Gender Divisions and Differences in Work

Gender Divisions and Differences in WorkToday, wo attain force hand gained a innovative fair to middlingity with existence index. This linear perspective is indisputableThis review explores the coetaneous literature on the depicted object of wo hands and blend in in the dead of the paint a pictureion that wo workforce save indisputably gained a new equation with manpower. Overwhelming evidence has been free-base for the persistence of knowledgeable urge in luciferities which put to constraint to disadvantage women in the context of subject, including house servant calculate, although it is neaten that providing explanations for this phenomenon has shown that the termination is intricate and highly contested. It is argued that a redefinition and re-interpretation of the inter-dependence in the midst of paid and undischarged work, c ar and unfilled is needed.There gullms no doubt that in order for in that respect to be a great measure of real grammati cal sexual urge equality, green-begetting(prenominal) identity, in particular, must beer-examined and heightend. It seems clear that interrogation and constitution argon nidusing to a greater extent than than than on the ship canal in which caring, in particular, is perceived and constructed in gender terms. However, in order to effect real change in gender equality, it is argued that there must be recognition of the myriad of ways in which two(prenominal)(prenominal) masculinities and femininities argon constructed and interact with each other in this daedal field.Chapter One IntroductionThe focus of this literature review is upon the theme of women and work within the context of the premise that women render gained an indisputable equality with men. Whilst it seems, in theory, more equitable, to deport entangled commentary and research in equal amounts from men and women, an exploration of the literature revealed a far greater contri andion to the debate from w omen than from men, perhaps by virtue of womens apprehension of their own disadvantaged position, and this bias is consequently reflected in the variety of sources observed.lit search was conducted within a University library database, using the search criteria women and work and gender equality and work and this yielded inlet to a selection of books and articles. The sources selected for comprehension in the review were restricted to those which unique(predicate) completelyy focus upon gender differences and inequalities in the realm of work, defined in its widest sense to include that undertaken within the phratry as well as work in the formal ride trade. Due to the plethora of writing and research in this field, the decision was make to restrict sources to those drived within the last ten years, thus maintaining a climatern-day focus, although references atomic number 18 made to earlier works.Chapter topics reflect the themes which emerged from the literature. Chapte r Two presents a historical overview of womens meshing and the major political orientation by which it has been underpinned in British society together with the ways in which the assorted material bodys of involution betwixt men and women give up served to disadvantage women, particularly in stinting terms. Chapter nonpareil-third explores women as employees in more depth, particularly the ways in which organisations, occupations and expanses of work are profoundly gendered and how this, again, seems to work against women, although it will be shown that this is a contested area.The focus in Chapter Four is upon domestic drudge and the ways in which its traditional construction as womens work has been strongly contested. The diametrical ways in which work is itself construed, in two the traditional military personnel of work and the private domain, sets the scene for a change of emphasis. The literature reflects a movement, in Chapter Five, from a concentration upon th e inequalities and injustices heaped upon women by means of patriarchal structures towards a redefinition of the name issues through an exploration of the change magnitudely blurred distinctions amid paid work, unpaid domestic work, care and leisure.A reinterpretation of caring and how this may be structured into the discourse on gender and work has been highlighted. It is argued that there is a clear need for more serious account to be taken of the lived experiences of both men and women, to celebrate, rather than denigrate, gender differences and to strive to understand the ways in which lots(prenominal) differences are constructed in ways which may disadvantage both men and women.Chapter Two The nature and extent of womens employment galore(postnominal) commentators wear noned the different ways in which women and men have organized their lives together and how the work that each undertakes has changed and developed over age (Crompton, 1997 assumet,1997). Crompton (199 7) describes how the gender division of push originated from, and was profoundly reshaped by, the advent of industrialisation in Britain.By the turn of the 20th century, men became increasingly associated with paid or market work, whilst women were identified with the househ honest-to-god and non-market work. This burn became intimately connected with an political theory of womanhood which in effect served to exclude women from market work. As Crompton asserts, the