Pitchkar 1 Aliona Pitchkar Professor Koplow English 101 8 December 2005 Sex Discrimination in the USA: Oppression of Females in Work, Athletics, Economics and Politics For millions of years human life has prevailed on Earth. Throughout the entire existence of mankind, the human race has made massive breakthroughs in the every aspect of knowledge and innovation. Although people have committed terrible atrocities and mistakes in the past, humans like to pride themselves on the ability to learn from our mistakes. When we look back on times of legal racial and ethnic discrimination against African Americans we become marveled with how such circumstances could have occurred, yet to this day many people remain completely unaware of both the obvious and subtle discriminatory lifestyles of Americans. Naturally, America is considered a land of the free and a home for the brave. Yet how can a land be free and brave when there is oppression of minorities? Throughout all of our experiences in history Americans still do not seem to realize the stupidity and emptiness of discrimination against others. Among the minorities which are most commonly associated with discrimination, such as African Americans and Latinos, women remain a seldom mentioned group. Yet female discrimination is one of the most harmful components of American society. Women in the United States are unjustly subject to prejudice and discrimination occupationally, economically, athletically, politically, legally, and socially. However, for each example of discrimination there are numerous successful women who have overcome the obstacles and
Pitchkar 2 made it to the top – looking at them it is difficult not to label the discrimination of females as an absolutely ridiculous concept. Occupational segregation by sex is extensive in every region of the US and it is one of the most important and enduring aspects of labor markets throughout the nation (Anker, 2004). Sex based discrimination is defined by Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary as the systematic treatment of one sex differently from the other (2005). Occupational sex discrimination can occur in two ways, disparate treatment or disparate impact. The former implies common outright discrimination. Disparate treatment involves treating a person in obviously unfair ways simply due to a single characteristic, in this example sex. Disparate impact is generally discriminating against an entire group of employees whom are guaranteed equal treatment by national laws. Seeing as how gender is supposedly a protected class in America, every individual belongs to at least one protected group. In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, employment in particular jobs may not be limited to individuals of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can show that one of these factors is an actual and necessary qualification for performing the job, also referred to as a bona fide occupational qualification, or BFOQ (“Bona Fide Occupational Qualification”). In other words, a job qualification can only be gender-based if the employer can demonstrate that almost all members of the excluded gender cannot successfully perform the job. Research done by sociologist Richard Anker proved some interesting theories regarding sex discrimination. It would seem obvious that excluding a group of potentially skilled workers from a vast amount of occupations is wasteful of human resources, increases labor market inflexibility, and reduces the economy’s ability to adjust to change; yet despite all these realizations discrimination is still at large in the US. In the case of the United States vs. the Commonwealth of Virginia, the US accused the Virginia Military Institute (VMI)
Pitchkar 3 of harboring sexual discrimination due to their male-only admissions policy. Although the VMI openly admitted this was a case of disparate treatment against females wishing to attend the prestigious military university, the Institute attempted to use BFOQ as a defense, arguing the necessity of not destroying a method that was essential to its institutional identity (“Bona Fide Occupational Qualification”). This was clearly unjust because as the attorney proved, numerous women were serving in the military at the time and it was ridiculous to claim these women fit for the army but not fir for an army-inspired university. The Supreme Court decided that VMI’s views were strictly speculative and quite stereotypical, and ruled in favor of the United States. Considering the fact that more women graduate from universities each year than men, and that the general population of America is more compiled of women, is would seem reasonable for women to be amply represented in a wide range of occupations. Since this is not the case, the only explanation is the presence of discrimination. One of the most overt forms of occupational sex discrimination is the enormous genderpay gap between males and females in the same line of work. In the US today, the most femaledominated occupational group is undoubtedly the clerical category (Solberg, 1999). For example, being a secretary (one of the most common “female” occupations in the world) requires considerably more knowledge and skills and makes more mental demands than being a deliverytruck driver (one of the most common “male” ones); yet secretaries receive lower pay (Anker, 2004). Anker proposes that this gap is due in part to segmentation. Segmentation explains the low wage rates in “female” occupations because many women workers are overcrowded into a small number of jobs, whereas “male” occupations benefit from reduced competition within a wider set of occupations, and therefore receive higher pay. Whether comparing pay computed on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, among both agricultural and manufacturing workers, men earn
