May 3, 2011 - School of Applied Social Science. Mayfield House ... country analyses (Wright et al, 1995; Mandel and Semyonov, 2005). There were a small ...
THE GENDER WAGE GAP What are the contributing factors?
Applied Psychology and Criminology 3rd May 2011
School of Applied Social Science Mayfield House University of Brighton Falmer, Brighton BN1 9PH
1
ABSTRACT The main aim of this dissertation is to demonstrate that there is a significant and measurable wage gap between the genders and to identify the main contributing factors. An extensive literature review was conducted in order to support this, and links were made between theories, policies and quantitative research. The theme of patriarchy was found to be significant in the perpetuation of gender inequalities more broadly, with family responsibilities and occupational segregation being used to demonstrate more specific inequalities in wages between comparable men and women. Both a structuralist and human capital approach were discussed in relation to how these inequalities develop, but overall, a structuralist approach was seen as the more significant of the two. The dissertation concluded that family responsibilities and both horizontal and vertical segregation are main causes of the gender inequalities in wages, and that women are receiving less than their male counterparts. The concentration of women into part-time jobs also impacts significantly on women’s longer term wealth, by reducing the amount they can save and receive from pensions. By considering both the short and long term implications of wage disparities, it is possible to demonstrate the importance of closing the gender wage gap. A final consideration of past, present and future policies to be implemented indicate how well the issue of the gender wage gap in Britain is being tackled.
2
INTRODUCTION Issues of gender inequalities and discrimination have recently re-emerged in mainstream media as an important topic of discussion, primarily as a result of the new elected Coalition Government and some of the controversial policies they plan, and don’t plan, to implement. The gender wage gap is just one example of inequality women face in a contemporary society, and has been widely researched in great detail. Whilst reviewing the literature, it was noted that there is a strong focus on conducting research, and little on providing a comprehensive review of theories, findings and policies. Therefore, this dissertation will aim to draw an overall picture of the gender wage gap in Britain; using a wide range of sources. Much of the literature reviewed focuses on America (Petersen and Morgan, 1995) and the UK (Mumford and Smith, 2007); however, there are some research studies from other countries (Baron and Cobb-Clark, 2010; Russell et al, 2010), as well as crosscountry analyses (Wright et al, 1995; Mandel and Semyonov, 2005). There were a small proportion of journal articles and books that could not be reviewed and included, due to limited access and time constraints. The literature was sourced from a wide range of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and business and economics. A key theme, which runs throughout this dissertation, is the impact that a traditional patriarchal system has on perpetuating gender differences; as Kimmel (2008) states, “when we speak about gender we also speak about hierarchy, power and inequality, not simply difference” (2008: 1). Therefore, the line of argument throughout this dissertation will be that there is a significant and measurable wage gap between the genders, as depicted by Rogers (2011).
3
In addition to this, a structuralist approach will mostly be taken in terms of explaining the gender wage gap, as this is where much of the research reviewed is based; indicating that more qualitative research is needed in order to properly record people’s decisions, regarding employment choices. Research Question and Aims The main research question this dissertation will be intending to answer is: What are considered the main contributing factors of the gender wage gap in Britain? This will be broken down into three separate aims, which will be: 1. How can theories of gender construction help to explain gender inequalities? 2. How does the traditional patriarchal system perpetuate the gender wage gap in Britain? 3. How have new policies and practices impacted on the gender wage gap? It is argued that “the wage gap justifies this attention because wages represent the best potential income source for the majority of the working-age population” (Warren et al, 2001: 467), and if gender is the root cause, then this could have serious long-term implications for women. The aim of chapter one is to consider the theories which explain the construction of gender and how inequalities may develop from these; with a specific focus on the gender wage gap. It will briefly cover biological and cognitive approaches, but will mostly be taking a social learning approach to the construction of gender and the differences and inequalities which may develop. Chapter two will cover the ways in which domestic roles and childcare tend to impact more heavily on women than men, often resulting in ‘pay penalties’ for working mothers. A brief history of women’s roles and their progressive participation in the workforce, and society as a whole is also offered as a backdrop for explaining gender roles and stereotypes. Chapter three will focus more specifically on the occupational segregation of women and men, and how this directly relates to the perpetuation of a gender wage gap. The debate here is concerned with how this segregation develops and its potential impact on wages of both men and women. This chapter will be focusing more on what is considered to be horizontal segregation, rather than the vertical segregation of men and women. Chapter four will be exploring vertical segregation in more depth; considering the various issues surrounding its development and perpetuation. This term relates to the informal segregation of women into lower positions of authority, and the lack of upward mobility they may experience. The fifth, and final chapter, will briefly explore policies surrounding the gender wage gap. This will be completed by a brief summary of the current problems, solutions that have arisen from research, and finally, a brief overview of both past, present and future policies being implemented, with the intention of reducing the gender wage gap in Britain.
4
CHAPTER 1 The Construction of Gender The aim of this first chapter is to consider the theories which explain the construction of gender and how inequalities may develop from these; with a specific focus on the gender wage gap. The development of gender has been approached by many theorists over the years, and has been explained using biological theories (Berk, 2006), cognitive theories (Kohlberg, 1966), and social learning theories (Bandura, 1986). Each will be described briefly, but in general, a social approach will be taken towards gender and the subsequent differences it creates in society. Naturally, the biological approach regards all behaviours as being predisposed by biological factors, such as genetics and hormones (Berk, 2006). It takes quite a scientific approach; assuming that an individual’s gender is prescribed by their biological make-up and physical characteristics (Mwale, 2008). In addition to this, certain hormones have become ‘sex-typed’ and categorised as contributing to either masculine or feminine traits. Androgens are important in the development of male sex organs and secondary sex characteristics, and so are often referred to as ‘male hormones’; progesterone and oestrogens are described as the ‘female hormones’ as they are vital in the maintenance of the reproductive cycle (Golombok and Fivush, 1994). However, there is some dispute over this idea that biological characteristics are directly related to the formation of a gender identity, and those individuals who identify as being transsexuals are a clear example of this (The Looking Glass Society, 1996). Despite developing, for example, physical male characteristics, and being biologically defined as male, a transsexual individual develops a female gender identity, preferring to dress and behave as a ‘normal’ female would. By deviating away from the biological assignment to a gender, the individual demonstrates that the development of a gender identity is not necessarily defined by biological factors. Another approach taken towards explaining gender is from a cognitive developmental perspective, which is heavily influenced by the work of Kohlberg (1966), and the three stages he proposed children must progress through in order to be able to fully understand the concept of gender. These consist of forming a gender identity, gender stability and finally, gender constancy and the understanding that gender is “constant and cannot be changed regardless of surface features” (Golombok and Fivush, 1994: 90). Before the first stage, it has been found that children lack the ability to categorise themselves and others as either male or female. However, at the first stage of Kohlberg’s theory, which is believed to occur around the age of two, the child begins to acknowledge gender differences, but only based on superficial physical characteristics. It is at this stage that children are seen to develop a gender identity, and can correctly label themselves as either male or 5
