Discrimination in the Workplace Civic Issues Blog

If you’ve been following along, I hope you’ve found my past posts informative. I thought I’d spend this last post by talking a little bit about solutions to the problems I’ve brought up. To be clear, my four previous posts are in no way a full description of what is going on in terms of gender discrimination in the workplace. Just to refresh your memory, here are the topics of my past posts, from oldest to most recent: introduction, gender roles, parental leave, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As with any “Type 3” problem, there isn’t a clear-cut, simple solution to eliminating gender discrimination in the workplace, but that’s not to say progress cannot be made. With this topic, things become especially problematic because a lot of the issues stem from socialization. As a disclaimer, much of the ideas in this post are either things I’ve come across or things I think sound feasible; I have not done any extensive research. Another disclaimer: this post turned out to be super long. If you’re pressed for time, feel free to skim or skip some sections.

—

Socialization

How do we change deeply entrenched social norms? I’ll be the first to admit I have no idea. A large part is probably education. Gender roles are put in place a young age—from birth, even—so elementary school education is crucial to development. Beyond that, though, there is also the matter of when a child goes home. More people—adults included—need to be made aware of the inequality that is inherent in the structure of our society and need to try to make a conscious effort to change their behaviors.

—

Addressing the ideal worker

We need to stop thinking of the ideal worker as a man with no responsibilities at home. Not only should employers offer flexible work options (for example, working longer for four days and taking the fifth off), they also must stop penalizing the people who take advantage of these options. As it stands in most cases, people who work part time or work non-traditional hours—often women who need to take care of children at home—are looked at as less committed because they don’t conform to our belief of the “ideal” worker. There is also an unfavorable bias against women. As long as a worker gets his/her work done on time, I don’t see an issue with not working 9-5 (there are some exceptions, obviously, where regular hours are necessary, but not all jobs are like this).

—

Parental Leave

I spent an entire post outlining the US’s lacking parental leave policies. I also brought up Sweden as an example of a country with generous parental leave laws: 480 days to be split between the parents, with at least 2 months taken by each parent, all at 80% pay. I’m not expecting the US to adopt a law as extreme as this, but I think it’s critical that parental leave be available to all men and women. By available, I mean not only legally available but also feasible to use. For example, mandating unpaid leave for everyone—which would be an improvement from our current law, where not everyone is covered—would not solve the problem because not many people can afford giving up their income for an extended period of time. Furthermore, increasing maternity leave without also increasing paternity leave is just as—if not more—problematic because it perpetuates the idea that women should be primary caregivers.

But here’s where it gets tricky: if any of the mandated leave is not at full pay, it makes more sense for the person who gets paid less to take the leave. For example, if the mother of a newborn child earned more than the father, it would make more sense for the mother to keep working and earn her full pay and for the father to take the leave and have his already-lesser pay docked for the duration of the leave. But because men still tend to earn more than women, it is the women who tend to take the leave.

Here’s a quote from an article I linked to in my post about parental leave (linked again here) that I think nicely sums up the topic: “Sweden has half the equation down, with a structure that demands accountability from dads. But men’s higher status at the workplace is a double-edged sword for them. Yes, they make more money, but they also have more stress. This is a reason for Swedish men to embrace an even more radical feminism, actually: If their wives become just as valuable at work as they are, the stress can be parceled out fairly.” So while improving parental leave would be helpful, it would only be most beneficial when coupled with other changes (such as overthrowing our “ideal worker”).

—

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

In my opinion, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) needs to be passed. I have no idea how the House can be pushed to bring the act to a vote, but it needs to be done. The fact that we don’t have a law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is ridiculous. Vice President Biden called it “close to barbaric.” We’ve been trying to pass a version of this law for longer than I’ve been born. People are still pushing, and hopefully it will be successful soon.

—

So, as you can tell, none of these solutions will be easy to implement. It’s not just a matter of passing a law; big changes to our societal structure must be made. That’s the bad news. But here’s the good news: we’ve made progress, and more and more people are learning about these issues every day. I hope that you’ve all learned something, and that even if you don’t go out and actively campaign, you’ll at least be more informed about what’s going on and will be able to share what you’ve learned with others.

This post is not about traditional gender discrimination in the workplace, but it’s related to my blog in the sense that much of discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation or gender identity stems from the belief of traditional gender roles (and traditional genders) as right, and the view of people who fall outside of these borders as somehow lesser or wrong. Today’s post is not quite as philosophical as some of the others have been, and it’s focused around some current events.

