Discrimination against Women at Workplace - Literature review Example

Discrimination against Women at Workplace Name: Course: College: Lecturer: Date: Introduction Issues of women discrimination either in private organizations or government offices have taken center stage, particularly after the second half of the twentieth century. Over the years, activists have expressed their concerns that women have been treated unjustly in as far as political, economic social, and cultural issues are concerned. This has clearly drawn the interest of scholars and other stakeholders alike who have embarked on researches in a bid to evaluate the truth in such claims. The popular view is that women are somewhat underrepresented when it comes to issues relating to different fields be it in reference to employability, hiring, promotion, and professional qualification, in various sectors (Gregory 2002, 13). The common view among managerial behaviorists and sociologists is that the workplace remains a noteworthy epicenter in the reproduction and perpetuation of disparities. Numerous studies have been carried out to examine gender disparities as they characterize themselves in workplace environment. In essence, Discrimination against women in the workplace has been recognized as a wicked problem that not only affects both the public and the private sector. Governments have made purposeful attempts to eradicate the various forms of discrimination. A good case in point is provided by the passage of legislations that support affirmative action. Within the background of the United States, Australian, among other countries, discrimination against women has previously been identified as a key problem, particularly considering the very diverse nature of the populace. Significant strides in as far as minimizing discrimination have been made since 1950’s (Johnson 2007, 38). However, complete success has remained indefinable and discrimination against women in the workplace remains rampant all through the country. Literature Review The post-world War Two era has experienced a marked rise in the number of females joining the labor market. Nevertheless, there is little proof to suggest that increased involvement has been accompanied by a decrease in gender-based discrimination at the workplace. Certainly, the available body of evidence portrays gender-based discrimination as the most widespread type of workplace inequality. At the workplace, discrimination against women is can be seen in terms of men employees being favored in comparison to similarly capable women (Hurst, 2007, 13). Discrimination against women is best shown by the differential remuneration policies that many organizations tend to adopt. Markedly, men working in different economic sectors have tended to receive comparatively higher wages than those given to women. According to Hurst (2007, 14) discrimination against women in terms of salaries received has considerably reduced over the years: women’s wages relative to that of men have certainly increased. However, a closer look at the available body of evidence reveals that gender-based income discrimination still remain uncontrolled in the United States and Australia as well. According to Cotter, Hermsen & Vanneman (2000, 25) American women earn roughly 71% of what their male counterparts make. The gendered wage discrimination also tends to vary across the different races. For example, higher gender-based income discrimination has been observed among white employees compared to their African-American counterparts. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) support this allegation. Women working full-time take home, on average, around 15 % less than men working full-time. For male graduates, mean starting salaries are AUD 45,000 per year, while for their female counterparts; the mean salary is AUD 42,000. Mano-Negrin (2004, 460) carried out a cross-national investigation aimed at comparing the gender-wage-sector relationship for executive positions. The major objectives were to assess whether the salaries of women in executive positions was determined by individual effects or employment-sector, and establish whether such effects are associated with employment policies of the relevant countries. The investigation indicated substantial discriminations in as far as the remuneration packages provided to the relevant gender are concerned (be it in the public sector or even the private sector). The states examined included Germany, Canada Norway, Israel, and Australia. In four out of the five states examined, the incomes of women managers working in both the private and public sectors were found to be inferior to that of men (468). However, No noteworthy differences were found between the incomes of male managers employed in either of sectors. Quite the opposite, the occupation of an executive position in the public sector was found to have an unenthusiastic impact on the incomes of women in the most of the states examined. The findings of this study have numerous implications in as far as the topic of discrimination against women at the workplace is concerned. Remarkably, they show a negative association between the sector-gender interactions. Besides, they emphasize that discriminations against women are intrinsic in almost all organizational departments. In addition, promotion to administrative positions does not unavoidably guarantee equal incomes for male and female employees. This may be accredited to the fact that male employees are more probable to acquire positions of power and influence in both the private and public segments as compared to women (Mano-Negrin, 2004, 471). What could be the reason behind women being discriminated against by earning less than male counterparts? The difference between the income of men and women was to begin with contemplated to be reducing but this has been found to be mistaken since females have repeatedly earned less compared to men. This is an apparent indication that women employees could be working for extra hours, yet receive inferior pay than men. The present economic recession being experienced has been operating against women’s favor and contributing to their inequitable treatment. The income ratio between females and males has plainly made no progress since 2001. The real income for women has incessantly declined as well as the supremacy of their jobs. Most people have tended to argue that women receive inferior pays because they work for fewer hours than men. According to a study carried out to investigate and compare then number