Gender Inequality between Men and Women in the Workplace - Term Paper Example

Take Home Assignment 3 Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Take Home Assignment 3 Workplace inequality continues to gain increased emphasis among business leaders, policy makers, and sociologists. Inequality in the workplace takes many patterns in terms of race, sex, and gender among others (Chalmers & Hill, 2007). Nonetheless, it is still complex to explain the growing inequalities in the workplace. The two competing explanations behind workplace inequality include individual and structural perspectives. Individual viewpoints focus on the choices individual make in terms of their identifiable competing interests, founded on their situations. This means that women make certain personal choices not to engage in the workplace based on their circumstances, thus reflecting their unbalanced participation in the workforce (Carter & Silva, 2011). The second competing structure is based on the characteristics that an individual cannot control such as ethnicity, gender, and class. Such characteristics are viewed as social roles where one is given an ascribed role that they cannot change, thus the case of inequality. The following paper aims to analyse gender inequality between men and women in the workplace and illustrate how the structural perspective best explains gender inequality. Policy makers and organizations are always focusing on workplace diversity to employ equal number of men and women. Nonetheless, the reality that women are under-represented in numerous industries or position is a reality. The number of women in managerial or leadership positions is less than that of men from even a general outlook. In Australia, women make about 50% of the population (Bletsas & Charlesworth, 2013Despite Australia being ranked as number 17 in the Gender Gap Index, gender inequality in the workplace is still a reality. According to HHH 45% of the Australian workforce was made up of women in 2012, which was a slight increase from 39% in 1980 (Caddy, 2013). Moreover, 51% of women are employed on either part time or full time across different industries while about 72% of men are employed in different industries (Caddy, 2013). This represents a higher percentage of men participation in the workforce than women. Gender segregation or inequality is still strong in occupations and industries. For instance, more than half of all women in the workforce participate in only four sectors including retail trade, social services and healthcare, food and hospitality, as well as education and training (ABS, 2013). This has resulted to gender pay gaps as men are paid more than women in the workforce. The main explanation for this is that most female-dominated occupations and industries require caring skills rather than technical skills. In turn, technical skills are highly rewarded compared to caring skills. The current gender pay gap is about 18% (Bletsas & Charlesworth, 2013). Women in Australia (part-time and fulltime as well as all age groups) are paid about 66% of what men are compensated (Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union, 2012). This illustrates a significant gender inequality where women have been disadvantaged in terms of accessing jobs and being compensated equally as men. Moreover, despite policy and organization as well as industry efforts, the gender inequality fact is still persistent. As discussed in the introduction, gender in quality is explained through two competing ideologies including individual viewpoints and structural ideologies. In this case, the discussed gender inequality between men and women in the workplace can be explained through the structural perspective. In simple terms, the reduced participation and pay of women as compared to men can be explained through how society is structured and how that affects different roles in society. This can be illustrated through theoretical ideologies and empirical evidence. Numerous theorists’ and critical thinkers have developed theories that explain how people understand their interests or roles. Marx focused on two main ideologies that explain women oppression including systems of private property and capitalism (Keister & Southgate, 2011). Through historical materialism, Marx traces the influence of economic systems on society and everyday experiences. Economic systems such as capitalism advocate for advancing the interest of private owner or for the supreme at the cost of workers. Capitalism offers a structure of institutions and systems developed to progress the interest of private owners with the economic power, mostly at the expense of the working class (Keister & Southgate, 2011). Marx believed that such systems are developed by the ruling or supreme class based on their need to uphold or escalate class conflict to stay in power. Moreover, Marx also viewed public work as that of production of goods such as manufacturing. However, women work in the service industry, which is considered as re-production work. Marx also viewed the idea of private ownership as a social structure that implies those who own land will employ the landless, which disadvantages women (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). Marx also uses the idea of family to illustrate the historical context of women. Women have been subject to subordination in their families with a continuous trend of oppression that has established strong social structures. However, the strongest argument by Marx is based on social classes. Through capitalism, men and women employees are divided as they serve the desires of the ruling or of the capital (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). This offers a theoretical basis for explaining and understanding the structural perspective of how gender inequality exists. The same case applies to Weber’s theoretical views. Weber also viewed society to be a structure that is composed of different political, class, and social hierarchies. People in society hold different political, social, and class statuses. Those with power in all these situations illustrate the power to influence others, who are subordinates, thus the emergence of inequality (Ridgeway & Correll, 2004). This can be illustrated from the context of law makers that influence employment laws. People with increased economic power have the ability to influence law makers in making regulations that favour their interests. Moreover, they control the overall ability to influence those without similar power, thus illustrating the increased gender inequality. Research has illustrated that women take the initiative to develop in terms of careers and match up to the qualification and skills of men. However, they still find themselves on the disadvantage side of the workforce. Women work in less-paying industries that are associated with service rather than decision-making and leadership. To support the idea of structural ideologies, people tend to believe that women are not as ambitious as men. According to Carter & Silva (2011), a study of women in male-dominated sectors illustrated that they requested for career development and promotions. However, their efforts are frequently with different reactions with reduced success than the men counterparts. (Risman 2004) argues that even when women do all the required things, they have fewer chances to acquire as much or progress as far as men. Based on the basic role of an organization, managers aim at maximizing profits at a low cost. Women are not viewed as being