Pitchkar 4 more money than women. Average female-male pay ratios in the US on a monthly basis, are that a female worker makes 60 cents for every dollar earned by her male counterpart. Another major source of female-male wage differentials is that men are three times as likely as women to have better quality jobs in the same occupation (Anker, 2004). Sociologists have coined the term “glass ceiling” to describe an invisible ceiling which ensures women will only go so far on the corporate ladder. In his study Anker compressed all the stereotypical views about women into five “negative” stereotypes: disinclination to supervise others, lesser physical strength, lesser ability in science and math, lesser willingness to travel, and lesser willingness to face physical danger. These stereotypes are the typical excuses made by employers when discriminating against females in occupations such as manager, supervisor, government executive, legal official, construction worker, miner, driller, scientist, architect, engineer, aircraft worker, ship worker, transport operator, fire fighter, police officer, and security guard – all positions dominated by males. According to new research from the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), women are up to four times more likely to take a job below their skill levels. As it has been demonstrated, occupational segregation by sex has unfortunately persisted rather strongly despite recent major increases in the education and labor force commitment of women (Anker, 2004). All of these findings and stereotypes seem to be discredited when examining the immense achievements made by successful women around the world. Although only a small 7%, thirty-five of the people on Forbe’s World’s Richest People list were women. Of all the names, one woman truly stands out – Oprah Winfrey. Winfrey is not only a billionaire, she is completely self-made. Her family had absolutely no previous wealth or valued possessions. Proudly accepting the title of the first woman in history to own and produce her own television talk show, and topping the charts with her skyrocketing TV show ratings, Oprah gradually broke through
Pitchkar 5 the glass ceiling and is now one of the most successful, capable, and wealthy people in the world! According to research by sociologist Berta Esteve-Volart, excluding women from any labor market activity is clearly damaging for economic growth (2004). Volart contributes a great deal of the economic discrimination faced by females to social norms which make it more difficult for women to work outside the home, which in effect hinders economic development. Before discussing the social discrimination which contributes to the overall discrimination of females it is important to note exactly how this has affected the economy of the United States. Based on Volart’s study, the economic costs of discrimination against women in the labour market are big: a 10% increase in the female-to-male ratio of managers could potentially increase Grosse Daily Profit (GDP) per capita by 2%, while a 10% increase in the female-to-male ratio of total workers in the labour market would increase GDP per capita by 8%. Data from the International Labour Office for 1995 shows that even in the United States, one of the most developed countries in the world, the average percentage of female workers in managerial positions is less than 30%. A 2002 study of US Labour Market Economics done by economist Dwayne Benjamin and his colleagues attributed leading causes of female discrimination to the preference a male has for working with – and especially being supervised by – other males, and employers’ erroneous information on the labour market worth of females. Another assumption is that females are relatively immobile – they are seen as tied to their husbands’ place of employment, the best home for their children, etc. Econometric studies have estimated the separate impact of the many determinants of wages with the intent of isolating a pure malefemale wage differential that remains after controlling for the effect of productivity-related factors, and empirical studies have shown that most of the wage gap between men and women
Pitchkar 6 cannot be explained by different endowments of productive characteristics and is thus attributed to discrimination (Benjamin, 2002). Although females are highly discriminated against in the economy of the US, there are still undoubtedly several women who have overcome the barriers and risen above it all, once again discrediting the validity of gender discrimination. The purpose an organization known as the Global Summit of Women is the premier gathering of women business, professional and governmental leaders from around the globe to advance women’s economic and entrepreneurial progress worldwide (“Global Summit of Women”). There were three winners awarded in 2005 for their immense achievements. Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, was the first woman head of state to become President. Robinson served on the International Commission of Jurists, the Advisory Committee of Interights, and is on many boards including the Irish Chamber Orchestra and the Vaccine Fund. Dr. Neleen Heyzer was the first executive director from the South to head the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). Heyzer’s hard work in strengthening women’s economic security and rights, and promoting women’s leadership in conflict resolution truly makes her deserving of the prestigious award. Heyzer was a key player in the Security Council’s adoption of Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. The third winner of the Summit’s award was Dr. Ela Bhatt. Dr. Bhatt founded South Asia’s first labor and trade union for women, the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA). These three incredible women are just a few of those working against all odds to combat female discrimination in relation to economics all around the world. Up till this point it may seem unlikely for such blatant forms of gender discrimination to still exist in a society which prides itself in being highly development and pro-equality oriented. Yet most of the disadvantages women face in the workplace and consequently in the economy
