Since times immemorial, women have been traditionally and culturally treated as the weaker race.
There are a huge construct of prejudices regarding the types of roles adequate or suitable for women. Even as technology advances at a rapid pace, and more women acquire higher education, the perception of women has not undergone much alteration, as a result of which, women have to face gender bias and work place discrimination as a prime challenge.There have been constant investigations to find the reasons why many women fail to reach the top positions in their professional careers after faring significantly in their graduation programs in the fields of doctors, engineers and lawyers in spite of the successful implementation of policies and reforms to enable them to achieve professional success.In her research, ‘Gender Stereotypes, Same-Gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms’ Gorman (2005) investigates the reasons for the relatively low proportion of women hired in the law firms (fifty five percent of which were studied), as compared to the proportion of women enrolled in law schools.
Gorman suggests that women may be experiencing a hiring disadvantage at these law firms, as compared to their male counterparts.Gorman (2005) also points that the presence of a female hiring partner augments the potential of a woman being hired by nearly thirteen percent. She agrees that over the past quarter century, women have “gained a foothold in the legal profession”, but expresses concern that even though there should be lower levels of gender based discrimination in law firms, stereotypical prejudices play a significant role in the employment processes.Gender stereotypes have been a norm in society and have typically dictated the job profiles of potential candidates.
For instance, the job of a sales representative is likely to be perceived as one which necessitates the traits of persuasion and may therefore seek a male candidate, whilst the potential candidate for the position of a telephone operator or even a customer service representative may be a female as it requires certain behavioral attributes like pleasantness and cordiality, traits traditionally assumed as feminine (Gorman, 2005).It is thus evident that there are substantial gender stereotypes in the outlining of job profiles of candidates, an aspect which often reduces the prospects of women to authoritative positions at their workplace. Even if a woman is capable and has the potential to reach the zenith, very often, her familial responsibilities hinder her prospects for growth and progression. Several married women have to play the dual roles of work and motherhood, which is often considered as a major pothole in her career advancements.Gorman (2005) also states in her study that the choice for male or female candidates, stems from the traditional gender bias in certain types of jobs is a prime reason for the gender discrimination at the workplace.
Referring to Jacobs (1989, Gorman (2005) mentions the metaphors of ‘revolving doors’ and ‘glass ceiling’, pointing that even when women do enter the high status, high pay jobs, generally dominated by their male counterparts, the gender bias in the form of the ‘glass ceiling’ which is rampant in organizations, forces women to depart these positions and accept positions of lower pay and status.The glass ceiling presents women with reduced peer and institutional support coupled with harassment from co-staff and superiors, which ultimately triggers the phenomenon of the ‘revolving doors’ among women, forcing them to abandon their jobs and look for other options within the employment industry, even if pay and potential to progress is relatively low. Several other researchers have also suggested that the mindset of the employers or co-workers, who have concrete prejudices, expect males to be more proficient in their work as compared to females, which tends to pose hurdles in the professional growth of many women (Erickson et al. 2000; Foschi, 2000; Martin, 2001; Reskin, 2000). Echoing similar concerns, Roth (2004) in her research, ‘Engendering Inequality: Processes of Sex-Segregation on Wall Street’, attempts a case study of the Wall Street and notes the occurrence of gender bias in the recruitment and employment process of the candidates and notes that men are hired “first” and women are employed only after there is a dearth of males potential candidates.
She highlights that even though there was no difference between the male and female aspirants, there is significant “sex-segregation” on Wall Street. This, she states is prevalent in the employment process, as more women are employed into the low income strata of this profession. This proves to be a major hurdle in the advancement of women in their professional careers, leaving relatively reduced scope for progress, as compared to males (Roth, 2004).Research has indicated that there is a tremendous rise in the workloads which sometimes have no time limits, specifically in the managerial positions and America ranks among the countries with the maximum workforce, working for more than fifty hours weekly, leaving little or no time for familial responsibilities and obligations (Barnett & Gareis, 2000). The increased workload and resultant increase in the time and work schedules of employees, has a negative health effect on the working women who have to manage work and children simultaneously leaving them little time for their families.This amplification in work timing has severely affected women, who choose to or already have children, while pursuing their full time professional careers.
Most of the times these situations result in tremendous fatigue, stress and frustration in women, who juggle between two prime responsibilities and cannot ignore either of them, sometimes resulting in many women opting for part time work rather than full time careers. Several researches and studies have proved that most women prefer to take up part-time jobs owing to the lesser interference with their familial duties and subsequent enhanced satisfaction (Hill J. Ferris M. & Baker R. , 2004).
In their study, ‘Beyond the Mommy Track: The Influence of New-Concept Part-Time Work for Professional Women on Work and Family’ (2004), Hill, Ferris & Baker note that there has been a significant increase in part time work options for women at the workplace. These part-time work options reduce the work timing of the women providing them with enough time and space for catering to family obligations as well workplace demands.They however state that, these part time job opportunities do not provide high status or career opportunities, providing little scope for career enhancements to the women who prefer these work options. In their research, the authors have clearly demonstrated that women have lesser pay and reduced growth in their careers due to certain cultural and traditional prejudices. It has been indicated that women are very often discriminated in their earnings from their male counterparts even if they have similar job profiles, work equally hard or are uniformly capable (Roth L. M.
, 2004).Most scholars debate that men and women are differentiated by their employers in their choices of employees and their promotions, a factor which ultimately leads to a gender bias in the choice of professions and organizations which the sexes choose (Hill J. , Ferris M. & Baker R. , 2004). They point that this factor results in the women being hired as professionals with lesser pay.
The additional and core responsibilities of marriage and motherhood, whilst progressing in their careers more often than not becomes the prime reason for women to quit their jobs, as they choose the “mommy track” (Hill J. Ferris M. & Baker R. , 2004), over the option to work. Although this may be a reason for many to quit their jobs, research indicates that not all women abandon their jobs for this reason. In the study, ‘Fast-Track Women and the "Choice" to Stay Home’ the authors, Stone & Lovejoy M.
, (2004) find that majority of women with professionally vibrant degrees, do work. What the authors find alarming is the difference in the rate of attrition of women and men, where the women quit not just their jobs, but the workforce, to look after their homes and families.What is striking to the authors is the fact that most of these women can easily afford to hire domestic help or make any other arrangements to ensure the smooth running of the house, but the personal values lead the women to completely abandon not only their high-position jobs, but also the desire to work. Stone & Lovejoy M.
, (2004) concluded that the call for responsibility towards their house and specifically their children is the prime reason for these women’s decision to exit their jobs completely.Though a majority of the women in the study were satisfied with their colleagues and jobs, they decided to quit owing to the desire to give more time to their family and children, which they believed was their prime priority in life. For some of the women, two holidays a week were simply not sufficient for giving time to their children. Even though several laws and policies have been passed to ensure the equality and progress of women in their careers, there is a severe need for socio-cultural changes in the perspectives of males and of the society at large.