productive in terms of making profits given that they take rests between their career lives to attend to family or marital issues. In this case, most organizations are reluctant to invest in the skills and abilities of women to avoid reduced productivity and performance. For instance, Apple Inc. recently introduced a program that enables women employees to freeze their “eggs” for later use for the purpose of reducing career disruptions to attend or make a family (Carter & Silva, 2011). This illustrates the economic power of organizations or the political system that influences the decision to focus on the interests of the powerful at the expense of women. Research has also illustrated that women are as qualified as men. Australia ranks first in terms of women’s attainment in education, but is number 41 in terms of participation of women in the labour market. One of the main arguments that make women disadvantaged in the workplace is that they lack graduate education or the graduate skills required in managerial or leadership positions. Nonetheless, according to Patten & Parker, (2012) women make up 50% of all university graduates in Australia. These statistics go to illustrate that women are focused and ambitious as individuals. Moreover, two thirds of young women between the ages of 18 and 34 who were interviewed rated career high in terms of their life priorities and interest, matched to 59% of men in the same age group (Patten & Parker, 2012). Therefore, the main idea is not that women are less qualified than men, but the current structural system of society does not put a woman on the same level of a man. Additionally, women are also disadvantaged even in terms of pay, where their roles of raising a family are considered as a loss or being non-productive to privately-owned properties such as organizations. According to Baker, (2011) women experience gender inequality in terms of compensation because they have to take career breaks for family development or child bearing. Such women are subjected to financial penalties once they return to full-time occupations. Research also illustrate that women who take up longer motherhood leave such as three years can expect motherhood penalties of about 10% reduction in wages (Baker, 2011). Moreover, women are known to make personal decisions on career choices based on the need to focus on their family. Nonetheless, this idea is supported by the limitation set up by workplace cultures and practices (Chalmers & Hill, 2007). Most men take up the responsibility raising families on their own as workplace practices and cultures do not promote men to work flexibly. Even where men are offered maternity leave, it is for a very short time limiting women’s choice in continuing their career like men. The unchanging and bureaucratic nature of organizations illustrates the theories of society’s structures that do not allow women to become equal. This can be viewed in terms of ascribed roles. Each individual has numerous characteristics that they cannot control such as gender, which are viewed as social roles. Therefore, women cannot change that they are capable of being pregnant or cannot become mother, which means they are expected to play their roles as mothers and family carers. As illustrated earlier, women are ambitious and possess similar qualifications and educational achievements as men, but the fact they are women creates limitations to becoming equal with men. Moreover, organizations are reluctant to implement flexible working cultures and practices that empower women based on the ideology of private ownership and economic hierarchies. Managers in organizations favour the interests of owners or shareholders at the expense of women or female employees, thus the idea of gender inequality. All these perspectives and facts illustrate society as a structure with ascribed roles. With the evident structural explanation of gender inequality several solutions can help to reduce the inequality gap between men and women in the workplace. One of the main ways involves shared responsibilities. According to Marx, women liberation from structural limitations can only occur with the elimination of capitalism or private property (Chalmers & Hill, 2007). Governments and organization must develop workplace cultures and practices that are not aimed at making profits, but also developing and considering the welfare of employees. Organizations can offer solutions to women having to stop their careers such as offering day-care facilities as well as father maternal leaves. The family structure should be deconstructed into a shared-responsibility where men will be required to take similar responsibilities as women when rearing children. Organizations must also be willing to recognize and compensate women for their reproductive labour even if it does not increase profits. Women should not be considered as members of an economic system, but rather as members of society. This can all for women to be accorded increased consideration such as avoiding reduction of wages after maternity leave. I believe that women deserve an equal opportunity or increased empowerment to ensure they are able to achieve their interests and goals in life. In conclusion, society has developed structural institutions and systems that have resulted in women being disadvantaged in the workplace. These structures take the idea of economic, political, and social hierarchies. Women face diverse challenges in achieving a consistent work-life based on their reproductive roles. However, this does not mean that women are less educated, ambitious, or qualified than men. Women have continuously illustrated they can perform and work just as men. Nevertheless, current workplace cultures and practice act as limitations ending gender inequality. For this to change, women must be viewed outside the context of organizational economic systems. This will allow their true value and productivity to be viewed, resulting in equal compensation and opportunity. References ABS (2013). Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6291.0.55.003 Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union and others: Equal Remuneration Case, (2012). FWAFB 5184: retrieved from https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2012fwafb5184.htm Baker, D. (2011) The wage-penalty effect. The hidden cost of maternity leave. Sydney: The Australia Institute. Bletsas, A, & Charlesworth, S. (2013). Gender Equality and Decent Work in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 48 (1): 44-56. Caddy, I. (2013). Remuneration and Gender in Australia: Background Review and Recent Analysis. International Employment Relations Review, 19, (2): 38-61. Carter, NM & Silva, C. (2011) The Myth the Ideal Worker: Does Doing All The Right Things Really Get Women Ahead? Catalyst. Chalmers, J and Hill, T. (2007) Marginalising Women in the Labour Market: ‘Wage-scarring’ Effects of Part-time Work. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 33 (2): 180-201. Keister, LA, & Southgate, DE. (2011). Inequality : A Contemporary Approach to Race, Class, and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Patten, E & Parker, K. (2012) A Gender Reversal On Career Aspirations: Young Women Now Top Young Men in Valuing a High-Paying Career. Australia, Pew Research Centre. Ridgeway, CL, & Correll, SJ. (2004). Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations. Gender and Society, 4:510. Risman, BJ. (2004). Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism. Gender and Society, 4: 429. Read More