Occupational segregation is one of the spheres where the fact that women’s skills and talents are often underestimated becomes obvious. Of course, the situation at workplaces concerning women’s equality with men has changed greatly in recent decades and this change has mostly been for the better. But in many aspects, especially financial ones, women are still lagging behind. Women face various problems when they try to find a well-paid job; when they are not promoted as fast as their male colleagues; and when they have to decide what they want or need more – successful careers or happy families. The issue of occupational segregation has been made public and has been actively discussed in mass media and research articles. However, despite this fact, the problem is still in place and requires further study. The question is what hinders the process of women’s getting all opportunities men have in their workplaces and why with all the support of feminist organizations and, often, trade unions, women face so many obstacles on their way to professional and economic success. Probably, the answer may be in the customs and traditional views which are hard to die.
The abovementioned issue of women’s occupational segregation is well covered both in mass media and scientific journals. However, very often the opinions differ. Some of the views are even opposing ones. For instance, Hanna Rosin believes that there is no problem at all because occupational segregation has been eliminated and women are now even more successful than men – both financially and professionally (Rosin). Those who support the opposite point of view assert that it is only a myth that women dominate in the modern society. On the contrary, the highest, most powerful and most well-paid positions are still occupied by men (Coontz). There are also those who admit the problem, but see evidence that the situation is improving, at least, in most civilized countries. Thus, the percentage of women representatives in the government or in companies’ boards of directors has been steadily increasing (“Maximizing Economic Opportunities for Women in Scotland”).
Such changes were initially triggered by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) which was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly. This document is often referred to as an international bill of rights for women (“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”). The CEDAW consists of a preamble and 30 articles and it specifies what discrimination against women is and what measures should be taken to eliminate such discrimination. The Convention states that discrimination against women is “any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field” (“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women”). Among 1109 states, only 185 members of the UN have ratified the Convention and, thus, agreed to give women equal rights with men in order to avoid discrimination specified in the document. The USA is yet to do it; however, the present US government expressly supports the concept of the CEDAW. Generally, it can be said that the Convention initiated the change, even in those countries which officially did not sign the document.
Unfortunately, these changes are mostly observed on the level of legislature and some official documents. States try to provide equal employment opportunities by passing laws and regulations which support the ideas expressed in the CEDAW; however, “there is a wide discrepancy in the law and the reality” (Harshani and Abhayaratne). There is clear evidence that women’s earnings are undeniably lower than men’s earnings are. For example, in 1990 it was calculated that world’s women earned 77 percent as much as the world’s men did. The figures, of course, varied from country to country: in Australia, that percentage was as high as 88%; in Japan, it was only 50%; and in the USA of 2000, it was 73% (Light 542). Researchers explain the discrepancies between men’s and women’s earnings by the fact that “women concentrate in occupations that are lower paid and/or have fewer long-term prospects than occupations where men concentrate” (“Occupational Segregation”). Women are usually employed in trade, healthcare, education industries while men work in construction and manufacturing ones. Thus, women make up 80 % of school teachers and 81% of social workers. Besides, it is evident that men are more often found in managerial positions than women. Employment statistics shows that most women serve as employees whereas men serve as employers (Harshani and Abhayaratne). Stephanie Coonz says that “only 4 percent of the C.E.O.’s in Fortune’s top 1,000 companies are female” (Coonz). It proves that it is still hard for women to climb as high up the career ladder as most men easily do.
Partially, the roots of this may be in educational choices made by men and women. These choices are, in their turn, predetermined by traditions and prejudices which often limit women when they decide what occupations they may apply for and for which professions they need to study. Women do not like or, probably, just think they do not like such subjects as mathematics and sciences; however, they eagerly choose languages, religious studies, art and design, which consequently leads to obvious restrains in their professional choices as well as in their wages. As a consequence, vocational training is strongly gendered and this gendered patter is further observed in apprenticeship practices undertook by men and women (“Maximizing Economic Opportunities for Women in Scotland”). Moreover, the statistical data prove that men’s participation in apprenticeships is much higher than that of women, which even more diminishes women’s chance for successful and good-paying jobs.
In many cases, less active participation of women in apprenticeship and other further education programs can be explained by the necessity for them to take care of their children. Men can feel more free in this respects. Men are not forced to make pauses in their careers in order to give birth to children and raise them whereas women are. So, “many women ‘downgrade’ the skill level of their work in order to obtain part-time work to fit in with caring responsibilities” (“Maximizing Economic Opportunities for Women in Scotland”). Consequently, female labour force participation rate is only 35.6%, which is two times less than male’s one that equals 74.9% (Harshani and Abhayaratne). Thus, it is evident that women experience high underemployment both in respect to time and skills. Time underemployment means that women, in general, want to work longer hours while skills underemployment means that they frequently have jobs that require lower level of skills than they are actually qualified to do. In addition to women’s own decision to reduce the number of their working hours due to family issues, women often face refusals from potential employers because of their actual or future family obligations. Stephanie Coontz gives an example of the experiment conducted to reveal how much potential employers are influenced by the fact that female applicants have children. The experiment showed that females who stated in their resumes that they have children had fewer calls from potential employers (Coontz). Thus, it is clear that the preference is given either to men or to women without children.
The saddest thing about women’s underemployment and low-paid jobs is that their full employment could be a significant contribution to their family incomes. In cases with married women, their full employment with decent payments could also raise these women’s status in the family. The reality is, though, that in only 20 percent of all families the wife earns half or more of all family income and in 35 percent of cases the wife earns less than 10 percent (Coontz). When women are unemployed and/or paid much less than their husbands, they are more likely to face certain discrimination at home since men feel their financial dominance in the household. Some women may put up with such a state of affairs and live with this fact. It is often observed in the developing countries where women are inclined to follow patriarchy customs and traditions established in their particular culture. Such traditions presuppose that men are main providers and women are responsible for keeping the house in order. However, they are far from being in control of their own lives. They are often too dependent on their husbands to be able to make their own decisions and choices. They can even be sexually abused by their husbands because the men feel they have power over their wives. Financial freedom in this case could radically change lives of such women.
