they are also removed from the social security system, pension and other benefits. (Muniz & Woods 2000: online) Whether the woman has to be devoid of the employment or not has always been and is still been construed around the patriarchy mode of production. As said by Walby, “The production process in the society and the economy is webbed in the patriarchy system that articulates with other modes of production and uses his power to take possession of the other modes of production. (Walby 1994: Online) Walby constructed the patriarchy system as a part of the six social structures, “The patriarchal mode of production, patriarchal relations in paid work, patriarchal relations in the state, male violence, patriarchal relations in sexuality, and patriarchal relations in cultural institutions.” (Alvesson & Billing 1997: 67) Walby explains the subjugation of women by creating a difference between the private and public patriarchy. The former is a household place where the women is unpaid and is an appropriate place for expropriation of women’s labor. Women are not allowed to join certain types of jobs like at both horizontal and vertical levels. (Alvesson & Billing 1997: 67) These dual systems of division of labor by Marxist feminists and the patriarchy concept explaining the root cause of the segregations has been constructed together by Hartman in 1979 by presenting dual system theory. His main idea was to synthesize Marxist feminism as well as radical feminism and to look both the theories as one and equally important. “Capitalism and patriarchy are seen as two analytically systems of power relations, which meet and interact and empirically work together, encouraging gender antagonism, and systematically oppressing women, respectively. Not just capital but men’s actions are also believed to reproduced gender segregation.” (Alvesson 1997: 67) This intricate aptitude among men has continued since ages when men struggled to keep the lamps of family earnings burning, and to keep her competitor and equally qualified woman at home. But Walby in her book states that two systems are independent to each other and operate in autonomy but still there never exists any harmony of interests between capitalism and patriarchy as proclaimed by Feminists and Marxists and there is a always a relation of conflict and tension. And these conflicts and tensions can be seen in the light of capitalists as a threat to patriarchy. In the home, wages of women may or may not be a threat to men but in capitalism, increase of wages may pose a threat to men’s superior position. The implication, which can arise from arguments of Walby, is that “employment and wages for women as individuals outside the family, along with the acceptance of liberal ideology, can result in capitalism’s powerful threat to patriarchy in the family and in other social institutions as well.” (Gordon 1996: 20) Focusing on the Marxist’s concept of feminism, Simon Weil in his Oppression and Liberty describes “Marxism as being a theory quite incomplete insofar as its application is concerned, yet very relevant in describing the mechanisms of economic growth.” (Weil, 1955: 61) All the basis of Marxist’s argument lies in the concept on what is morally right and what is morally wrong. In this context, Marxists consider any social or political action as morally wrong which increases enslavement and oppresses the workforce. Marx said that prostitution is a form of expression of general prostitution of the laborer therefore we can consider prostitution as a form of symbol of everything which is wrong in the society. In this context, Walby states the women’s role is too prescribed as a consequence of a struggle between the political classes and several other class fractions. Though the position of women has increased and companies have created a place for female managing directors, judges, bankers, bureaucrats and priests and the women within the middle management have raised from 4 to 40 per cent in the last 20 years in the USA and around 419 out of the Fortune 500 companies have now at least one women on the board, yet the proportionate is still nonetheless. Women are still subjugated in and outside the workforce and there are still many obstacles to attain equal power and resources and economic dependence and restricted involvement of the women in economy is considered as the major hindrance to equality. (Bryson 1994: 183) Unless the role of women in the domestic affair is not minimized, their position in the world outside will remain the same. Reference List Alvesson, M. & Billing, Y.D. 1997. Understanding Gender and Organizations. London: Sage Publications. Bryson, L. 1994. Women, Paid Work and Social Policy, in Australian Women: Contemporary Feminist Thought, edited by N. Grieve and A. Burns. Melbourne: Oxford University Press: 179-193. Gordon, A.A. 1996. Transforming Capitalism and Patriarchy: Gender and Development in Africa. Colorado & London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Munoz, A. & Woods, A. 2000. Marxism and the emancipation of women. [Online] Available: http://www.marxist.com/marxism-feminism-emancipation-women080300-2.htm [2 September 2008] Pilcher, J. 2001 Explaining Gender and Gender Inequalities, in Sociology Introductory Readings, edited by A. Giddens. Cambridge: Polity Press: 71-77. Kanter, R.M. 1984. Women and Power in Organisations, in Critical Studies in Organization and Bureaucracy, edited by F. Fischer and C. Siranni. Philadelphia:Temple University Press: 241-269. Walby, S. 1994. Towards a Theory of Patriarchy. [Online] Available: http://www.academicarmageddon.co.uk/library/WAL.htm [2 September 2008] Weil, S. 1955. Oppression and Liberty. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Read More