priapic-breadwinner model emerged from the ideology of relegate spheres in which the pedestal and domestic sphere was defined as be farsighteding to women, whilst that of the outside worldly concern including the workplace was defined as that of men (1997, p.8).There seems lower-ranking doubt, as will become clear afterwards in this review, that assuming the main office for household tasks and child-rearing has had a of import impact upon womens intricacy in market work.The idea that this indebtedness is w hateverhow natural can be said to underpin legion(predicate) family-related explanations for womens doings in the cranch market, however, this is clearly a disputatious issue. Those who support the view that the gender division of promote manifested in like a shots society is rooted in biological differences mingled with the sexes include hakeem (1995 1996) and Browne (1998).Hakim (1995), for example, sets out to explain the particular patterns of womens employment in Britain and how they are distinct from those of men. She draws on findings from the socio-biological field which cite male traits of aggressiveness, dominance and competitiveness as rooted in hormonal differences surrounded by men and women. These natural masculine traits are seen as submissive in the disproportionate participation and success of men in the employment sphere.In similar vein, Browne (1998) argues, that biologic whollyy influenced sex differences in behaviour have important ramifications for the occupational choices made by men and women in the on the job(p) sphere and their differential employment patterns.Whilst clearly decrying outright sexual disagreement, Browne suggests that untold of the glass ceiling and gender time out is the produce of basic biological sex differences in ainity and temperament playacting in the context of the modern beat back market and that these differences are the proceeds of differential re plenteous strategies followed by the two sexes during the course of gentleman exploitation (1998, p.5). Browne argues that instead of denying the reality of these natural sex differences in the pursual of soci only(a)y constructed explanations for the gender gap, it will be more productive for feminists, in particular, to embrace them and incorporate them into future discourse about work.Hakim (1995 1996) is also critical of feminist commentators on womens employment, such as Wallaby (1990), who have suggested that occupational segregation, the construction of womens jobs as separate from mens jobs, has been a mechanism through which women have been consistently denied advance to jobs by men.Hartmann (1982), as cited by Crompton (1997), described the rationale croup occupational segregation by sex as the mechanism through which mens superiority over women is maintained by enforcing degrade remuneration for women in the labour market in order moderate their dependence on men. Hartmann (1982) asserts that men benefit from both higher meshs and the domestic division of labour and thus, the latter, in turn, serves to perpetuate womens modest position in the labour market (Crompton,1997, p.11). Hakim argues against this compendium, however, suggesting that the different pattern of womens labour-force participation and work commitment is due to womens choices match to their tastes and preferences. Hence, some women choose to give more priority to their domestic share and child-rearing and little to their employment c areers, though, for example, work part- epoch rather than full-time or opting for less(prenominal) demanding occupations (Hakim, 1996).Hat (1997) discusses the issue of gender and work from an economic perspective and points out that the labour resources of an economy include women and men engaging in productive natural process in both the labour market and the household. The working creation, however, is term most often used, particularly by economists, to describe those women and men who are engaged in paid employment, self-employment, in Forces, on work-related fosterage schemes or registered as unemployed.This effectively excludes all those women or men in the unpaid domain and full-time homemakers. Hat (1997) records that in1993, in the 16 to 64 age group, 71% of all men and 53% of all women were take part in the working population. The cost Opportunities Commission report that in the alike age group in 2004, over 83% of men and 70% of women were economically active (EO C, 2005, p.8). Although caution is needed in comparisons between different sets of statistics, it seems clear that a larger proportion of men than of women insert in the working population but the gap would seem to be closing.It is notable, however, that patterns of labour force participation by women and men are both distinct and different. Hat (1997) notes that, in 1993, for prime age male workers aged 24 to 49, participation rates were over 90%, declining after the age of 50. For women in 1993, the participation rate was 71% for the age range 24 to 34, fall to 54%for women with a child under 5 years old, increasing again as children enter school.Similarly, in 2004, 52% of mothers with children under 5years old were in employment, of these women, around 66% were working part-time. Crompton (1997) observes that almost all of the increase in womens employment in Britain from the 1950s until the 1980s was impart-time work. This trend is foster underlined