Gender Stratification Part 3-Income

Gender Stratification: Structural Sexism (Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht)

As most sociologists agree, the social structure underlies and perpetuates much of the sexism in society. Structural sexism, also known as institutional sexism, refers to the ways the organization of society and specifically its institutions subordinate individuals and groups based on their sex classification. Structural sexism has resulted in significant differences in the education and income levels, occupational and political involvement, and civil rights of women and men.

Income and Structural Sexism

In 2012, full-time working women in the United States earned, on the average, 81 percent of the weekly median earnings of full-time working men (Hegewisch et al. 2012). Further, cashiers, waitresses, maids and household cleaners, and retail sales workers, four of the most common occupations for women, have 40-hour-a-week median incomes below the federally established poverty level for a family of four (Hegewisch & Matite 2013).

The gender pay gap varies over time. By decade, in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010, women’s annual earnings as a percentage of men’s increased from 60 percent to 72 percent, 74 percent, and 77 percent, respectively. As indicated, closing the gender gap has slowed down since the 1980s and early 1990s (Hegewisch et al. 2012). At the present rate of progress, it is predicted that the gender gap will not be closed until 2057 (IWPR 2013).

Racial differences also exist. Although women, in general earn 81 percent as much as men, Black American women earn just 68 percent of white men’s salaries, and Hispanic American women earn just 59 percent of white men’s salaries (Hegewisch et al. 2012). Even among celebrities, a significant income gap exists. According to Forbes magazine, the maximum salary for a Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) player is $107, 000, while Kobe Bryant signed a contract for $30.5 million for the 2013-2014 season with the Los Angeles Lakers (Badenhausen 2013).

Why does the gender pay gap exist? There are several arguments as to why the gender pay gap exists One, the human capital hypothesis holds that pay differences between females and males are a function of differences in women’s and men’s levels of education, skills, training, work experience, and the like. For example, Rose and Hartman (2008), using a longitudinal data set, found that over a 15 year period, women worked fewer years than men and, when they worked, they worked fewer hours per year. Rose and Hartman concluded that over “…the 15 years, the more likely a women is to have dependent children and be married, the more likely she is to be a low earner and have fewer hours in the labor market” (Rose & Hartman 2008, p.1). Bertrand et al. (2009) reported similar findings, concluding that the “presence of children is associated with less accumulation of job experience, more career interruptions, and shorter work hours for female MBAs but not for male MBAs (p. 24). Based on their analysis, the authors concluded that a decade after graduation, female MBAs earn an average annual salary of $243,481 and male MBAs earn an average annual salary of $442,353. Lower incomes over time create a significant deficit later in life. This is particularly true given a woman’s higher life expectancy and the exhaustion of household savings when her husband becomes ill (Smith et al. 2012).

One variation of the human capital hypothesis is called the life-cycle human capital hypothesis. Here it is argued that women have less incentive to invest in education and marketable skills because they know that, as wives and mothers, they will be working less than their male counterparts and that their careers will be interrupted by family responsibilities. Alternatively, men’s incentives to acquire marketable skills increase with greater family responsibilities and it is this human capital difference, or so it is argued, that is responsible for the female-male pay gap (Polachek 2006).

Human capital theorists also argue that women make educational choices (e.g., school attended, major, etc.) that limit their occupational opportunities and future earnings. Women, for example, are more likely to major in the humanities , education, or the social sciences rather than science and engineering, which results in reduced incomes (Corbett & Hill 2012). Research also indicates, however, that after controlling for “college major, occupation, economic sector, hours worked, months unemployed since graduation, GPA, type of undergraduate institution, institution selectivity, age, geographical region, and marital status…a 7 percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation was still unexplained” (Corbett & Hill 2012, p.8).

The second explanation for the gender gap is called the devaluation hypothesis. It argues that women are paid less because the work they perform is socially defined as less valuable than the work men perform. Guy and Newman (2004) argue that these jobs are undervalued in part because they include a significant amount of emotion work, that is, work that involves caring, negotiating, and empathizing with people, which is rarely specified in job descriptions or performance evaluations.

Finally, there is evidence that, even when women and men have equal education and experience (and, therefore, not a matter of human capital differences) and are in the same occupations (and, therefore, not a matter of women’s work being devalued), pay differences remain. Men make more than women in each of the 10 most sex-segregated occupations for females and males. Even among elementary and middle school teachers, a profession that is 81 percent female, women earn a weekly median salary of $921 and men earn a weekly median salary of $1,128, a difference of $10,350 annually (Hegewisch & Matite 2013).

Sources

Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht, Caroline 2015. Understanding Social Problems. Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.