of hours worked by men and women revealed that for males and females who labor more than forty hours on a weekly basis, discrimination in earnings may expand with an increase in the total number of hours worked. For example, females working for around 44 hours in a week were found to earn 16% less than males working comparable number of hours (Mueller 1987, 231). In addition, women working for over 60 hours on a weekly basis were found to earn 22 percent less than men. This concise investigation indicates that women in reality work for more hours compared men but ends up obtaining inferior pay from the employers. It is understandable that numerous things need to be done to eradicate discrimination against women at the workplace such as passage of laws that guarantee equal openings for both females and males. Wellington (2008, 1), believes that both men and women have similar career aspirations, progress strategies and impediments to success. Nevertheless, the accessible body of evidence shows some compelling differences in the nature of obstacles experienced by every gender and in how they handle to balance work and life obligations. In a study carried out to investigate the aspirations and challenges experienced by both men and women at the workplace, approximately 55% and 57% of men were found to wish to reach a higher position in their companies, challenging the contention that there are fewer females in senior positions because they do not aspire to be there (Wellington 2008, 1). In getting to the higher positions, women and men have used comparable advancement plans, including productively supervising others, surpassing performance expectations, showing expertise and seeking responsibilities which are highly visibility. They also meet a number of similar barriers along their routes including lack of experience, portraying a style totally different from the organizational culture and lack of good understanding of politics in the organization. Women and men are the same in their work flexibility, suggesting that balancing individual responsibilities and job is not a women’s problem. Although women experience more obstacles in achieving work and life balance, men and women similarly wish a collection of formal and informal work arrangements (Vianello and Renata 1990, 89). Perceptibly, flexibility at workplace is no longer about women and child care, but is more of a quality matter for all workers notwithstanding their genders. However, these findings that both women and men experience similar prejudices at the workplace have been challenged. For instance, a study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, found that notwithstanding the legislative provision for voluntary maternity leave, only 60% of women sampled were able to access leave to cover their nonexistence from the labor force following the delivery of their baby (Cooklin, Rowe & Fisher2007, 1). Regardless of the legislative provision, voluntary maternity leave is still viewed as a privilege and not a basic right and lots of employees felt that they were not capable to request this right during their pregnancy. Over 54 per cent was not capable to access salaried maternity leave (Cooklin, Rowe & Fisher2007, 1). These women were forced to depend on sick leave or go with no any independent revenue of their own following childbirth. It was also found that admission to maternity leave was excessively higher for women who were employed in professional, associate professional and executive occupations. Only a few informed employees and workplaces were able to execute and access unpaid leave condition and females who were already marginalized in the labor force were further disadvantaged by not having any proceeds protection or any assured job to return to following the birth (Cooklin, Rowe & Fisher2007, 1). The alarming result in this study was that roughly one in five women reported pregnancy-related prejudice at their workplace throughout their pregnancy. Cases in point of this included humiliating, bullying, offensive comments, or derisive remarks. Some women’s works were terminated right away when they exposed their pregnancy, while others had openings withdrawn or were ignored for training, promotion or development. All of these findings refute the claim that both women and men experience similar challenges at the workplace. Indeed, the results have proven that, in addition to pregnancy-related discrimination, women experience other forms of prejudices which are hardly experienced by men. Barriers to Addressing This Problem There are numerous barriers that have continued to perpetuate discrimination against women at the workplace. Barriers preventing women from climbing up the corporate ladder have been blamed for the augmented cases of many things including work relationships that offer them with job security. Recently, women have also has been having access to increasing opportunities to progress to senior positions within firms, but they are also experiencing numerous barriers climbing up the ladder to the highest position (Williams 2004, 472). One major barrier to ending discrimination against women is the fact that females continue to be perceived as less skilled compared to their male counterparts. Recent studies unswervingly reveal that both women and men rank women as less proficient than men who have the same or lower levels of expertise and experience (White 2008, 1). A good case in point of the problem skilled women face was offered by the response to McCain selection of Sarah Palin as his mate during the United States presidential elections. Although Palin has a vast executive experience than any other candidate, numerous people including commentators in the mass media straight away questioned her proficiency to lead the nation if anything happened to McCain. Occupational segregation is another barrier that has continued to perpetuate discrimination against women at the workplace in modern working environments. Occupational segregation presupposes that the work-related distribution of people is based on ascribed characteristics (which in this context are gender) (Hurst 2007, 21). More often than not, men and women are viewed as having different capabilities. By default, they can only be able to fit well in specific occupations and not others. For example, men are thought to be physically strong and consequently more fitted for labor-intensive and the more physically-involving works. In the same way, professions also tend to be grouped according to the authority, esteem, and income