in the latest statistics i n that nearly half of all women (44%) and about 10% of all men work part-time (EOC, 2005).As the statistics show, clearly women are more likely than men to work on a part-time basis. Writers seem divided as to explanations for this phenomenon. Wallaby (1990), for example, has suggested that the intricacy of part time employment represents a kind of capitalist, patriarchal conclave in which chiefly male employers have secured womens cheap and pliant labour, whilst at the same time freeing women to draw out undertaking domestic labour in the home. Crompton(1997), also, notes that part-time work.has a reputation of universe insecure, low-paid and with little by way of training or promotion prospects (p.33). She cites Beeches and Perkins (1987) who suggest that certain(p) jobs were actually constructed as part-time jobs because they were seen as womens jobs, forever low graded and rarely defined as skilled (Crompton, 1997, p.33). new(prenominal) writers, such as Hakim (1996), den y the assertion that employers have seek to construct poor work for women, asserting instead that it is women themselves who have demanded part-time work to fit in with their other domestic responsibilities employers have plainly responded to meet this demand (Hakim, 1996). Evidence from research by Rubbery et al(1994), however, suggests that not exactly is part-time work less flexible than full-time work and of inferior quality, but also it has been developed largely to suit the require of the employer. Since most part-time workers are women, it is women who are most affected by the disadvantages associated with this mode of work.Chapter Three Women as employeesHat (1997) traces the changes in the working population and employment patterns of men and women in recent decades, pointing out that whilst there has been a decline in male employment since 1980, female employment since that time has increased. She cites the official census data from 1994 which revealed that this latte r increase was due to a greater proportion of mothers entering paid employment (Hatt,1997). It has been well-documented that within the labour market, women play a different role from men. As we have seen, women are more likely than men to work part-time and, as Hat observes, they also work in different industries from men, occupy different positions yet within mixed industries and are under-represented in senior positions(1997, p.17).Many commentators have noted that women are concentrated in certain industries and occupations, such as clerical work, catering, cleaning and caring work whereas men are more often found in the manufacturing sector and the construction industry, for example (Hat, 1997 Franks,1999 Moe, 2003). blush when women and men are found in the same sector, men pitch to occupy the more senior positions with women more often laid in the lower ranks of the hierarchy (Hat, 1997 Franks,1999).As Hat (1997) records, women are under-represented at senior-levels pass im all occupational categories (p.21). Crompton(1997) examines the banking industry, in some detail, as an example of the chemical reaction to labour market demands for low-level clerical workers. She describes how this industry, along with others such as insurance and local government, helped to generate a mass, feminized clerical labour force (Crompton, 1997, p.107).Both direct and indirect discriminatory practices against women within particular banks came to light and pressure from the Equal Opportunities Commission forced some important policy changes. Crompton (1997) acknowledges that there have been major changes to employment practices in the pecuniary sector in general, in by and by years, as far as gender equality is concerned.She cites structural factors, such as the demand for labour and the placement of the labour process alongside male exclusionary practices as the main contributors to the poor position of female employees within the banking sector. She also conc edes, however, that despite recent reforms, women rest to far outweigh men in occupying low-level positions in banking.It is useful, at this point, to identify the key pieces of government legislation in the UK which have been intentional to directly address the issue of equal opportunities between women and men. The first is these disagreement Act 1975 which promoted the basic principle that men and women should not be less favourably enured by virtue of their sexier marital status.The other is the Equal Pay Act 1975 designed to outlaw discrimination between women and men in the same employment, in pay and other conditions regarding their contracts of employment. This Act was later amended in 1984 to incorporate the Equal Pay for Equal harbor principle. In addition to these Acts, the UK is also bound by Article 119 of the accord of Rome to uphold European Community equal treatment and equal pay directives (Griffin, 2002).The Equal Opportunities Commission, set up through the Sex dissimilarity Act of 1975, functions as the expert organisation on equality between women and men, its main tasks being to work towards the elimination of discrimination to promote equality of opportunity and to keep under review the effectiveness of the Sex inconsistency and Equal Pay Acts (Griffin, 2002, p.11).In the area of what has become known as the gender pay gap, it seems that, in general, the gap between male and