female (Schaffer, 2006). By the second stage of gender development, normally occurring between the ages of three and four, the child develops an understanding of gender stability; that little girls will grow up into adult women. However, at this stage the child still fails to understand that girls can play with boy’s toys and still remain a girl; that gender is not consistent across situations. It is only once a child reaches the final stage of gender development, around the age of five, that he or she is able to fully understand that gender is constant and unchanging, regardless of time or situation. Kohlberg’s proposal of the development of gender has been researched by many, some who agree with the stage theory (Slaby and Frey, 1975; Warin, 2000; Ruble et al, 2007) and some who disagree (Signorella et al, 1993; Szkrybalo and Ruble, 1999) and believe it to be very simplistic in its approach, and not as linear as it is proposed to be. The final approach to be discussed takes a social stance towards the development of gender, and is often referred to as the social learning theory (Bandura, 1986). From this perspective, gender role behaviours are learned through the same processes that other behaviours are learned, and so the theory can be applied more specifically. The theory has a focus on the influence of social factors on gender development, and that behaviours are learned through reinforcement and modelling (Myers, 2007). The former comprises of both rewards and punishment for certain behaviours, and often act as a powerful influence in shaping behaviour (Mischel, 1966). In the case of learning gender-related behaviours, Jacklin and Baker (1993) discuss the concept of ‘differential socialization’ which involves the idea that from an early age, girls and boys are rewarded and punished slightly differently. For example, girls are punished for being too aggressive, but rewarded for being kind and caring towards others. Examples of differential socialization have been found in many research studies (Lindsey et al, 1997; Wood et al, 2002; Clearfield and Nelson, 2006) where the children are observed in active play with their parents, who are significantly seen to engage in gender-typing and to promote gender-appropriate play. Furthermore, in research by Langlois and Downs (1980) it was found that boys were punished more harshly by their fathers for playing with ‘feminine’ toys, than girls were punished for playing with ‘masculine’ toys. With the gender typing of specific objects and activities playing a heavy role in children’s everyday lives, it is no surprise that “by age five, gender stereotyping of activities and occupations is well established” (Berk, 2006: 522) and continues through into adulthood. The segregation of men and women into seemingly gender-specific occupations is considered by some as a demonstration of on-going gender stereotypes (Chichilnisky and Frederiksen, 2008). The function of stereotypes are to simplify well-known traits and characteristics of particular groups of people in order to act as a cultural shorthand, and are often perpetuated by individuals acting out
6
their assigned stereotypical behaviours (Cranny-Francis et al, 2003). The social learning theory suggests that modelling is also a key component in developing a sense of gender identity, and that children often imitate the behaviours of social agents around them. The term ‘social agents’ can refer to parents, teachers and peers; people who the child may have direct contact with on a daily basis. This term can also more broadly include examples from the mass media, and involve characters the child feels they can relate to, but also more general portrayals of same-sex characters; often with women being shown in ‘traditional’ feminine roles (Collins, 2011). However, the view that gender-typed behaviours are a direct result of imitation is now believed to be a very simplistic one (Golombok and Fivush, 1994) and so it has been proposed that the social learning theory needs to incorporate cognitive developmental processes, in order to offer a more detailed account of how gender-related behaviours develop. It is thought by some that these gender-specific behaviours are the result of the internalisation of gender stereotypes (Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990); that women may come to believe that they are weaker than men, and so feel they are unable to carry out physical labour occupations similar to men. It is believed that the awareness of gender roles develops in early childhood, which is not surprising when the categorisation of gender and the traits that are to follow are ‘omni-present’ (Beck, as cited in Bradley, 2007); ingrained in everyday activities and often automatic. Some believe that gender roles are assigned as early as birth, and are immediately put into effect with the baby being dressed in blue for a boy, or pink for a girl (Oakley, 1972). However, the categorisation of gender is so much more complex than one would first believe. As Cranny-Francis et al (2003) describe it, “not only does the system of gender divide the human race into two categories, it privileges the male over the female” (2003: 1). This is mainly due to the simple fact that society in the UK has always been patriarchal, with men holding a much higher authority and control over women, despite numerous attempts to challenge this (Equal Pay Act, 1970). However, there still remains the fact that society is categorised into two genders, in which males always have been and continue to be, more valued and often in higher positions of power than women (Charles, 2003). Both of these elements of a patriarchal system can be seen at play within the workplace; with female-dominated work often undervalued (Cohen and Huffman, 2003), and the concept of a ‘glass ceiling’ preventing upward mobility of women into managerial positions (Zeng, 2011). Allowing children to learn gender stereotypes and grow up in a gendered society means gender roles will be constantly reinforced (Eagley and Steffen, 2000).This is considered even more so, especially if parents carry out what are generally considered traditional ‘male’ and ‘female’ roles, for example, mothers as nurses and fathers as builders. As a result of this, the study of child rearing practices and home life is often of
7
great interest to researchers (Bruce and Meggitt, 2007) as it allows an insight into how gender roles and stereotypes are being learned and perpetuated in everyday life. The aim of this chapter was to provide the theoretical explanations of the development of gender, and how differences can arise from these. Issues such as the social learning of gender roles and stereotypes were covered and an example of how these can impact on women’s occupational choices was given. Furthermore, by using the gender wage gap and its contributing factors as an example, these theories of gender can be applied to inequalities faced by women every day; both at home and in the workplace. Therefore, the following chapters will aim to answer the more general research question: what are the contributing factors of the gender wage gap? And by doing so, will substantially draw on the theoretical explanations of gender, as just discussed, but also relevant research into the issue. The next chapter will be exploring in detail, how a family role perspective has been used in order to explain domestic responsibilities as one of the main contributing factors of the gender wage gap in Britain.
8
CHAPTER 2 The Impact of Family and Domestic Responsibilities In the first chapter, the theoretical underpinnings of gender development were explored; and a consideration of how they relate to the gender wage gap. In this second chapter, the aim is to answer the question: how can a family role perspective explain the gender wage gap? The ways domestic roles and childcare tend to impact more heavily on women than men will be explored, which often result in ‘pay penalties’ for working mothers. Historically, women’s biological role in reproduction has been seen as limiting, with regard to both social and economic participation (Kimmel, 2008). As bearers of children, women were traditionally seen as being more fragile than men, and so were very limited in their participation in physical labour (Huckle, 1982). Nineteenth century Victorian ideologies about men and women’s ‘appropriate roles’ were strongly linked to their believed biological traits and characteristics; which often related to intellect (Arnot et al, 1999) However, at this time, an individual’s role was also dictated by their class affiliation. For example, upper and middle class women often remained at home, sometimes assisted by a nannie or governess, and were considered wholly dependent on their husband’s economic position. In contrast, working class women would spend their days often in “low paid and grindingly hard” jobs (1999: 34). Cheal (1991) believes that it can partly be explained due to the natural relationship found between a mother and a child. From a biological perspective, it is only women who are able to bear children, and so will inevitably invest more time and energy in raising a child. During the 1950s and ‘60s, Bowlby’s theory of attachment had a profound impact on people’s beliefs regarding the necessary presence of the mother in caring for her children. Therefore, the concept of motherhood and the woman’s role at home became ‘idealized and commonly expected’ (Arnot et al, 1999: 40) of all; regardless of how educated one was. However, this ideology of women as being destined to live domesticated lives has changed somewhat since the Victorian era, and so a consideration of how women’s roles have historically been constructed must be explored. It is believed that the view of motherhood as being the primary role for women is born from what society dictates as the ‘norm’; a particular way of thinking or a behaviour that is considered by a society as appropriate and proper (Cardwell, 2000). For centuries, the UK has been considered as being predominantly patriarchal in nature, with men having significant dominance over women (Charles, 1993). As a result of this structure being embedded in society, women have traditionally been constructed as being mostly, or in some cases, wholly responsible for childcare and other domestic chores; with ‘care work’ being defined as in the feminine domain (Spade and Valentine, 2008). However, this changed dramatically during World 9