they provide to an individual. Conventionally, women have been constrained from holding job positions that provide higher esteem, wages, and power. The post-World war II era has seen a noteworthy rise in the number of women joining the workforce. This has drastically contributed to occupational separation. In many organizations, placement to various employment positions has been for the most part determined by the comparative masculinity or femininity supposedly associated with a particular profession (Burstein 1994, 56). Increasingly, certain professions have become gender-oriented. For example, professions such as engineering and management are for the most part seen as the domain of men. In contrast, women are viewed as more fitting in professions such as teaching and nursing (Cotter, Hermsen & Vanneman 2000, 31). According to information collected from the 2000 census, U.S women control the service sector. In Hurst’s (2007) view, supremacy of women in the service segment serves to reinforce the conventional gender roles that encourage discrimination against women at the workplace (59). In the past, the justice system has been unenthusiastic to join in employee-employer disputes relating to discrimination particularly during promotion. Even in cases in which the incidence of dubious promotion processes is observable, courts may be unable to make up their mind to overrule employer’s decision to deny promotion to employees as that decision may be grounded on ignorant judgment rather than inequitable treatment. Unless an employee’s professional qualifications, when analyzed with those of the member of staff who has been moved through the ranks, are much better that the employer’s underlying principle for the promotion should be perceived as an alleged reason or maneuver for discrimination, the employee will not in general prevail except in cases where he or she is competent to submit independent or impartial proof of a discriminative motive. Discrimination against women at the workplace has also been attributed to statistical chauvinism. Statistical favoritism shows the likelihood that women will be prevented from accessing specific occupational fields. The fundamental rationale in the implementation of such prejudicial policies is the conviction that women employees will sooner or later abandon their jobs, possibly due to marriage or pregnancy (Burstein 1994, 66). As a result, employers tend to place women in comparatively cul-de-sac or less mobile positions. The obtainable body of evidence tends to portray liberal countries (for instance, Canada and the United States) as more susceptible to workplace discrimination, and thus more probable to embrace remedial actions such as affirmative action. Nevertheless, a study conducted by Mano-Negrin (2004, 472) suggests that discrimination against women is common in socio-democratic and the more conventional systems (such as Australia and Germany). The major factor accounting for this inclination is that the larger proportion of women found in the civic sector, which has over and over again been described as a poorly paying sector. Despite anticipation of a more meritocratic wage system in the responsive regimes, a managerial position does not automatically improve women’s chances for avoiding discrimination even in the public segment. Conclusion From the ongoing debate, it is clear that discrimination against women still remains rampant at the workplace. The available body of evidence suggests that despite the fact that the workplace is becoming warmer and fairer to women, they are still overwhelmingly being treated in a different way. It has frequently been argued that women are less qualified than men but in reality more women are graduating from colleges and universities and this should translate into increased employment opportunities for women, but as found out most women continue to have less chances of receiving superior pay and promotion notwithstanding having achieved higher levels of education. Promotion in workplaces is also discriminative against women with some of them having to labor for longer periods before obtaining promotion that would allow them to in due course reach higher positions that offer superior pay. Not only is discrimination against women perpetuated in terms of underprivileged pay but also it also emerges in the form of ill-advised humiliating, bullying, offensive comments, or derisive remarks and withdrawal of training, promotion or development . Women have incessantly been discriminated against in terms of earnings with most women remaining in low-wage employment. This calls for a methodical re-evaluation of the current policies and laws enacted with the objective of abolishing discrimination and promoting evenhandedness at the workplace. Bibliography Burstein, P 1994, Equal employment opportunity: labor market discrimination and public policy, Aldine Transaction, Edison. Cooklin, A Rowe, H & Fisher, J 2007, Workplace discrimination continues for women, retrieved March 24, 2010 < http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6656> Cotter, D Hermsen, J & Vanneman, R 2000, The American people census 2000: gender inequality at work, Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Gregory, R 2002, Women and Workplace Discrimination: Overcoming Barriers to Gender Equality, Rutgers University Press, New Jersey. Hurst, C 2007, Social inequality, Pearson Education, Inc, Boston. Mano-Negrin, R 2004, Gender inequality and employment policy in the public sector: a cross-national comparison of women managers’ wages in five industrialized countries. Administration and Society, vol. 36, no.2, pp.454-477. Mueller, C 1987, The Politics of the Gender Gap: The Social Construction of Political Influence, SAGE Publications, University of Michigan Johnson, B 2007, Understanding racial inequality in the American workplace: the persistence of the principle-implementation gap and its relationship to social dominance orientation and modern racism, Columbia University press, New York Takala, T 2007, Charismatic Leadership and ethics from Gender Perspective, vol. 12, no.2, pp. 1239-2685. Vianello, M and Renata, S 1990, Gender Inequality: A Comparative Study of Discrimination and Participation, Newbury Park, SAGE Publications, California Williams, C 2004, Inequality in the toy store, Qualitative Sociology, vol. 27, no.4, pp. 461-486. Wellington, S 2008, Women and men have equal aspirations in the workplace, retrieved March 24, 2010 White, M 2008, Women: an Untapped Talent, retrieved March 24, 2010 Read More