female earnings has narrowed over the erstwhile(prenominal) 60 years, but the trend has been inconsistent. For example, female managers and administrators earned 55% of the annual earnings of their male counterparts on 1970, compared to only 33% in the mid 1920s (EOC,1999). However, this variety narrowed by only 1% in this field of work between the mid 1950s and 1970. Since 1970, although this gap has narrowed significantly with women earning 63% of the pay of their male counterparts, compared to 81% for 1998, it was noted that in all pagan groups, men hav e higher average hourly earnings than women(EOC, 1999, p.5).This statistical evidence for the steady narrowing of the gender pay gap places further in terms of the equality agenda. However, as Griffin (2002) observes, there are other relevant issues. She records that, when we look at all sources of income, including earnings from employment and self-employment, occupational pensions, investment and benefit income, womens income is significantly lower than that of men, apart from solid ground benefits.For example, figures taken from the EOC forth year 1996-7 showed that 45% of women had an income of less than atomic number 6 a week as compared with 20% of men (Griffin, 2002). More latterly, the EOC has save that the gender gap in terms of income has remained quite high, stating that the gender gap between women and mens mean individual incomes in 2002/3 was 46% (EOC, 2005).The EOC (2001) records that despite improvements in recent years, stereotyping remains evident in many prof essional occupations. Notwithstanding the evidence that greater numbers of women are entering certain professions, such as higher education or the law, womens share of higher level jobs remains generally low. veritable professional and technical occupations, the occupational segregation noted earlier, apparently continue to be heavily dominated by either men or women(EOC, 2001). Empirical studies, especially within the feminist perspective over the past two decades, have moved away from the study of organizational structures per se in order to seek explanations for this persistence in the positioning of men and women in the workplace.Writers such as Pringle (1988), Chodorow (1989) and Halford and Savage(1995), for example, have instead demonstrated how specific kinds of masculinities and femininities, and discourses of gender, are constructed within the workplace. The emphasis here is upon recognizing the diversity of discourses on what it is to be a male or female employee and, u ltimately, to avoid over-generalising about all men or all women. One example of this is illustrated by Crompton(1997) in her exposition of different masculinities in the banking industry.She charts the movement within managerial positions in banking from a need for solid, paternalistic men towards the requirement for a more competitive, assertive masculinity within selling culture. Crompton (1997), however, argues that although these discursive, post-modern insights do frequently to fire our understanding of the pattern of womens employment, and the different ways in which gender is constructed in the workplace, structural or material explanations remain important.Nazarko (2004) offers a contemporary analysis of the barriers faced by women in the workplace. She maintains that the drive for equal opportunities has in so far failed to challenge the premise that certain groups of workers such as women are less productive and less attractive to employers (p.25) or the assumption tha t older workers, including women, are less valuable. Nazarko highlights the popularity of organisational initiatives which promote diversity and difference in the field of human resources.Wilson and Iles (1999), for example, have argued that diversity care improves recruitment, retention and creativity within organisations (Nazarko, 2004, p.25). Nazarkocites researchers such as Rosner (1995) who have pointed out that women and men have different styles of working and managing. Women, for example, tend to use interactional styles in management, encouraging participation, sharing power and information and energising others. In contrast, men tend to use transactional styles, beholding pieces of works series of transactions.Both styles are seen as equally sensible and also, may be the preferred model for any individual, regardless of gender. It is argued, then, that both organisations and employees will benefit from initiatives which value diversity and difference, since people would be evaluated and treated as individuals, rather than asocial groups and associated stereotypical connotations. Nazarko(2004), however, fears that the diversity approach does not necessarily eliminate the power structures which persist in society. She argues that until female dominated professions such as nursing are valued as much as male dominated professions like the police force, it is difficult to see how gender equality can be attained.Chapter Four Domestic labour womens work?It is well-documented that the Industrial Revolution within the western world generated a distinction between paid work outside the home and unpaid domestic labour within the household. Mens economic activity came to be focused upon paid work, hence the male breadwinner model, whilst women have commonly divided their working lives between the unpaid domestic sphere and activity in the