War One, when many jobs men would normally occupy were taken over by the women who were left behind; finally giving power and rights to women. Despite being seen as a great stepping stone for women into the labour work force (Janssen-Jurreit, 1982), the conditions were pretty poor, and because women at that time were often less skilled than men, they tended to be paid less than men would have (Bourke, 2010). After the war, women fought harder in order to remain in the work force, but were greatly outnumbered by the men who wanted to return to what they believed were rightly ‘men’s jobs’. However, by the second half of the twentieth century, a welfare state was introduced, offering women the chance of receiving benefits and childcare support; liberating them from traditional gender roles of domesticity (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2007). This was seen as a milestone for women, allowing them to be seen as more than just mothers or wives, but as working women with careers. However, some have criticised the introduction of the welfare state as merely a way of increasing economic production; with little concern for working conditions and wages (Mandel and Semyonov, 2005; TUC, 2007). Despite having more women entering into the labour work force each year, the government failed to account for how well-paid the women were; a prime example of this is demonstrated in the film Made in Dagenham (Cole, 2010), which tells the story of female sewing machinists from the Ford Company in Dagenham in 1968, striking in order to increase women’s pay. This true story directly resulted in the introduction of the Equal Pay Act of 1970, which intended to account for women’s wages being equal to that of men’s (Equal Pay Act, 1970). However, whilst this legislation promotes equal pay, it fails to account for those employed in private organisations and other areas which may not be covered. In addition, it only targets the wages earned once a woman is employed; disregarding any contributing factors to the unemployment, or occupational segregation of women into part-time positions (Meyer, 2003). By the beginning of the twenty-first century, just fewer than 50% of all women were reported to be involved in the British Labour Force (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2007), which many believe to be the point at which a significant shift in social roles of men and women would occur. However, this ‘genderquake’ as it has been termed, can be seen from both a positive and negative perspective. It would be supported by some as it could be seen as the turning point at which men and women would become equals, and would be characterised by a welcome change in the economy and job markets; a growth in ‘women’s work’ be seen to be opening up more job opportunities (Charles, 2002). In contrast, some have seen this shift in men and women’s social roles as a ‘breakdown’ of traditional family roles (Scott, 1999) with men no longer being the required breadwinner for the family. This perception would appear to be born from typical patriarchal ideologies of domesticity and the subordination of women; with the intention of fulfilling traditional gender roles. Alternatively, some such as Crosby and Jaskar (1993) believe that this shift in social roles hasn’t 10
actually occurred to the extent it was expected, and instead, women still largely focus on childcare and domestic responsibilities more than men do. Hakim (1991) suggests the main reason for this lies with women actively choosing the ‘homemaker career’ over other occupations; preferring to fully embrace motherhood and domestic responsibilities rather than working in low-paid, part-time jobs. Becker (1985) also supports this view, but goes further in explaining that as a result of their actual or anticipated role in motherhood, women may choose to invest less in training and education, in comparison to their male counterparts. Furthermore, the European Commission makes a direct link between traditional gender stereotypes, and the choices women make in education and the career paths they take; tending to reduce their working hours in order to engage in childcare and other domestic responsibilities (European Commission, 2011). Despite this view being supported, some believe it is a complex situation and so is difficult to make a distinction between women choosing this way of life, or being forced into it with no alternatives (Scott, 1999). As Warren et al (2001) investigate and conclude, that gender differences in pay can be explained due to differences in “typical patterns of labour market participation” (2001: 465), whereby men tend to hold long-term, full-time careers, compared to women who are often found in part-time jobs at varying intervals, due in part to having children and other ‘caring’ responsibilities. In addition to this, research by Bittman and Wajcman (2000) found that despite men and women reporting having similar amounts of ‘free leisure time’, it was women’s free time which tended to be more fragmented by various demands for housework and caregiving, in comparison to the men. Supported by Chichilnisky and Frederiksen (2008) they too believe this ‘division of labour’ within the private sphere of the home exists, with wives tending to spend more time on domestic jobs and husbands spending more time in the workplace. They attribute this to the “self-fulfilling nature of traditional gender roles” (2008: 301) and state that so long as these gender roles and stereotypes persist, so will women take a more traditional care-giving role, and so the gender wage gap will continue to exist. However, there are some limitations to the vast amount of studies that have been carried out on this topic, especially with regard to the family role perspective. The most significant limitation that has been identified is that there is a strong focus on nuclear families; a married mother and father, with dependent children. In the past this may have been considered the ‘norm’ and so findings could well have been generalizable. However, in post-modern Britain this is no longer the case, with families being made up of a number of different combinations: from single-parent families to samesex couples with or without dependent children. With these significant changes in what is now considered to be the ‘traditional’ family, it is important that research into this area keeps pace with
11
the changes, in order to remain relevant. Finally, it would appear that taking a family role approach towards explaining the gender wage gap works well, but on closer examination, the limiting factor of the narrow attention paid to a particular ‘group’ of women would show that this approach maybe isn’t as holistic as it first seems. Therefore, the next chapter will draw on the concept of occupational segregation as a way of explaining the gender wage gap in the UK.
12
CHAPTER 3 The Impact of Occupational Segregation The previous chapter explored domestic responsibilities as one explanation for the gender wage gap. As an often interrelated factor, this chapter will be focusing more specifically on the occupational segregation of women and men, and that by the end of this chapter, explicit links will have been made between issues of occupational segregation and the gender wage gap; and how theories can help to explain the foundations of gender differences and inequalities. The debate here is not about whether there is a gender segregation of occupations, but instead it is concerned with how this segregation develops and its potential impact on wages of both men and women. Occupational segregation is defined simply by Russell et al (2010) as “the concentration of women and men into different types of occupation” (2010:214), with two variations often being identified. Horizontal segregation has been used in order to refer to the over-concentration of women in typical ‘female’ occupations; often consisting of low pay, undervaluation and poor conditions (Alksnis et al, 2008). This chapter will primarily be focusing on this form of segregation, and both the short and long term implications for women’s overall wealth. Vertical segregation relates more specifically to issues of status and authority; that men are more likely to hold higher positions of authority than their female counterparts (Warren et al, 2001). This variation of segregation is only mentioned briefly here, as it will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter. There is a clear distinction between most jobs as to whether they are considered traditionally masculine, or traditionally feminine in nature. In a newspaper article titled ‘The Sex Gap: which jobs do women and men do?’ Rogers (2009) used data sourced from the Office for National Statistics and compiled a small graph in order to demonstrate the kinds of jobs women and men are most likely to be found in.