Pitchkar 7 still exist today due to the discrimination women receive legally. Legal forms of sex discrimination still thrive in the military and in private employment (Katz, 2005). According to law professor Anne Coughlin it is implied in the US Constitution that laws should be blind and neutral and not draw distinction based on sex (2005).During his speech nominating a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, President George W. Bush highlighted Judge Samuel Alito’s military service and honorable discharge as a captain; Coughlin theorized that the emphasis on military service as a credential for various positions, even those in which it may not be directly relevant, places women at a distinct disadvantage (Katz, 2005). Female participation in the military is slowly but surely on the rise, although the group as a whole remains severely underrepresented. In 2001 women made up a mere 15.5% of the US Army, 18.3% of the Air Force, and 13.3% of the Navy (Shepard, 2005). Legally women in the United States are excluded from the draft and from combat. Although this form of discrimination may seem favorable to some women it still undermines the law’s ability to effectively support equal rights. Coughlin argued that although many women are in favor of female exclusion from the draft because they do not want to fight, many men also do not want to fight, and female equality in the military would result in more advantages than disadvantage for females (2005). In fact, many of the excuses used to justify why women should not be allowed into the military are the same ones once used to explain why African American men were not worthy of serving either, and have obviously proved to be untrue. In effect, the law is sometimes completely incapable of promoting legal justice even in cases where discrimination is obvious. According to the US Civil Rights Commission, more than 800 sections of the US legal code are sexually biased, perhaps due to the fact that these laws are long overdue for some change (Shepard, 2005). The state of Georgia for example, still has a law
Pitchkar 8 which defines a woman’s legal existence as “merged in the husband” (Shepard, 2005). In a case brought before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2004, a female casino employee questioned the legality of requiring female employees to wear makeup and to wear their hair long and curled – whereas male employees were not allowed to put on makeup, and their appearance standards were less expensive to fulfill (Katz, 2005). The court however denied the employee’s rights, stating the legal right of the employer to dictate the appearances of workers and denied sex discrimination has taken place. The US Supreme Court also refused to grant women the legal guarantee of health insurance benefits for pregnancy-related medical costs, despite the fact that medical coverage for medical conditions unique to men – such as prostate problems and vasectomies – are routinely provided (Shepard, 2005). One of the most controversial areas of sex discrimination in the legal world is the issue of rape. According to sociologist Jon Shepard “nowhere is sexism more explicitly built into the language and application of the law” (2005). A common assumption is that women lie about the occurrence of rape and therefore no prosecution can occur unless there is distinct evidence rape has taken place. Women raped without witnesses often receive little or no legal protection. In the 1990s a Wisconsin judge refused to send a convicted rapist to prison on the grounds that the way women dress causes men to lose control (Shepard, 2005). In terms of gender discrimination in the legal world several obstacles still remain to tackle. One of the most successful women to overcome legal sex prejudices was Jewish attorney Ruth Rabstein Pelletieri. Pelletieri was part of the legal team for the “Trenton Six” during a landmark 1950s civil-rights trial and thus became one of the most influential female attorneys of her time (McCrone, 2005). Attorney Anne McHugh described Pelletieri as a pioneer when women were not as prominent in the legal profession (2005). After her graduation from Rutgers
Pitchkar 9 School of Law in Newark in 1934 Ruth experienced much difficulty finding a job because women had yet to gain more acceptances in the world of law enforcement. Throughout her lifespan Pelletieri continuously pressed for women’s equality in the courtroom. Not only did this remarkable woman overcome her personal hardships to make it as a successful lawyer, she was also the founder of the Women Lawyers’ Caucus and was always a strong believer in a woman’s place at the bar. Considering the various aspects of life affected by sex discrimination in America it is not surprising that women are subject to prejudice in politics as well. Despite the fact that most people and governments agree that the promotion of gender balance in political life is essential, the exclusion of women from the political arena is still a fact today (Makram Ebeid, 2005). Marginalization refers to the exclusion of a certain group of people, in this case women, from participation in running public affairs and making decisions which affect the nation. The political marginalization of women therefore, can be simply traced back to the conditions of those institutions participating in the decision making process, and the proportion of female representation in such institutions (Komsan, 1997). A common misconception of American culture is that it is a woman’s role to care for her house and family, while it is a mans duty to run state affairs and participate in public works. Although the United States prides itself on being a democratic nation, a true democracy is characterized by the full and equal participation of women in both formulating and implementing decisions in all spheres of public life (Makram Ebeid, 2005). In all levels of political systems in the US today, gender discrimination is evident. A sociopolitical study conducted in 2002 came back with results which mirrored every other aspect of America’s society: in cities of over 30,000 people only 20% had female mayors, less than one fourth of state legislators were women, only 25% of governors were women, and