labour market. Hat(1997) represents the feminist approach to this issue by highlighting the way in which women have long been disadvantaged, particularly in economic terms, by their traditional domestic responsibilities. Not only does their focus upon unpaid domestic task constrain their participation in paid work, domestic work itself is an unpaid economic activity which has for too long passed unnoticed the skills, which the successful homemaker acquires, go unrecognized in wage and promotion schemes (Hat, 1997, p.50).The terms upon which both men and women are able to participate within the labour market are very different and in this respect, it would seem difficult to argue for a level of equality between the sexes. Many commentators have noted, household and child-rearing duties weigh more heavily upon women than men and have traditionally been excluded from economic analyses of participation in work in the widest sense(Crompton, 1997 Hat, 1997 Franks, 1999). As Hat observes household responsibilities and paid employment are both valid productive activities but they are not equally rewarded by s ociety(1997, p. 49).DE et al (1995), in their analysis of the British Household empanel Survey in the mid 1990s, point out that very fewer men cited household or family responsibilities as affecting their labour market behaviour, whereas over 80% of women surveyed felt that their labour market participation had been adversely affected by these duties. As Franks(1999) points out, work has come to be alike with having a paid job and its counterpart is regarded as leisure.Thus, other kinds of activity such as cleaning the house, doing the shopping, cooking and caring for children and elderly relatives do not officially count as work, although for those involved, it may actually heart very much like work. Underpinning the traditional sexual division of labour is the idea that mens paid work is dependent upon a shadow economy of womens unpaid work (Franks, 1999).Thus, the increased participation of women in the formal paid workforce throws the spotlight onto the status of what had forever essentially been regarded as a labour of love. Franks (1999) presents the example of widowed fathers who do not receive the lump sums, tax allowances and continuing state benefits received by widowed mothers. A missing fathers financial contributions recognised, whereas a widowers deceased partner is considered to have had no economic value. One solution offered by some economists has been to officially regard this labour as a form of taxation whereby all of society benefits from it as if they were paying directly to the state (Franks, 1999).Other commentators (Charles and Kerr, 1999) Morris, 1999) have also stressed that despite the contemporary rhetoric of equality between the sexes, the traditional ideology which divides men and women into breadwinner and homemaker is still very much alive. Charles andKerr (1999), for example, point out that even where there may have been certain egalitarian sharing of domestic tasks within couples initially, once children arrive on the scene it is almost always the case that the woman takes on the business for child-care and household tasks whilst the man takes on the role of breadwinner.It is argued that although, ostensibly, this arrangement may appear to be complementary relationship with roles being different but equal, there is a differential allocation of power which renders women disadvantaged. On prominent up paid work outside the home, or taking on lower-paid, low-status part-time work, women relinquish their power and status, at least economically (Charles and Kerr, 1999). Having accountability for decisions about food purchase, or other household necessities, cooking and childcare, it is argued, effectively constitutes the exercise of power by women in other peoples interests. As Charles and Kerr suggest, most of them (women) carryout these tasks within a set of social relations which denies them power, particularly when they are at home all day with young children and are dependent for financial su pport on a man (1999, p.192).There is a large body of contemporary opinion, evident in the literature, which calls for a redress of balance between the fundamental economic shabbiness between men and women, particularly within the family unit which includes dependent children. Franks(1999), for example, suggests that there will never be genuine equality between men and women if male identity remains unaltered and unpaid work continues to be shuffled off onto women (p.4). Franks goes on to assert that in a market dodge where unpaid work is invisible, there is no incentive for men to change their identity to encompass low-status, financially worthless activity (1999, p.4).Crompton (1997) presented her own analysis of the relationship between employment and the family with particular reference to the extent to which there has been any change in the domestic division of labour. She acknowledges that there has been some change, albeit very slow, and she cites research byGershuny et al ( 1994) who describe the process as one of lagged adaptation in which changes tend to occur most often when women are engaged in full-time employment. Other researchers have found that although men, mainly middle-class men, have expressed a desire to become more involved in domestic and child care arrangements, there is little