13
Interestingly, data shows that women (in 2008) were more likely to be found in occupations considered stereotypically ‘feminine’ and caring in nature, whereas men were more likely to be found in jobs requiring assertiveness and physical strength. Despite attempts to make available equal opportunities for all, it appears that women are still being found in traditional feminine roles, and as a result are, on average, earning less than their male counterparts (Kimmel, 2008). The term ‘counterparts’ is often used in studies relating to wages and other issues surrounding gender discrimination as a shorthand, intended to infer that the women and men in question are in fact comparable in every sense other than gender (Chichilnisky and Frederiksen, 2008). This would involve a wide range of attributes, including work experience, appropriate skills and training, and level of education. By doing so, it implicitly demonstrates that the researchers have acknowledged there are other differences between individuals, besides gender, and that they have accounted for these. There has been much research conducted on occupational gender segregation, both in general (Glass, 1990; Kmec, 2005) and more specifically its relation to explaining the gender wage gap (Baron and Cobb-Clark, 2010). During the literature search, four key areas were identified as significant and so will be explored in further detail for the remainder of this chapter. Part-time Work In research conducted by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), and reported by the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee (2005), it was found that approximately 36% of the gender wage gap in the UK was accounted for by employment pattern differences between men and women; including women taking maternity leave and having a higher prevalence of part-time work. Part-time work has regularly been considered as encompassing “the lowest grade, least skilled, lowest paid jobs in the labour workforce” (Hakim, 1991: 103), and are more often found in the domain of female-dominated occupations. As the Trades Union Congress (2007) reported, more than three quarters of workers in part-time jobs in the UK, during 2007, were women; not surprising when part-time jobs tend to be considered ‘women’s work’ (Walby and Olsen, 2002). Therefore, the main question to be explored here is why are women more likely to work part-time? It has been suggested by some that the reason for this is due to women with dependent children and families needing access to more flexible working hours; a result of many issues, but primarily an absence of affordable childcare and, in some cases, monetary support (Blackwell, 2001). Further explanations of why women might be concentrated in part-time jobs have been reported by the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee (2005). These include the lack of part-time places being offered in vocational courses and apprenticeships, leading to a much higher concentration of men in such occupations as plumbing and decorating. In their report, they also attribute it to the lack of training
14
offered to women upon their return to work, after maternity leave or other family-related leave. As a consequence, it has been suggested that women may choose occupations in which little training is required (Becker, 1985) so that they can easily take leave without the worry of having to re-train on their return. Another explanation for women’s concentration in part-time work relates to the learning of social roles and sex-typed values. During childhood or adolescence, individuals may go through a socialization process, whereby stereotypes about sex differences in skills and abilities contribute to the development of ideas on what are thought to be ‘appropriate’ gender roles (Shauman, 2006). The practice of such roles is considered by some as what perpetuates gender inequalities and differences (Chichilnisky and Frederiksen, 2008); inevitably leading to disparities in the valuation and subsequent pay of ‘women’s’ and men’s’ jobs. Under-valuing of Women’s Work Not only has the gender wage gap been explained through what is termed ‘allocative discrimination’; the blocking of women’s access to more lucrative and highly paid jobs, it has also been explained through ‘valuative discrimination’ (Petersen and Morgan, 1995). This refers to the differential valuation of female- and male-segregated jobs, and although allocative discrimination is often considered to contribute most to the gender wage gap (Hultin and Szulkin, 1999), valuative discrimination is important in the understanding of how gender inequalities in the labour workforce are both constructed and subsequently perpetuated (Cohen and Huffman, 2003). Cohen (2004) offers the explanation that historically, gender segregation of labour was focused within the home; that patriarchal ideologies of domesticity prescribed ‘women’s work’ to be comprised of unpaid, domestic responsibilities. He states that as women gradually moved into the labour workforce, the concentration of gender segregation shifted; with ‘women’s work’ being low in status and with lower wages. Succinctly put, “the paid labour market replaces the home as the central site of gender inequality” (2004: 241). In addition to this, Cohen (2004) suggests the main way women’s work is under-valuated, is that the work experience of unpaid domestic responsibilities often goes uncounted. As often reported by empirical research, work experience plays an important role in the occupations available to an individual (Baron and Cobb-Clark, 2010). This could offer a vital explanation as to why many women find themselves caught in a ‘revolving doors’ (Chan, 1999) situation; unable to move into a higher valued occupation or position. There are those who attribute this ‘valuative discrimination’ to stereotypes about men and women’s supposedly natural characteristics, and their relation to what are considered appropriate occupational roles; “jobs that require stereotypically ‘female’ traits (e.g. nurturance) are less valued than is work seen as requiring ‘male’ characteristics (e.g. assertiveness)” (Alksnis et al, 2008: 1418). Basing job value and worth on
15
stereotypes alone is limiting and can lead to significant cases of unsupported discrimination against women. As a result of this, it imposes negative consequences on women’s long term wealth; inequalities in pay will inevitably lead to a lesser degree of support when women are older and have retired (Spade and Valentine, 2008). Human Capital Approach Despite all the empirical research, Governmental surveys (British Household Panel Survey and Labour Force Survey), and newspaper reports making explicit links between women’s exclusion from higher paid jobs and the gender wage gap, there are those who believe that a human capital theory is a better explanation (Mincer and Polachek, 1974; Blackwell, 2001). England (1982) states that this theory relates to women who anticipate spending time out of the paid labour force, due to childcare and other family responsibilities, and that they are more likely to choose less taxing jobs. Therefore, this perspective disregards the impact of structural constraints and discrimination against women, and instead associates the gender segregation of occupations to a gendered preference for different types of jobs. For example, Hakim (1991) attributes this difference to the amount of investment an individual has in their paid work. She suggests that because women tend to invest more time and energy in domestic and family responsibilities, then they are less likely to be found in highdemanding jobs; leading to a segregation of female- and male-dominated occupations. By attributing an individual’s overall human capital to their own preferences and the choices they make, it eliminates any responsibility the state may have in generating and perpetuating gender inequalities. In a similar approach, some have used the key concepts of evolutionary psychology in order to offer an explanation for occupational gender segregation, and Browne (2006) suggests that it is because “people tend to gravitate toward, and succeed at, jobs for which they have the skills and ability and that provide them with the satisfactions that they desire” (2006: 144). From this approach, it is believed that there are differences in cognitive traits between the sexes; that the human mind has evolved and become sexually dimorphic (Browne, 2006). This allows for the explanation that the gendered segregation of the labour workforce is determined by psychological differences, such as competitiveness, self-esteem, and risk-taking behaviour. Research into the impact of personality traits on the gender wage gap has been conducted using a self-report method on personality, correlated with average wage growth for men and women (Manning and Swaffield, 2008). However, the findings were not found to be significant, and so suggest that only a small percent of the overall gender wage gap can be explained from this approach.
16
Structural Constraints The most common explanation for the gender segregation of occupations and their relation to the gender wage gap has been approached from a structuralist standpoint, suggesting that it is due to gender based discrimination and the active blocking of women from more lucrative jobs (Mandel and Semyonov, 2005). Historically, employers have referred to a variety of typical ‘female’ characteristics by way of excluding them from the workplace; often leading to direct gender based discrimination (Kimmel, 2008). An example of this is found in the Armed Forces, with women being excluded from front line positions which require them “to close with and kill the enemy face-toface” (Ministry of Defence, 2002). Formal legislation allows for this discrimination, on the grounds that it is conducted for “the purpose of ensuring the combat effectiveness of the armed forces” (Sex Discrimination Act, 1975). Using this as an example demonstrates how the Government can contribute to the gender inequalities in society, merely by allowing certain exceptions; which could be interpreted by some as implying gender based discrimination is fine, so long as there’s a seemingly ‘legitimate’ reason for it. Similarly, women generally attain higher academically, compared to men, so it has been suggested that occupational sex segregation may just “reflect historical patterns of sex-based discrimination” (Glass, 1990: 781). England (1982) uses her critique of the Human Capital approach in support of this argument, proclaiming that in Polachek’s proposed theory (as cited in England, 1982) he fails to make explicit why women would choose occupations which consist of low appreciation; particularly lower wages. It is believed by some that through the notion of exclusion, either formally by government policies, or informally by learned gender roles, women face a form of ‘ghettoization’; that “patterns of job segregation have locked women into occupational ghettos that are characterised by low wages” (Kahn and Grune, 1982: 75). Commented on by Mandel and Semyonov (2005), they suggest that the implementation of family policies may help women into the labour force, but they may also limit women in terms of the scope of occupational opportunities available; thus limiting the dependent mothers’ earnings capacity. As a result of this, policies intended to help narrow inequalities between men and women in the work force, may actually increase the gender wage gap (Arnot et al, 1999). Blackwell (2001) believes that if occupational segregation is due to freely made choices then there is no need for interventions, however, she suggests that if it is due to women being actively blocked or driven from gender atypical jobs, then there is a serious concern with equal opportunities. Finally, in a newspaper article on the current state of the gender wage gap in Britain, Allen (2010) reports that research conducted by the Chartered Management Institution (CMI) suggests women were hit hardest by the recent recession; with more female workers being made redundant. This could potentially have serious
17
negative repercussions, with regard to women’s short- and long-term wealth; including not only their current income, but also their future retirement fund (Warren et al, 2001). The overall aim of this chapter was to focus more specifically on the occupational segregation of women and men, and how it directly relates to the perpetuation of a gender wage gap. This has been done by exploring four key areas which have been seen to have a significant impact on both the development of a noticeable segregation between male- and female-dominated occupations, and the more general issue of the gender wage gap. Despite much research and theories being in support of this explanation, there are some which believe it is not significant enough. Mumford and Smith (2007) found that only 2.6% of the overall earnings gap in Britain could be accounted for by occupational segregation, with 42.6% being associated with a pure ‘gender gap’. Therefore, more explanations of the gender wage gap must be explored; as the next chapter will do so by investigating ‘vertical segregation’ in more detail, and the impact of positions of authority on women’s wages.