However, women may experience sexual harassment at their workplaces as well. One might think that sexual harassment is a common thing in developing countries where the economic situation is very hard and women would try to keep any job, especially a good one. But people from the civilized world would like to believe that the instances of sexual harassment in their countries are quite rare at present. However, the statistics is rather frightening. It says that in industrialized countries about 42-50% of women have been sexually harassed at their workplaces; in the European Union, this statistics equals 40-50% of female workers; in Asia-Pacific countries the figures reach 30-40%; and in South Africa, 77% of women say that they have faced sexual harassment at least once during their working lives (Stopping Sexual Harassment at Work). Of course, when women can afford it and if they do not want to yield to the pressure, they quit such jobs, which can be one more reason of women’s occupational segregation.
Women’s underemployment has a negative impact not only on their family’s income, but on their country’s overall revenue. Researchers say that it is very shortsighted for the economy to underuse women’s talents and skills. In reference to New Zealand’s economy, for example, it has been calculated that elimination of women’s underemployment can increase the country’s GDP by 10 percent (“Occupational Segregation”). It is even more disappointing since women generally show better results in their studies. First of all, female students usually outnumber male ones. Moreover, the statistics says that in 2012/13 60.9 per cent of females left school with highest attainment whereas only 50.7 per cent of males did the same (“Maximizing Economic Opportunities for Women in Scotland”). However, after graduation more women, if compared to men, end up in medium-low or low skilled jobs. This is usually explained by the abovementioned subject choice at school, college and university. But occupational segregation and women’s family obligations should not be dismissed, either. The combination of all these conditions deprives women of a possibility to positively influence both their own financial state and the economic growth of their country.
However, the saddest truth is that the abovementioned causes of women’s discrimination are only secondary ones. The initial causes are rooted in the deeply established patriarchic foundations of most societies. Patriarchic customs give men the power – to make decisions, to control, to develop, and to prosper. Undoubtedly, men do not want to lose all this. They do not even want to share it with women. Men are fearful that women can prove to be as efficient as men are. So, women are often not even given a chance. It is a common thing that men holding high positions either in the government, boards of directors, or just in some companies tend to employ male workers and promote male employees because they want to keep up the patriarchy tradition that lets men rule the world. Otherwise, they also risk losing their advantageous position as well as their well-paid job one day.
This influence of patriarchy customs is especially obvious in the countries that still strictly follow their ancestors’ traditions (for example, Japan) or are deeply religious (such as Muslim countries). Unfortunately, the majority of women in those countries are not willing to change anything themselves. They are either too afraid or just unaware that their lives can be different. As a result, most women there get married at adolescence and do not even start thinking about living independently and providing for themselves. Moreover, there is a problem of education for girls, too. Many developing countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or some African states, do not think it necessary for girls to be educated properly because their family obligations have nothing to do with literacy or academic training. Thus, under such circumstances there is no use talking about women’s employment or economic equality since women are not trained for any particular job at all. However, in more developed patriarchic countries there is a certain tendency for a change. There are activists who are ready to fight for the equality of women and the end of patriarchy, but all the changes are still very slow to come in these communities.
So, it is obvious that on the global scale the problem of occupational segregation and women’s equality in their professional and everyday lives is still far from being solved. Some countries have already done a lot in this respect, but men still do not want to retreat and share their power. As a result, women have to do ten times more than men do to achieve the same results. Women are burdened with their family and child-care responsibilities, which often prevent them from getting proper training or undergo apprenticeship programs. However, even if they have all necessary qualifications, they face many obstacles on the way to professional success. More often than not, women have to put up with secondary positions which do not give them economic independence and freedom to make their own decisions concerning their lives. Having no chance to obtain a well-paid job, women end up being too dependent on their husbands. This dependence is not only economic – being dependent on their husbands financially, they have fewer rights in families, too. Such interconnectedness of causes and their consequences further complicates the problem.
Works Cited
“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.” UN Women. United Nations, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm>
Coontz, Stephanie. “The Myth of Male Decline.” The New York Times 29 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/the-myth-of-male-decline.html?smid=fb-share&_r=2>
Harshani, M. G. H., and A. S. P. Abhayaratne. “Gender Based Occupational Segregation and Economic Empowerment of Women in Sri Lanka.” University of Peradeniya. University of Peradeniy, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://www.pdn.ac.lk/arts/econ/persweb/Proceedings2014/Gender%20Based%20Occupational%20Segregation%20and%20Economic%20Empowerment%20of%20Women%20in%20Sri%20Lanka.pdf>
Light, Ivan. “Women’s Economic Niches and Earnings Inferiority: the View from the Ethnic Economy.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 33.4 (2007): 541-557. Print.
“Maximizing Economic Opportunities for Women in Scotland.” The Scottish Government. Crown, March 2015. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0047/00473060.pdf>
“Occupational Segregation.” Ministry for Women. Ministry for Women, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://women.govt.nz/our-work/utilising-womens-skills/paid-and-unpaid-work/occupational-segregation>
Rosin, Hanna. “The End of Men.” The Atlantic July/Aug. 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/>
Stopping Sexual Harassment at Work. ITUC Apr. 2008. Web. 29 Apr. 2016. <http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/Harcelement_ENG_12pgs_BR.pdf>