evidence that equal parenting is the reality (Lupton and Barclay, 1997).A more recent apprise by the Equal Opportunities Commission observes that there are many ways in which education, the family and access tithe labour market interact to produce different opportunities for women and men and which result in both men and women experiencing discrimination by virtue of gender. In relation to women in particular, this briefing comments that womens work should beer-evaluated, so that it is no longer undervalued and poorly paid(EOC, 2002, p.1). Hat, in her analysis of gender, work and labour markets, concluded that the domestic division of labour would certainly see m to lead to social injustice and it is debatable whether it furthers the cost-effective operation of the economy (1997, p.50).Vogel and comrade (1999) present an interesting exposition of the connections between money and power and men and women within households. Their own research found that, in general, the partner with the greater income was likely to be more supreme indecision-making, with women partners in paid employment having greater power than those who work only in the home. There appear to have been few large-scale studies which have focused upon the experiences of social equality, or inequality, between individual members of the same household.The research conducted by Vogel and Pal (1999) draws on typology, constructed by Pal (1989), of household financial allocation agreements, constituting the female whole-wage system, the housekeeping allowance system, the pooling system and the unconditional management system. In the female whole-wage system, women were stip ulation their husbands pay packet, and had doctor obligation for managing the whole household budget. In the housekeeping allowance system, the women were given a fixed sum for housekeeping expenses, the men having prime responsibility for other expenditure.The pooling system was used where partners pooled their earnings and shared access to and responsibility for managing expenditure from the common, joint fund. Finally, the independent management system operated where both partners had independent incomes (usually dual-earner couples), each partner taking responsibility for particular items of expenditure, although this may take leave over time.Vogel and Pal (1999) conducted a survey, combined with interviews, of1,211 couples across six British urban areas, covering Swindon, Aberdeen, Northampton, Coventry, Rochdale and Kirkcaldy. Respondents, aged between 20 and 60 years, were questioned on the household financial allocation system which came closest to their own mode of house hold finance management. By far the most common system used waste pool which was adopted by half of all the couples surveyed, with the remaining half choosing one of the other segregated systems (Voglerand Pal, 1999).The data was further analysed to determine the relationship between strategic financial control and access to money as a resource within the households studied. It was found that in the joint pooling households joint management was associated with both equal strategic control over finances and also with equal access to money as a resource (Vogel and Pal, 1999, p.143). In the female-controlled management systems, constituting just over two-fifths of the sample, a disjunction was found between control over finances and access to money as a resource.The researchers highlighted their finding that even where ostensibly, these women had greater financial control and power in decision-making, significantly higher levels of personal wishing were experienced by the women with t he men more likely to have more personal spending money than their female partners, especially in lower-income families.As Vogel and Pal observe, where the opportunities for exercising financial power are heavily trace by low income and by the husbands expectation of personal spending money, responsibility may be a more distract term than control (1999, p.144). This more detailed analysis presented by Vogel and Pal (1999), together with that of other researchers, such as Morris (1999), provides evidence for the ways in which patterns of gender and class inequalities tend to interlock to increase the differences between women and men.A different perspective upon the issue of gender differences and gender equality in the arena of household work and parenting is provided bother researchers. Doucette (1995), for example, highlights the tendency for debates on this issue to become focused upon the relationship between womens greater responsibility for household work and caring role, an d their relative inequality to men in employment and public life. She argues that whilst this is an important issue, insufficient account has been taken of the different configurations that gender differences may take within household life (Doucette, 1995, p.271).Doucette suggests that much of the literature on the gender division of household labour is situated within an equality or equal rights framework, which itself, tends to be constructed through a masculine perspective. For example, she argues that a male model of minimal participation in housework and child care is pitched in relation to a male model of full-time employment (Doucette, 1995, p. 274).Whilst it is clearly documented that womens employment is compromised through the need for women, as a