18
CHAPTER 4 The Impact of ‘male primacy’ The previous chapter considered occupational segregation as one of the contributing factors of the widespread gender wage gap. Horizontal segregation was the main focus, and so this chapter will be exploring vertical segregation in more depth; considering the various issues surrounding its development and perpetuation. Vertical occupational segregation is described by Charles (2003) as “differences in the social status associated with men’s and women’s occupations” (2003: 268), with men in most cases holding higher occupational positions than comparable women. This has been demonstrated in research conducted by Mitra (2008), who found that men tended to hold more supervisory and managerial positions, relative to women. It was suggested that the causes of this are due to employers failing to offer professional women better career opportunities and the option of upward mobility; resulting in a significant gender wage gap between men and women. It has been suggested that the issue of authority within occupations comes from a much wider ideology of ‘male primacy’ (Charles, 2003), which views men as being more worthy of status than women; resulting in men being seen as more appropriate for certain positions regarding authority and domination. This notion of patriarchy is also drawn on in this chapter, as it is believed to have a great impact on the public sphere of work; a domain which once consisted primarily of males. It has been suggested that patriarchy constitutes a much broader framework of male dominance in society, and that the workplace is just one example of where it is played out (Walby, 1990). In addition to this, Mac an Ghaill and Haywood (2007) describe patriarchy as having achieved universal recognition as “the single cause of women’s oppression” (2007: 24), with social practices being used to reproduce gender-related inequalities in all areas of life. From the literature reviewed, it appears that vertical occupational segregation has been explained from two different approaches: from a structuralist view, that employers are regularly discriminating against women and preventing them from upward mobility, often referred to as the ‘glass-ceiling’ effect (Corsun and Costen, 2001); or from a human capital approach, which believes it is due to women self-selecting out of promotion opportunities and high status positions because of domestic responsibilities (Becker, 1985). Glass Ceiling Hypothesis The term ‘glass ceiling’ is often used to describe the vertical segregation experienced by women in a variety of occupations (Hull and Umansky, 1996). The glass ceiling is believed to be an invisible barrier which prevents the upward mobility of women, with regard to the management hierarchy (Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990).From this approach it is believed that the high concentration of men in positions of authority directly relates to the inequalities in wealth; with women finding 19
themselves concentrated in low-status jobs, with little support of progressing higher. Similarly, it has been proposed that the higher paying jobs experience a larger wage gap, when compared to relatively low paying jobs (Baron and Cobb-Clark, 2010). In research conducted by Chichilnisky and Frederiksen (2008), they found that “the higher paid the occupation, the larger the salary discrimination against women” (2008:310), suggesting that the ‘glass ceiling’ effect was at work. This approach has been further developed by Arulampalam et al (2007), who proclaimed that more research was needed into how the gender wage gap varies across wage distribution. Using European Community Household Panel (ECHP) data, they found that wage distribution between men and women was more pronounced both at the top, and at the bottom of the occupational hierarchy; suggesting that there is not only a ‘glass ceiling’ effect, but also a ‘sticky floor’ as well. This concept occurs as the result of men tending to enter into an occupation in a higher position than women; with there being a high concentration of women in low status positions (Arulampalam et al, 2007). With much research demonstrating that there is such a phenomenon present, there is a high concern with its causes; predominantly explored from three different angles. Taking a person centred approach, Morrison and Von Glinow (1990) suggest that in some cases, the behaviours and attitudes held by women make them inappropriate candidates, or are seen as less capable of holding positions of authority within an organisation. Similarly, a bias centred approach is predicated on sex-role stereotypes and the belief that if these are strong enough, they can lead to sex discrimination (Hull and Umansky, 1996). From this perspective, masculine traits are often highly valued, and so it is believed by some that stereotypical traits no longer relate to gender, but instead to those who have power and those who do not. Therefore, discrimination can impact on promotion opportunities, job-worth, but more importantly, wages. From a structural centred approach, the segregation of women into lower positions with lower pay is seen as a result of patriarchy, and the widespread practices which favour male dominance. Kanter (1977, as cited in Hull and Umansky, 1996) extends the model of patriarchy in order to suggest that social conformity plays a major role in the maintenance of the ‘glass ceiling’. She proclaims that a vicious cycle has been created through male dominance; that men wish to remain in the dominant roles in society, and so are apprehensive about employing females into such roles. It is through these patriarchal systems that the concepts of masculinity and femininity are socially constructed, and by doing so create differences between men and women; including serious inequalities (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2007). Self-Selection Hypothesis Alternatively, it has been suggested that women remain in lower status positions due to selfselection; primarily due to family responsibilities. The self-selection element has been seen by some 20
as the internalisation of stereotypes and discrimination, leading women to value themselves as incapable of leadership roles, and so limit themselves in terms of accepting opportunities (Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990). Wright et al (1995) explain this approach further, and suggest that the reason women are often found in lower positions of authority is because they prefer not to put themselves forward for promotions. The result of this is that they remain in positions with lower pressures and time commitments, but at the same time, lower their career prospects. However, Wright et al (1995) also make the point that there may be many reasons why women prefer to remain in lower status positions; reasons which are most likely to involve outside (the workplace) factors, such as gender division in household work, or the absence of affordable childcare. Upon choosing to take time out of employment for family responsibilities, women’s patterns of work become discontinuous, and can result in having fewer years for the chance of upward mobility; and a greater chance of downward mobility, in terms of wage hierarchies (Warren et al, 2001). As Zeng (2011) discovered, results showed a significant underrepresentation of women in managerial positions; with men having the highest rates of upward mobility. It is mentioned that the reason for this may be that women choose to ‘opt out’ or ‘opt down’, in terms of job requirements and pressures, when a family related issue arises. Zeng (2011) attempts to make a direct link between this underrepresentation of women and the gender wage gap, suggesting that it “is not only an indicator of inequality, but also a potential cause of inequality” (2011: 313). Huffman and Cohen (2004) write that authority is highly valued, as it affirms status and often relates directly to the financial rewards received by an individual. Writing from a human capital approach, they state that “women self-select into female-dominated occupations” (2004: 123), which often consist of fewer positions of authority. Therefore, women are less likely to be found in high-paying positions of authority; which they believe to directly affect women’s level of income. However, the question of causality often arises when considering women’s role in self-selecting out of promotions and other upward mobility. It has been acknowledged that women may be left with no other choice than to leave employment when taking care of children, due to the lack of childcare services and other support (Arnot et al, 1999). As previously stated, this inconsistency with work experience generally has a negative impact on mothers, limiting them to the lower paid occupations; with fewer opportunities for promotion and exercising authority (Huffman and Cohen, 2004). In research conducted by the European Commission (2010), focusing on public opinion concerning gender equality in the EU, it was found that the majority of respondents felt that the low number of women in positions of authority (in the workplace) was not due to women’s choices of preferences. Instead, they reported that it was for the simple fact that women tend to have less freedom due to their family responsibilities. 21
Overall, the aim of this chapter was to explore the issue of vertical occupational segregation in more depth; considering it from both sides of the argument. Firstly, that it is due to structural and discriminatory biases, which often favour men over women; just one example of an arena that patriarchal ideologies are played out in. Secondly, that it is due to women’s active role in selfselecting out of promotions and upward mobility; often due to family responsibilities. However, in relation to many empirical studies, tools used for measuring more broader types of segregation are often criticised for not taking into account vertical occupational segregation, “which is critical in understanding gender inequalities” (Blackburn et al, 2001: 513). By doing so, it is hoped that many more complex factors contributing to the gender wage gap can be uncovered, and effective policies and initiatives implemented in order to combat this serious form of gender inequality. The next chapter will discuss the most notable attempts that have been made throughout history in order to reduce the gender wage gap in Britain, and future suggestions that have arisen from empirical research into the matter.