I’ll admit that I hadn’t heard of this type of discrimination until I began doing more research for my blog. One thing that often came up in my research was the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). According to Wikipedia, this bill has been introduced in every Congress but one since 1994. As of yet, it has not been passed. The act would prohibit “discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity by employers with at least 15 employees.” (If you’re interested, this video by Hank Green explains things such as gender identity and sexual orientation very well.)

An article by the Washington Post, “ENDA, explained” gives some pretty good background information. Here are some of the key points:

-There are approximately 8.2 million gay and lesbian workers in the US

-Not every state prohibits workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity

-More than 7 in 10 Americans favor prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians

-And finally, 7 in 10 Americans think gays and lesbians suffer at least “some discrimination” in the workplace

So why hasn’t this bill been passed? From what I can find, many people who do not support this bill (mostly Republicans) think that it is redundant; that is to say, there are already federal statutes against workplace discrimination and many private companies also have their own policies. (The rebuttal is that these statutes do not cover this type of discrimination, as attested to by numerous people who have brought cases to court and lost.) Some also believe that the act is not specific enough and could cause greater legal risk and increased litigation for some employers. There is also backlash from other people on the grounds of religion.

The current version of the ENDA act was passed by the Senate 64-32 in November. All Democrats (with the exception of one who was away dealing with a family emergency), two Independents, and 10 Republicans voted in favor. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, does not approve of the bill and has refused to put it up to vote in the House, so it looks unlikely that the law will pass.

Though certain groups and many politicians have called for President Obama to take executive action on this issue, a spokesman for the White House says this will not happen. (Obama has, however, been very vocal in his support for this bill. He has even written an op-ed piece for the Huffington Post on the matter.) Executive orders are a complicated business. Here’s a Slate article suggesting why Obama shouldn’t take executive action to ban this type of discrimination by federal contractors, and here’s a rebuttal to that article explaining why he should. Both authors agree that passing legislation through Congress is the best response, but they disagree on what should be done now that the Congress route appears to be stalled. One author believes we should focus solely on passing ENDA; an executive order such as this will probably not last beyond Obama’s term, and it could have the potential to make things worse in the long run. The other author argues that an executive order would positively affect many people right now; both ENDA and an order are necessary. Both authors make interesting points, but I personally found myself agreeing more with the second.

What are your thoughts on the issue? Is this piece of legislation just another victim of political gridlock? Or are there legitimate concerns about its passage? If you agree with the values behind this act, do you think Obama should take executive action or not?

The idea that a woman, rather than a man, should be the one to stay at home to take care of her newborn child is entrenched in our society, and only recently have calls for paternal leave become more frequent. But aside from the need to physically recover from childbirth for a short period of time, why should women be pressured to stay at home, thus potentially jeopardizing the rest of their careers? Parental leave policies as they stand today tend perpetuate traditional labor divisions. It is much easier for women than for men to get time off from work to care for newborn and young children, which paves the way for women to become primary caregivers. (Not that there’s anything wrong with women being primary caregivers; I just think it should be a choice.)

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), men and women in the United States are guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid leave after the birth/adoption of a child. However, in order to qualify, one must have worked for his/her employer for at least 12 months and must have worked at least 1,250 hours in the past 12 months; furthermore, only companies with more than 50 employees must abide. (It should be noted that the US has relatively poor parental leave standards; it is the only advanced economic nation not to offer paid maternal leave.) Because the leave mandated by the FMLA is unpaid, it makes more sense for the lower-paid parent to use; most often, this is the woman. Some states and companies supplement this law, but most add benefits in terms of maternal leave, again furthering the idea that women should be the primary caregivers. (While I believe women should be given time off to recover from childbirth, I believe that parental leave aside from this period should be allowed to be equally split and furthermore, should be at least partially paid.)

—

That’s not to say every company in the US holds to these minimum standards. Many offer a little more, and some even offer a lot more. (Such as prominent tech firms like Reddit and Google.)

As great as the policies by these companies are, it’s important to realize that they only affect a small portion of the American population. I read through some of the comments, and one made a really good point: few companies are wealthy enough to afford these kinds of policies. Like this article mentions, even if the policies help influence the policies of other tech firms, broad changes will only take place through governmental mandate.

—

Not only do the average regulations make it hard for men to provide childcare, they also serve to reinforce the idea that women should be the primary caregivers. In this article, one mother writes, “I still see the effects of those early months in ways large and small—it’s hard to argue that my husband should pack the diaper bag when I’m indisputably better at squeezing in that last bag of Cheerios, thanks to all those extra months of practice. Old habits—and entrenched social norms—die hard.”