Hegewisch, Ariane, Claudia Williams, and Angela Edwards. 2012 (March). “The Gender Wage Gap: 2012.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Available at www.iwpr.org

Hegewisch, Ariane, and Maxwell Matite. 2013 (April). The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Available at www.iwpr.org

Badenhausen, Kurt. 2013. “Maria Sharapova Tops Lists of the World’s Highest Paid Female Athletes.” Forbes, August 5. Available at www.forbes.com

Rose, Stephen J., and Heidi Hartman. 2008 (February). “Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap.” IWPR# C366. New York: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Polachek, Soloman W. 2006. “How the Life-Cycle Human Capitol Model Explains Why the Gender Gap Narrowed.” In The Declining Significance of Race, Francine D. Blau, Mary C. Brinton, and David B. Grusky, eds. (pp. 102-124). New York: Russell Sage.

Corbett, Christianne, and Catherine Hill. 2012 (October 24). Graduating to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year After College Graduation. American Association of University Women. Available at www. Aauw.org

Guy, Mary Ellen, and Meredith A. Newman. 2004. “Women’s Jobs, Men’s Jobs: Sex Segregation and Emotional Labor.” Public Administration Review 64:289-299

Gender Stratification Part 2: Work and Structural Sexism

Gender Stratification: Structural Sexism (Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht)

As most sociologists agree, the social structure underlies and perpetuates much of the sexism in society. Structural sexism, also known as institutional sexism, refers to the ways the organization of society and specifically its institutions subordinate individuals and groups based on their sex classification. Structural sexism has resulted in significant differences in the education and income levels, occupational and political involvement, and civil rights of women and men.

Work and Structural Sexism

According to an International Labour Organization (ILO) report, women made up 40 percent of the world’s total labor force in 2012 (ILO 2012a). In the same year, the gender gap in unemployment rates increased. Globally, the female unemployment rate was 6.4 percent compared to 5.7 percent unemployment for males. The report concludes that women have higher unemployment rates because of differences in educational attainment between men and women, occupational segregation, and higher rates of exiting and reentering the labor force as result of family obligations.

Women are also disproportionately employed in what is called vulnerable employment. Vulnerable employment is characterized by informal working arrangements, little job security, few benefits, and little recourse in the face of an unreasonable demand. Such is the case in developing countries where women are often “contributing family workers,” and in developed countries where women are disproportionately working in low-wage service occupations (ILO 2012a).

Women are also more likely to hold positions of little or no authority within the work environment and to receive lower wages than men (ILO 2012b). No matter what the job, if a woman does it, it is likely to be valued less than if a man does it. For example, in the early 1800s, 90 percent of all clerks were men and being a clerk was a prestigious profession. As the job became more routine, in part because of the advent of the typewriter, the pay and prestige of the job declined and the number of female clerk increased. Today, 92.2 percent of clerk are female (U.S. Census Bureau 2013), and the position is one of relatively low pay and prestige.

The concentration of women in certain occupations and men in other occupations is referred to as occupational sex segregation. Although occupational sex segregation remains high, it has decreased in recent years for some occupations. For example, between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of female physicians and surgeons more than doubled form 16 percent to 36 percent, female dentists increased from 7 percent to 30 percent and female clergy increased from 6 percent to 19 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2009, 2013).

Although the pace is slower, men are increasingly applying for jobs that women traditionally held. Spurred by the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector and the recent economic crisis, many jobs traditionally defined as male (e.g., auto worker, construction worker) have been lost. Thus, over the last 20 years, there has been a significant increase in the number of men in traditionally held female jobs; for example, a 50 percent increase in male telephone operators, 45 percent increase in male tellers, and 40 percent increase in male preschool and kindergarten teachers (Bourin & Blakemore 2008). Some evidence suggests that men in traditionally held female jobs have an advantage in hiring, promotion, and salaries called the glass escalator effect (Williams 2007). For example, secretaries and administrative assistants are overwhelmingly female, 95.3 percent. Yet the average median weekly salary for male secretaries is $803 compared to $665 for female secretaries (Heswisch and Matite, 2013). Despite the increase of men into traditionally held female occupations, women are still heavily represented in low-prestige, low-wage, pink-collar jobs that offer few benefits.

Sex segregation in occupations continues for several reasons. First, cultural beliefs about what is an “appropriate” job for a man or a woman still exists. Snyder and Green’s (2008) analysis of nurses in the United States is a case in point. Using survey date and in-depth interviews, the researchers identified patterns of sex segregation. Over 88 percent of all patient-care nurses were in sex-specific specialties (e.g. intensive care and psychiatry for male nurses, and labor or delivery and outpatient services for female nurses). Interestingly, although women rarely mentioned gender as a reason for their choice of specialty, male nurses frequently did so, acknowledging the “process of gender affirmation that led them to seek out ‘masculine’ positions within what was otherwise construed to be a women’s profession” (p. 291).