22
CHAPTER 5 Policies and Interventions The previous three chapters have explored in great detail, what are considered to be the most significant contributing factors to the gender wage gap. Issues concerning family responsibilities, gender segregation, and women’s likelihood in managerial positions have been investigated; identifying the problems women face, and offering suggestions for improvement in terms of policies and initiatives. Therefore, the aim of this final chapter is to briefly explore policies surrounding the gender wage gap, and its problematic causes. This will be completed by a brief summary of the current problems, solutions that have arisen from research and been suggested by commentators, and finally, a brief overview of both past, present and future policies being implemented, with the intention of reducing the gender wage gap in Britain. What are the problems? The gender wage gap has been extensively researched, with many different perspectives being taken using many different approaches. For this final discussion around policies, a structural approach will be taken, as it is felt that this is most significant in terms of attempting to narrow the wage gap between men and women. Blackwell (2001) makes the point that if ‘occupational choice’ is due to individual’s freely made decisions then policy interventions are unnecessary. However, she goes on to state that if it is due to some being blocked or driven from gender atypical jobs, then there is a serious concern with equal opportunities. As Mitra (2003) notes, “rules governing wages and promotions are internal and not observable by the government or the public” (2003: 323), leading to a significant concern with issues surrounding discrimination, inequalities and wage disparities. It has been demonstrated in research that one of the contributing factors to the gender wage gap is the undervaluing of ‘women’s work’. Alksnis et al (2008) explored this in depth, with their participants tending to value ‘male jobs’ as having higher worth and subsequently assigned more pay when a job was identified as ‘male-typed’. They describe this as an example of ‘modern sexism’, relating to issues of patriarchy, but also the learning of gender stereotypes. The segregation of men and women into separate occupational spheres has been explained from a social learning approach; that the socialization process, which takes place through childhood and into adolescence, helps to build stereotyped beliefs about gendered traits and may lead to an adherence to learned gender roles (Shauman, 2006). In a patriarchal society, women are constructed as subordinate to men, with their ‘natural’ gender characteristics often being valued as inferior to those of men. In a newspaper report by Gentleman (2009), she writes about the pay penalty facing women who choose to become mothers. By taking time out of employment for family responsibilities, women tend to have less 23
work experience and skills than men; impacting in the longer term on women’s pension schemes and overall wealth. This problem of having to take extended leave from employment is attributed largely to the simple fact that there is little affordable childcare available for working mothers (Gentleman, 2009). However, it has been suggested that the limited number of family policies already in place are contributing to the gender wage gap, rather than narrowing it (Mandel and Semyonov, 2005). This is due to the policy-makers focus on helping women into the work force, with little attention being paid to the low wages and poor conditions of the only jobs available to such women. What has been suggested? There have been many policy suggestions made as the result of research conducted into the issues surrounding the gender wage gap, and what must be done in order to narrow it further. Chichilnisky and Frederiksen (2008) boldly suggest that it is due to the “self-fulfilling nature of traditional gender roles” (2008: 301), and so policies need to work towards changing social norms; including traditional gender stereotypes and gender roles. They acknowledge the difficulty of this approach, but believe that it is important to do so in order to eradicate preconceived ideas about appropriate gender roles and occupations; which they believe contributes significantly to the perpetuation of the gender wage gap. Alternatively, many believe that the solution to these issues lie with the government and the need for policy changes surrounding equal pay and the introduction of upward mobility programs. Kahn and Grune (1982) make suggestions that attributing higher value to women’s work is needed and that by doing so, it is hoped those who choose to remain in feminised jobs, will receive pay based on comparable worth, rather than gender. In addition to this, they proclaim that by offering a greater number of upward mobility programs, new job opportunities for women will be created. As Mitra (2003) states, policymakers need to “focus not only on the hiring practices but also on the internal rules and promotion practices of large employers” (2003: 329), with one significant suggestion being that gender pay audits within large companies and businesses become compulsory. As an alternative to family policies, Mandel and Semyonov (2005) suggest that the required solution is to implement an equal wage structure; allowing for men and women to be paid equally, and to be offered the same promotional advances. This had previously been suggested by Blau and Kahn (1996) who report from their analysis that the wage structure in a country is important in predicting levels of wage inequality. The larger gender wage gaps tend to be attributed to more unequal wage structures, overall. Finally, Arulampalam et al (2007) use data from the European Community Household Panel (ECHP), and interestingly find that in countries that have more gender specific policies, for example extended maternity leave, issues such as ‘glass ceilings’ and ‘sticky floors’ are less prevalent. 24
What has been implemented? The development of the welfare state in the twentieth century contributed significantly to the narrowing of some inequalities between men and women; liberating women from traditional gender roles and offering more support in all aspects of life (Mac an Ghaill and Haywood, 2007). In addition to this, the introduction of the Equal Pay Act (1970) attempted to improve pay and work conditions for women; eliminating disparities in wages between comparable men and women. However, it has been commented by some that the Act failed to cover and protect certain ‘groups’ of employees; such as those working in private establishments, but also Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) individuals. Furthermore, it had little impact on the issue of occupational sex segregation (Spade and Valentine, 2008), leaving a wide gap between male- and female-dominated jobs. The introduction of the National Minimum Wage (1999) offered little in the way of narrowing the gender wage gap, as it merely defined what the lowest possible wage should be. However, when first introduced, it was only applicable to workers over the age of 18; allowing for discrimination against those who were younger. For almost a decade, there was little progress in the way of policies and initiatives implemented in order to actively narrow the gender wage gap. However, Bennett (2009) reported on the Labour Government’s proposal to implement new ‘gender pay audits’ which would be compulsory for all large employers, by the year 2013. By doing so, it was suggested that a shift would take place as employers would be required to prove their female staff as being treated fairly, rather than individual women attempting to prove their employers discrimination. However, since the Coalition Government have come into power, it is reported that this compulsory pay audit is no longer to be included in the Equality Act (2010). Instead, they are offering the gender pay audits only on a voluntary basis, which has been described by some as “a backwards step” (BBC News, 2010). Finally, in a news report by Hill (2010), she draws on comments made by the Fawcett Society, who have long campaigned for gender equality, who state that by withdrawing this significant policy change, they are sending “a clear signal that creating a more equal society is a low priority for the coalition” (Hill, 2010). This chapter has briefly explored some of the issues contributing to the gender wage gap in Britain, suggestions made in order to narrow the gap, and finally, a summary of some of the policies and initiatives that have been implemented with the intention of eradicating gender inequalities within the workforce. From a structuralist approach, some may conclude that more must be done by the government and others in power, in order to further reduce the gender wage gap; with the overall intention of creating a fair and equal society, in all aspects of life.
