know your rights

NOVEMBER 12 2013
Tiny pink nipples peeked from our pasty chest and our protruding ribs gave way to our sun-starved tummies. Alex and I ran free, our shirts flapping in the wind as we waved them over our heads like victory flags. Moments later, on that April day in first grade my friend and I experienced the injustice of womanhood; our teachers informed us that we were not allowed to go shirtless during recess. “Why?” Alex whined. “That’s not fair” I protested. Of course our complaint received the usual response, “it’s different for little boys and little girls” an answer that was both unsatisfactory and infuriating as well. Indignantly Alex and I fought our way to topless equality. By age six, I knew to speak against blatant sexism. When I heard a guest at a dinner party remark, “what a shame that beautiful curly hair was wasted on your daughter, she would be better if she was a boy” I boldly cut in, “girls can have beautiful curly hair too, girls are better too.” The adults chuckled at my petulance and my parents shared embarrassed looks. They banished me to the children’s table, leaving me with a lingering sense of injustice. My strong desire for equality has been shaped by experiences like these and myriad of other people and standards as well.
What then is gender equality? Gender equality as defined in the encyclopedia of governance is a condition of parity between men and women. The international Planned Parenthood also defines it as the measurable equal representation of women and men.
Gender equality does not imply that men and women are the same, but that they have equal value and should be accorded equal treatment.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various state anti-discrimination laws prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex, as well as race, nation origin and religion (29 USC sec 621-634). Coincident to the advent of the title VII, sweeping economic and social trends included, if not compelled women’s entry into the national workforce in vast numbers, and the female proportion of the workforce has continued to increase to this day. Women have gained access to positions formerly barred to them, and the past four decades have witnessed the elevation of women to corporate and professional levels formerly unheard of. During this time, discrimination against women in the workplace has abated.
Federal and state anti discrimination laws have performed a critical role in expanding workplace opportunities for women. As an old cigarette commercial exulted “You’ve come a long way baby” Yet women are still denied full equality in the workplace. Even though they can now secure powerful professional, academic and corporate positions once reserved for men, the ever- present “glass ceiling” still deters the advancement of large segments of the female workforce. Sex discrimination in the workplace may have subsided but surely has not been eliminated. As one law professor, commenting on current workplace conditions, aptly put it, “the present day finds us not at the end of the path but navigating a crucial bend in the road”(Kathryn Adams). But many women, especially young women entering the workplace for the first time are unaware that the end of the road is still distant and that substantial obstacles to attaining complete equality remains firmly in place.
If you have any doubts about the continuing presence of sex discrimination in the workplace, consider the following. Although recent years have seen some narrowing in the long standing gap between compensation paid to men and that paid to women, female workers still receive substantially less than men. In 1985, the average income of women to men was 68 percent of that of men. By 19999 it has risen to 77 percent (U.S Bureau of Census). At this rate another fifty years will elapse before women achieve pay equality. The youngest women working now cannot reasonably expect to achieve income parity in their lifetime.
Although women made up to 46.5 percent of the U.S workforce in 2000, women held only11.7 percent board or director positions of the fortune 500 companies, and only 12.5 percent of the corporate officers of those companies were females. Ninety of those companies did not have a single female officer. Given the average rate of increase in appointment of women to corporate offices, it has been projected that in 2020, when more women than men will be employed in the workforce, men will still hold nearly 75 percent of such positions in fortune 500 companies(2000 catalyst census of women corporate officers and top earners).
Some legal commentators argue that the personal choices made by women outside work have important implications for earnings and promotions in the work environment, and that these personal choices, not workplace discrimination, accounts for the persistent income gaps. This argument relies primarily on the contention that opportunities for promotions may not be as great for women who choose to leave work for extended periods to take care of their children. These commentators also observe that women who plan to interrupt their carriers to bear children may select occupations where job flexibility is high but compensation is low, it is argued free choice, rather than sex discrimination accounts for work place disadvantages suffered by women (Furchgott-Roth and Stolba).
This claim though somewhat true, is to a large extent not supported. A business week study found that female business school graduates with MBA degrees earn 12 percent less than male graduates (The Environmental Scan). Because all these+ graduates were all new hires directly out of school, this salary disparity, reflected neither experience nor performance, only corporate management’s decision to favor men over women.
In 1993, a survey conducted by the Colorado Women’s bar association disclosed a large economic gap between the state’s men and female lawyers of comparable years of experience and types of legal practice. The average income of female lawyers was only 59 percent of that of male lawyers. A 1998 study attributed at least part of this disparity to law firm’s decisions calculated to provide advantages and protection for those in power, typically men. Moreover, a law firm’s economic decisions were most often made by male-dominated executive committees, while women were generally excluded from participation in those decisions. The value of a female lawyer’s performance and the monetary award attached to it were based on expectations and perception of those in power- the male lawyers in the firm (Reichman and Sterling). This right here is a clear example of gender stereotype.
Even federal government employment policies favor men over women. In 1994, women filled 56 percent of government’s low paying positions while men held nearly 77 percent of the mid-level positions and 86 percent of its senior level posts (A Solid Investment). One may say all of this inequality could be due to the level of education of women as compared to men, "Is there any difference between the education acquired by men and women in college?" My answer to that question would be that although the "brick wall” in education has been broken; we still have another, invisible barrier called the "glass ceiling." Most people would say that education has changed a great deal since women began to attend institutions of higher learning. Is this completely true?
Women have undoubtedly made "Substantial educational progress." We should not forget that the large gaps between the education levels of women and men in the early 1970's essentially disappeared for the younger generation. Females on average outperform males in reading and writing, and take more credits in academic subjects. They are more likely than males to attend college after high school, and are as likely to graduate with a post-secondary degree. All of these accomplishments have accumulated with time and effort from women that have made a difference. It has taken years to get to where we are, but how far have we really come? On the average in 2010, women only made 77cents to every dollar a man makes. There is still a gender gap that needs to be rectified. Rather than telling women to be more confident and ambitious, I think it is more important to talk about how workplaces need to adapt to the “whole person” both men and women. This way everyone can strike a better balance between working and spending time with family and friends.
In conclusion, first of all we need to accept that gender inequality against women in the workplace still persists. Second, it persists at all levels of employment and in nearly all job categories. Thirdly, if the workplace can ever be free of gender inequality, women must commit themselves to opposing employer discriminatory conduct, policies and practices wherever and whenever they appear, and to persuade women victimized by acts of gender discrimination that we can best oppose such conducts, policies and practices through legal challenges based in the federal anti discrimination laws. And most importantly, women and the society as a whole need to continue to encourage women to go beyond gender stereotype and recognize the contributions that each individual, female or male can make to the workplace.