Second, opportunity structures for men and women differ. For example, women and men, upon career entry, are often channeled by employers into gender-specific jobs that carry different wages and promotion opportunities. However, even women in higher-paying jobs may be victimized by a glass ceiling, an often invisible barrier that prevents women and other minorities from moving into top corporate positions. For example, women and minorities have different social networks that do white men, which contributes to this barrier. White men in high-paying jobs are more likely to have interpersonal connections with individuals in positions of authority (Padavic & Reskin 2002). In addition, women often find that their opportunities for career advancement are adversely affected after returning from family leave. Female lawyers returning from maternity leave found their career mobility stalled after being reassigned to less prestigious cases (Williams 2000).

There is also evidence that working mothers pay a price for motherhood. Using an experimental design, Correll et al. (2007) report that, even when qualifications, background, and work experience were held constant, “evaluators rated mothers as less competent and committed to paid work than non-mothers” (p. 1,332). Other examples of the “motherhood penalty” include women who feel pressured to choose professions that permit flexible hours and career paths, sometimes known as mommy tracks (Moen & Yu 2000). Thus, women dominate the field of elementary education, which permits them to be home when their children are not in school. Nursing, also dominated by women, often offers flexible hours. Although the type of career pursued may be the woman’s choice, it is a structured choice, meaning a choice among limited options as a result of the structure of society.

Finally, Blau and Kahn (2013) argue that the comparatively low rates of female labor force participation, and female labor force participation growth, is the result of a lack of U.S. worker-friendly, and perhaps more importantly female-friendly, employment policies. An analysis of policy data indicates that “…most other countries have enacted parental leave, part-time work, and child care policies that are more extensive than in the United States, and the gap has grown over time” (p. 4). The authors conclude that such policies make part-time work more attractive, and make it easier for women to “have it all,” i.e. combine work and family life.

Sources

Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht, Caroline 2015. Understanding Social Problems. Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.

ILO (International Labour Organization). 2012a (December). Global Employment Trends for Women. Available at www.ilo.org

ILO. 2012b (June 25). “Gender Dimensions of the World of Work in a Globalized Economy.” Gender Rethinking Alternative Paths for Development. Geneva: United Nations. Available at www.ilo.org

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012, 130^th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2008, 128^th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bourin, Lenny, and Bill Blakemore. 2008. “More Men Take Traditionally Female Jobs.” ABC World News, September 1. Available at http://abcnews.go.com

Williams, Christine L. 2007. “The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the ‘Female’ Occupations.” In Men’s Lives, 7^th ed., Michale S. Kimmel and Michael Messner, eds. (pp. 242-255). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hegewisch, Ariane, and Maxwell Matite. 2013 (April) The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Available at www.iwpr.org

Synder, Karrie Ann, and Adam Isaiah Green, 2008. “Revisiting the Glass Escalator: The Case of Gender Segregation in a Female Dominated Occupation.” Social Problems 55(2):271-299.

Padavic, Irene, and Barbara Reskin. 2002. Men and Women at Work, 2^nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:Pine Forge Press.

Williams, Joan. 2000. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Correll, Shelly J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112(5):1,297-1,338.

Moen, Phyllis, and Yan Yu. 2000. “Effective Work/Life Strategies: Working Couples, Working Conditions, Gender and Life Quality.” Social Problems 47:291-326.

Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M Kahn. 2013. “Female Labor Supply: Why is the US Falling Behind?” January. NBER Working Paper No. 18702. The National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at www.nber.org

Gender Stratification: Structural Sexism Part 1-Education

Gender Stratification: Structural Sexism (Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht)

As most sociologists agree, the social structure underlies and perpetuates much of the sexism in society. Structural sexism, also known as institutional sexism, refers to the ways the organization of society and specifically its institutions subordinate individuals and groups based on their sex classification. Structural sexism has resulted in significant differences in the education and income levels, occupational and political involvement, and civil rights of women and men.

Education and Structural Sexism

Over 775 million adults over the age of 15 cannot read or write, and nearly two-thirds of them are women. Of the approximately 123 million illiterate youth, 76 million are female (UNESCO 2012).

Because children born to educated mothers are less likely to die at a young age, there is an education dividend associated with educating women. For example, if universal primary education was available for all girls in sub-Saharan Africa, 200,000 fewer children would die each year, and universal secondary education for all girls would save as many as 1.8 million lives annually (UNESCO 2011).