25
CONCLUSION The main aim of this dissertation has been to demonstrate that there is a significant and measurable wage gap between the genders, which from a structuralist approach, is perpetuated by the patriarchal system in Britain. Using the social learning theory it has been demonstrated that gender roles and stereotypes are learned, and contribute significantly to the factors which create the gender wage gap. It would appear that domestic and family responsibilities are one of the main factors affecting women’s employment opportunities, and thus impact on their overall wages earned. However, upon closer inspection, the majority of studies which support this argument are quite limiting in the sense that they tend to place emphasis and focus on ‘nuclear’ families; consisting of a married mother and father, with dependent children. Since this is no longer the case for many families in Britain, it has been suggested that research into this area keeps pace with the changes, in order to remain relevant. In addition to this, Green (2009) proposes that the wage gap isn’t between the genders, but in fact is between mothers with dependent children and everyone else. To investigate this, the third chapter chose to look at occupational segregation, and the impact this has on both men and women’s wages. It was found that there is often a clear distinction between ‘female’ and ‘male’ jobs; women tending to be found in care-giving occupations, and men being found in service and manual labour jobs. However, the majority of the studies reviewed in this dissertation report that women’s occupations tend to be undervalued and subsequently paid less. In addition to this, women are more likely to be found in part-time positions; well reported as being valued less, paid less, and consisting of poor working conditions. Following on from this, the fourth chapter looked more closely at vertical occupational segregation, and the impact it has on women’s wages; both in the short and long term. It was discovered that women are often found in lower positions of authority within organisations, and are offered opportunities for promotion less frequently than their male counterparts. The issue of ‘glass ceilings’ was explored, with some studies concluding that this invisible barrier preventing women’s upward mobility may be due to ‘male primacy’ and the simple fact that men wish to remain in dominant positions; seeking to uphold the traditional system of patriarchy. The final chapter explored some of the most significant past and present policies which have been implemented in order to reduce the gender wage gap in Britain. However, from this investigation, it has been concluded that more must be done in order to reduce the inequalities in wages; including more holistic family policies, but also compulsory pay audits to be completed by companies, with the intention of monitoring both gender and race equality. Finally, it is suggested that more qualitative research be conducted, in order to determine from a women’s point of view, why it is that they are more likely to be found in such low-paid occupations; selfselection or structural inequalities. 26
REFERENCES Alksnis, C., S. Desmarais and J. Curtis. 2008. Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: is ‘women’s work’ valued as highly as men’s? Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 38 (6): 1416-1441. Allen, K. 2010. “Equal pay for women not likely till 2067” says research. The Guardian. [Online]. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/19/equal-pay-women-2057 [18th January 2011] Arnot, M., M.E. David and G. Weiner. 1999. Closing the Gender Gap: Postwar Education and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Arulampalam, W., A.L. Booth and M.L. Bryan. 2007. Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring the gender pay gap across the wage distribution. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 60 (2): 163186. Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. London: Prentice-Hall. Baron, J.D. and D.A. Cobb-Clark. 2010. Occupational Segregation and the Gender Wage gap in private- and public-sector employment: A distributional analysis. The Economic Record. 86 (273): 227-246. BBC News. 2010. Gender pay disclosure plans eased by coalition. BBC News. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11900104 [22nd March 2011] Becker, G.S. 1985. Human capital, effort and the sexual division of labour. Journal of Labour Economics. 3 (1): 33-58. Part 2: Trends in Women’s Work. Bennett, R. 2009. Compulsory audits on equal pay will force firms to give women more. The Times. [Online] Available at: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6157760.ece [22nd March 2011] Berk, L.E. 2006. Child Development. (7th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bittman, M. and J. Wajcman. 2000. The Rush Hour: the character of leisure time and gender equity. Social Forces. 79 (1):165-189. Blackburn, R.M., B. Brooks and J. Jarman. 2001. Occupational stratification: the vertical dimension of occupational segregation. Work, Employment and Society. 15 (3): 511-538. Blackwell, L. 2001. Occupational sex segregation and part-time work in modern Britain. Gender, Work and Organization. 8 (2): 146-163. Blau, F.D. and L.M. Kahn. 1996. Wage structure and gender earnings differentials: an international comparison. Economica. 63 (250): 29-62. 27
Bourke, J. 2010. ‘Women on the Home Front in WWI’. BBC History. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/britain_wwone/women_employment_01.shtml [21st February 2011] Bradley, H. 2007. Gender: Key Concepts. Cambridge: Polity Press. Browne, K.R. 2006. Evolved sex differences and occupational segregation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 27 (2): 143-162. Bruce, T. and C. Meggitt. 2007. Child Care and Education. London: Hodder Arnold. Cardwell, M. 2000. The Complete A-Z Psychology Handbook. (2nd ed). London: Hodder and Stoughton. Chan, T.W. 1999. Revolving Doors re-examined: occupational sex segregation over the life course. American Sociological Review. 64 (1): 86-96. Charles, M. 2003. Deciphering sex segregation: vertical and horizontal inequalities in Ten national labor markets. Acta Sociologica. 46 (4): 267-287. Charles, N. 1993. Gender Divisions and Social Change. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Charles, N. 2002. Gender in Modern Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cheal, D. 1991. Family and the State of Theory. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Chichilnisky, G. and E.H. Frederiksen. 2008. An equilibrium analysis of the gender wage gap. International Labour Review. 147 (4): 297-320. Clearfield, M.W. and N.M. Nelson. 2006. Sex Differences in Mother’s Speech and Play Behaviour with 6-, 9-, and 14-month old infants. Sex Roles. 54 (1-2): 127-137. Cohen, P.N. 2004. The gender division of labor: “Keeping House” and occupational segregation in the United States. Gender and Society. 18 (2): 239-252. Cohen, P.N. and M.L. Huffman. 2003. Occupational segregation and the devaluation of women’s work across U.S. labor markets. Social Forces. 81 (3): 881-908. Cole, N. 2010. Made in Dagenham. DVD. Collins, R.L. 2011. Content Analysis of Gender Roles in Media: Where are we Now and Where Should we Go? Sex Roles. 64 (3-4): 290-298. Corsun, D.L. and W.M. Costen. 2001. Is the glass ceiling unbreakable? Habitus, fields and the stalling of women and minorities in management. Journal of Management Inquiry. 10 (1): 16-25. Cranny-Francis, A., W. Waring, P. Stavropoulos and J. Kirkby. 2003. Gender Studies: Terms and Debates. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Crosby, F.J. and K.L. Jaskar. 1993. Women and Men at Home and at Work: Realities and Illusions. In Oskamp, S. and M. Costanzo. (eds) Gender Issues in Contemporary Society. Newbury Park: Sage. 28