Pitchkar 10 although women comprise 51% of the US population they occupied only 14% of the seats in the House of Representatives (Shepard, 2005). And although females make up 40% of the federal workforce, at this point in time only 29 women have ever served as Presidential cabinet officers. As in every other field already discussed, there are numerous women today who are living proof that the discrimination of women in politics is unjust and unwise. One such woman is Dr. Condoleezza Rice who became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs on January 22, 2001. As a professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford University faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors – the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching (“Biography of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Natl. Security Advisor”). Dr. Condoleezza has paved the road for female progress in American politics and even continues to serve on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Military. Despite all the other aspects of discrimination in American society, perhaps one of the most controversial and distinguished areas of overt gender discrimination today occurs in athletics. Males today control pretty much all the structural levels of sport – advertising, coaching, etc. Several studies have shown that female sports are frequently ignored in terms of media coverage or they receive substantially less coverage than male sports. A 1999 study of the Globe and Mail sports section for one particular Saturday found that only a very small percentage of coverage concerned female sports (Lineker, 1999). If and when female athletes do actually receive coverage from the media, they are often depicted as inferior to male athletes, or are described to have unfeminine characteristics due to their athletic physiques. Another sexist trademark of female athletic teams is the common addition of feminine suffixes to sports teams
Pitchkar 11 comprised of women, the Tigerettes for example. Even successful female athletes receive far less sponsorships than their male counterparts. Most sponsors argue that due to the fact that the majority of sports fans are male they are trying to target their largest audience by sponsoring primarily male athletic events. The discrimination of women in sports however, reaches far beyond a professional level. In March of 2004 a group of female Alhambra High School students filed a class-action suit against the Alhambra School District and several officials, alleging that their high school unfairly favored boys’ sports over girls’ sports by giving the boys more athletic equipment, facilities, resources, and opportunities to excel (“Female High School Athletes Expose Unequal Sports Facilities…”). Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendment bars all forms of sex discrimination in education and is supported by several research studies which indicate that teenage girls who play sports are half as likely to become pregnant as girls who do not play sports and are much more likely to graduate from high school and college. According to Pat Shiu, Director of the Gender Equity Program at the Legal Aid Society, girls who play sports are healthier, more confident, and possess the vital skills and leadership techniques developed through participation in athletics, in turn making them more likely to succeed academically and professionally (2004). In general it can be seen that the lack of gender equality in sports is due to a complex, ongoing discrimination practiced by the media, corporate sponsors, and the male dominated sports world (Lineker, 1999). Without even taking into account the numerous studies which recommend equal rights for women in sports, it is still evident that discrimination is unjust by examining the results of the 2004 Olympic Games at Athens. In the US alone, female Olympians won medals in over 40 events. Nineteen year old Mariel Zagunis took home the women’s gold medal in fencing for the
Pitchkar 12 first time in 100 years. Female athletes dominated team sporting events, capturing the gold in basketball, softball, beach volleyball, and soccer (Shevin, 2005). American gymnast Carly Patterson became the women’s all-around champion and was the second female in US history to ever earn that medal. Although most of the media coverage was focused on talented Michael Phelps who took home the gold medal for swimming, it is equally important to note that Natalie Coughlin, his female counterpart, also took home a gold medal for her equal success. Swimmer Jenny Thompson won her 11 th Olympic medal, bringer her career total to equal the record shared by swimmer Mark Spitz, shooter Carl Osburn, and swimmer Matt Biondi – all males – for the most overall Olympic medals ever won by a US athlete (Shevin, 2005). According to Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women, “The sad truth is that despite three decades of Title IX, women athletes continue to get fewer teams, fewer scholarships and lower budgets. Each year male athletes receive $133 million, or 36%, more than female athletes in college athletic scholarship at Nation Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) member institutions” (2005). As Gandy contends, the stellar performances of the women of the US Olympic team show that when girls and women have access to a level playing field, anything is possible (2005). Having already demonstrated the extreme levels of discrimination experience by women in virtually all aspects of social life it is important to note the root of these problems – American social norms. In America’s society it has somehow been predetermined that household work and child care are the sole responsibility of a women, while being the breadwinner of the family is perceived to be a mans responsibility. A study by sociologist Richard Anker concluded that girls receive less education than boys and are less encouraged to pursue fields of study involving sciences and mathematics, which are currently of greater relevance to the labour market (Anker,
Pitchkar 13 1998). Another daily biased practice is the way American society judges the worth of its members, for males by performance, and for females by physical appearance. However, evidence has shown that working-class husbands with wives in the labor force often do not participate very much in domestic tasks. Gender socialization to America’s young is the key proponent of gender inequality in our society. One study which examined over 2,700 children’s stories found 5 stories about boys for every 2 stories about girls, 119 biographies of men compared with 27 biographies of women, and 65 stories degrading girls compared with only 2 degrading boys (Shepard, 2005). In another study concerning children’s books, 80% of the pictures of women showed them wearing an apron; the few books which pictured women working outside the home showed them in jobs which were traditional feminine occupations, such as teaching and nursing (Shepard, 2005). It can be inferred that the basis for the discrimination of women in all major aspects of society lies in the social upbringing of young Americans. Unfortunately, until the socialization process can be fully amended to adequately portray women and men equally, little change can be expected to take place in the individual arenas of sex discrimination.