Historically, U.S. schools have discriminated against women. Before the 1830s, U.S. colleges accepted only males students. In 1833, Oberlin College in Ohio became the first college to admit women. Even so, in 1833, female students at Oberlin were required to wash male students' clothes, clean their rooms, and serve their meals and were forbidden to speak at public assemblies (Fletcher 1943; Flexner 1972).This also only pertained to white women, as slavery was still a practiced institution.

In the 1960s, the women's movement sought to end sexism in education. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 states that not person shall be discriminated against on the basis of sex in any educational program receiving federal funds. These guidelines were designed to end sexism in the hiring and promoting of teachers and administrators. Title IX also sought to end sex discrimination in granting admission to college and awarding financial aid. Finally the guidelines called for an increase in opportunities for female athletes by making more funds available for their programs.

In 2012, few differences existed between men and women in their completion rates of high school and college degrees (NCES 2013). In fact, in recent years, most U.S. colleges and universities have had a higher percentage of women than men enrolling directly from better educated than their husbands while only 16 percent of fathers are better educated than their wives, the remainder of spouses having similar educational background (Wang et al. 2013). This trend is causing some concern that many young American men may not have the education they need to compete in today’s global economy.

Concern over the continued lack of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) is also justified.  Women earn 81 percent of master’s degrees in library science but only 22 percent of master’s degrees in engineering and engineering technologies. Reasons for the STEM gender disparity include reliance on gender stereotyping (“Boys are better in math and science than girls!”), a lack of female STEM role models, little encouragement to follow STEM pursuits, and a lack of awareness about women in STEM fields (AAUW 2011).

Women earned 51 percent of doctorate degrees (e.g., JDs, MDs, PhDs) in 2012. Nonetheless, unlike many of their male counterparts, many women “opt out” of labor force participation. Hersch (2013) reports that female graduates of elite institutions, those most likely to find satisfying employment in their field of study, are more likely to “opt out” of the workforce than peers from less selective institutions who have children under the age of 18, have significantly lower levels of labor force involvement than their academic equals without children under the age of 18.

In higher education, there are also structural limitations that discourage women from advancing. Women seeking academic careers may find that securing tenure track position is more difficult for them than it is for men, and that having children pre-tenure negatively impacts the likelihood of getting tenure, that is, there is a “pregnancy penalty” (Ceci et al. 2009), Similarly, in an analysis of data from the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, Leslie (2007) reports that, as the number of children increases, the number of hours of female faculty member works decreases, and the number of hours a male faculty member works increases. Finally, research also indicates gender stereotyping in letters of recommendation. Women are more often described as socio-emotive (e.g. helpful) rather than active/assertive (e.g. ambitious) and, thus, are evaluated less positively (Madera et al. 2009). Similarly, female faculty are disproportionately assigned service duties (e.g. advising) when compared to their male counterparts, which places them at a disadvantage when being considered for tenure and/or promotion (Misra et al. 2011).

 Sources

Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht, Caroline 2015. Understanding Social Problems. Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2012 (September). “Adult and Youth Literacy.” Fact Sheet, No 20. Available at www.uis.unesco.org

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2011. “EFA Global Monitoring Report.” Available at www.unesco.org

Fletcher, Robert S. 1943. History of Oberlin College to the Civil War. Oberli, OH: Oberlin College Press.

Flexnor, Eleanor. 1972. Century of Struggle: The Women’s Rights Movement in the United States. New York: Atheneum

NCES (National Center for Educational Statistics) 2013. The Condition of Education, 2012. U.S. Department of Education. Available at www.nces.ed.gov

Wang, Wendy, Kim Parker, and Paul Taylor. 2013 (May 29). Breadwinner Moms. Pew Research Social and Demographic Trends. Available at www.pewsocialtrends.org

AAUW. 2011. Why So Few? Available at www.aauw.org

Hersch, Joni 2013. “Opting Out among Women with Elite Education.” Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper. 13-05. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.

Ceci, Stephne J., Wendy M. Williams, and Susan M. Barnett. 2009. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Socio-Cultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin 135(2): 218-261.

Leslie, David W. 2007 (March). “The Reshaping of America’s Academic Workforce.” Research Dialogue 87. New York: TIAA-CREF Institute. Available at www.tiaa-crefinstitute.org

Madera, Juan M., Michelle M. Hebl, and Randi C. Martin. 2009. “Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia: Agentic and Communal Differences.” Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6): 1,591-1,599.

Misra, Joya, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Elissa Holmes, and Stephanie Agiomavritis. 2011. “The Ivory Ceiling of Service Work.” Academe 97:22-26.