Eagley, A.H. and V.J. Steffen. 2000. Gender Stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. In Stangor, C. (ed) Stereotypes and Prejudice. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. England, P. 1982. The failure of human capital theory to explain occupational sex segregation. The Journal of Human Resources. 17 (3): 358-370. Equality Act. 2010. Chapter 15. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents [15th February 2011] Equal Pay Act. 1970. Chapter 41. [Online]. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1970/41/pdfs/ukpga_19700041_en.pdf [9th February 2011] European Commission. 2010. Gender Equality in the EU in 2009. Special Eurobarometer 326. [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_326_sum_en.pdf [3rd November 2010] European Commission. 2011. Gender Pay Gap: What Are the Causes? [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=682&langId=en [26th February 2011] Gentleman, A. 2009. Motherhood 'devastates' women's pay, research finds. The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/10/mothers-wages-fawcettsociety?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 [22nd March 2011] Glass, J. 1990. The impact of occupational segregation on working conditions. Social Forces. 68 (3): 779-796. Golombok, S. and R. Fivush. 1994. Gender Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, D. 2009. The gender pay gap does not exist. The Telegraph. [Online]. Available at: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/davidgreen/9666597/The_gender_pay_gap_does_not_exist/ [4th November 2010] Hakim, C. 1991. Grateful Slaves and Self-Made Women: Fact and Fantasy in Women’s Work Orientations. European Sociological Review. 7 (2): 101-121. Hill, A. 2010. Equality law rendered 'toothless' by coalition review. The Guardian. [Online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/30/equality-law-gender-pay-gap [22nd March 2011] House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee. 2005. Jobs for the girls: the effect of occupational segregation on the gender pay gap. Sixteenth Report of Session 2004-05. House of Commons trade and Industry Committee. 29
Huckle, P. 1982. The Womb Factor: Pregnancy Policies and Employment of Women. In Boneparth, E. (ed) Women, Power and Policy. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Huffman, M.L. and P.N. Cohen. 2004. Occupational segregation and the gender gap in workplace authority: national versus local labor markets. Sociological Forum. 19 (1): 121-147. Hull, R.P. and P.H. Umansky. 1996. An examination of gender stereotyping as an explanation for vertical job segregation in public accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society. 22 (6): 507-528. Hultin, M. and R. Szulkin. 1999. Wages and unequal access to organizational power: an empirical test of gender discrimination. Administrative Science Quarterly. 44 (3): 453-472. Jacklin, C.N. and L.A. Baker. 1993. Early Gender Development. In Oskamp, S. and M. Costanzo. (eds) Gender Issues in Contemporary Society. Newbury Park: Sage. Janssen-Jurreit, M.L. 1982. Sexism: The Male Monopoly on History and Thought. London: Pluto Press. Kahn, W. and J.A. Grune. 1982. Pay Equity: Beyond equal pay for equal work. In Boneparth, E. (ed) Women, Power and Policy. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kimmel , M.S. 2008. The Gendered Society. (3rd ed) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kmec, J.A. 2005. Setting occupational sex segregation in motion: demand-side explanations of sex traditional employment. Work and Occupations. 32 (3): 322-354. Kohlberg, L.A. 1966. A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex role concepts and attitudes. In Maccoby, E.E. (ed) The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langlois, J.H. and A.C. Downs. 1980. Mothers, fathers and peers as socialization agents of sex-typed play behaviours in young children. Child Development. 51 (4): 1237-1247. Lindsey, E.W., J. Mize and G.S. Pettit. 1997. Differential Play Patterns of Mothers and Fathers of Sons and Daughters: Implications for Children’s Gender Role Development. Sex Roles. 37 (9-10): 643-661. Mac an Ghaill, M. and C. Haywood. 2007. Gender, Culture and Society: contemporary femininities and masculinities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Mandel, H. and M. Semyonov. 2005. Family policies, wage structures and gender gaps: sources of earnings inequality in 20 countries. American Sociological Review. 70 (6): 949-967. Manning, A. and J. Swaffield, J. 2008. The gender gap in early-career wage growth. The Economic Journal. 118 (530): 983-1024. Meyer, L.B. 2003. Economic Globalization and Women’s Status in the Labor Market: A cross-national investigation of occupational sex segregation and inequality. The Sociological Quarterly. 44 (3): 351383. Mincer, J. and S. Polachek. 1974. Family investments in Human Capital: earnings of women. The Journal of Political Economy. 82 (1): 76-108. 30
Ministry of Defence. 2002. Women in the Armed Forces. Ministry of Defence. [Online]. Available at: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/10B34976-75F9-47E0-B376AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_af_summary.pdf [14th March 2011] Mischel, W. 1966. A Social Learning View of Sex Differences in Behaviour. In Maccoby, E.E. (ed) The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mitra, A. 2003. Establishment size, employment and the gender wage gap. Journal of Socioeconomics. 32 (3): 317-330. Morrison, A.M. and M.A. Von Glinow. 1990. Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist. 45 (2): 200-208. Mumford, K. and P.N. Smith. 2007. The gender earnings gap in Britain: including the workplace. The Manchester School. 75 (6): 653–672. Mwale, S. 2008. What Contributions Have Biological Approaches Made to our Understanding of Gender and Sexuality? Journal of Social and Psychological Sciences. 1 (2): 88-97. Myers, D.G. 2007. Psychology. (8th ed) New York: Worth Publishers. National Minimum Wage Regulations. 1999. Regulation 12 [Online]. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/584/regulation/12/made [23rd March 2011] Oakley, A. 1972. Sex, Gender and Society. London: Maurice Temple Smith LTD. Petersen, T. and L.A. Morgan. 1995. Separate and Unequal: Occupation-Establishment Sex Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap. The American Journal of Sociology. 101 (2): 329-365. Rogers, S. 2009. The Sex Gap: which jobs do women and men do? The Guardian. [Online]. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/03/gender [10th March 2011] Rogers, S. 2011. International women's day: the pay gap between men and women for your job. The Guardian [Online]. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/08/international-womens-day-pay-gap [21st March 2011] Ruble, D.N., L.J. Taylor, L. Cyphers, F.K. Greulich, L.E. Lurye and P.E. Shrout. 2007. The Role of Gender Constancy in Early Gender Development. Child Development. 78 (4): 1121-1136. Russell, H., E. Smyth and P.J. O’Connell. 2010. Gender Differences in pay among recent graduates: Private sector employees in Ireland. Journal of Youth Studies. 13 (2): 213-233. Schaffer, H.R. 2006. Key Concepts in Developmental Psychology. London: Sage Publications.
31
Scott, J. 1999. Family Change: revolution or backlash in attitudes? In McRae, S. (ed) Changing Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sex Discrimination Act. 1975. Section 85. [Online]. Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/65/section/85 [14th March 2011] Shauman, K.A. 2006. Occupational sex segregation and the earnings of occupations: what causes the link among college-educated workers? Social Science Research. 35 (3): 577-619. Signorella, M. L., R.S. Bigler and L.S. Liben. 1993. Developmental differences in children’s gender schemata about others: A meta-analytic review. Developmental Review. 13 (2): 147–183. Slaby, R. G. and K.S. Frey. 1975. Development of gender constancy and selective attention to samesex models. Child Development. 46 (4): 849–856. Spade, J.Z. and C.G. Valentine. 2008. The Kaleidoscope of gender: Prisms, Patterns and Possibilities. (2nd ed) Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Szkrybalo, J. and D.N. Ruble. 1999. ‘‘God made me a girl’’: Sex category constancy judgments and explanations revisited. Developmental Psychology. 35 (2): 392–402. The Looking Glass Society, 1996. Transsexualism: A Primer. (2nd ed) [Online]. Available at: http://www.looking-glass.greenend.org.uk/primer.htm#2.1 [10th February 2011] TUC. 2007. Closing the gender pay gap: an update report for TUC women’s conference 2008. Trades Union Congress. Walby, S. 1990. Theorizing Patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Walby, S. and W. Olsen. 2002. The Impact of Women’s Position in the Labour Market on Pay and Implications for UK Productivity. Women and Equality Unit: London. Warin, J. 2000. The attainment of self-consistency through gender in young children. Sex Roles. 42 (3-4): 209–231. Warren, T., K. Rowlingson and C. Whyley. 2001. Female Finances: gender wage gaps and gender assets gaps. Work, Employment and Society. 15 (3): 465-488. Wright, E.O., J. Baxter and G.E. Birkelund. 1995. The gender gap in workplace authority: A crossnational study. American Sociological Review. 60 (3): 407-435. Wood, E., S. Desmarais and S. Gugula. 2002. The Impact of Parenting Experience on Gender Stereotyped Toy Play of Children. Sex Roles. 47 (1-2): 39-49. Zeng, Z. 2011. The myth of the glass ceiling: evidence from a stock-flow analysis of authority attainment. Social Science Research. 40 (1): 312-325.
32