Looking at other countries brings up some interesting points. Sweden, for example, mandates two months off for mothers, two months off for fathers, and an additional 320 days to be split up in any way, all at 80% pay. While this would seem to be beneficial for gender equality, women take 75% of the allocated time. This probably happens because, in the workplace, men are still more valuable than women; men tend to earn more money than women and thus it is less affordable for men to take off from work. Swedish men report higher amounts of work-nonwork stress and nonwork-work stress (check out the article for explanations of these terms) than women because they are expected to contribute more equally to early childcare yet are also responsible for bringing in more money to support the family.

It would seem, then, that the way to solve the issue is not just through equal parental leave; a balancing of the workplace gender inequality is also required.

—

*Information not cited comes from Feminism: Issues & Arguments by Jennifer Mather Saul.

It’s interesting (and disheartening) to see how prevalent gender roles remain in our society. In general, these biases are ingrained and subconscious: while most people would maintain that they do not perpetuate gender roles, this is far from true.

Take, for example, this unofficial study (Google, Tell Me. Is My Son a Genius?) by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, a contributing op-ed writer for The New York Times. By looking at aggregate Google searches, Stephens-Davidowitz argues that American parents still tend to associate boys with intelligence and girls with beauty. Check out his article for some nice infographics and more specific examples. The last sentence of his piece is rather poignant. He wonders, “How would American girls’ lives be different if parents were half as concerned with their bodies and twice as intrigued by their minds?”

Although children are rarely told explicitly that women do the cooking and cleaning and men go out and work (in fact, I distinctly recall being told that this is not true many times during my childhood), social cues say otherwise. For example, in most families, boys and girls do the same amount of chores, but these chores are very gender-segregated, meaning that, for example, the boys will mow the lawn and the girls will clean. Obviously, most parents do not think they treat their children differently, but in reality, they do. So then children subconsciously absorb these differences, and internalize them as right.

An interesting point is that biological sex does not necessarily determine gender roles. For example, a man who stays at home to raise his children could be thought of as occupying a female gender role. (Another point of interest is that gender is more and more being thought of as a continuum rather than as something discrete; some people do not fit neatly in either gender. But that’s an entirely different topic.)

—

The gender role that is most concerning in terms of equality in the workplace is that women are expected to be the primary caregivers. This is troubling because, as I explained in my last post, our society is structured to disadvantage primary caregivers. Conversely, men are not expected to be primary caregivers and often have trouble if they try to do so.

This Business Week article argues that cognitive bias is really what’s hindering gender equality in the workplace. The way we think how women and men (and girls and boys)—and we are ingrained to think they should have different characteristics, even if we don’t acknowledge it—should act really affects our thoughts and actions.

On the same track, in a short story I read, entitled “Imagine My Surprise” (from Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation), a woman—a self-proclaimed feminist raised in a feminist household by two feminist parents—shared how she was horrified at how easily she submitted to her male boss. She had thought she would be able to stand up to him, but when he yelled at her to shut up and sit down, she did so immediately. Her response was instinctual, and it shocked her because she knew she was in the right and she thought she would be able to stand up for herself.

—

It’s unfortunate that many people think that they treat people of both genders equally but actually don’t, through little fault of their own. (I hesitate to use the phrase “little fault of their own” because although they have been socialized to act a certain way, and although socialization is extremely hard to fight, I don’t think it constitutes an excuse. We are all guilty to some extent, and I am just as guilty as everyone else.)

So, what can be done? Many people believe the answer lies in changing our socialization, which is a lofty but—in my opinion—completely necessary goal. More on potential solutions to come in Post 5.

—

*Again, any information I have not cited comes from Feminism: Issues & Arguments by Jennifer Mather Saul.

I’m taking a course this semester called “Philosophy and Feminism,” and I’ve found it very interesting so far. It’s an introductory course, so we’re looking briefly at a lot of feminism’s largest topics. One of the first topics we talked about—and what I’m going to be writing my blog on—is discrimination in the workplace (and how family structures affect this discrimination).

Here’s a plan for my blogging as it stands right now. Today’s post is an introduction to the topic. The next post will be about the role of gender roles in sex/gender discrimination, the third about parental leave, the fourth about discrimination due to gender identity and sexual orientation, and the last will try to tackle what can be done about all of these issues.

—

Now, if you’re like I was a couple weeks ago, you think that feminism and gender discrimination is mostly a thing of the past (at least in developed countries like the one we live in). You certainly believe in gender equality, and you admit that there are still some problems, but you think that, for the most part, things are looking pretty good for most women on the equality front.

—

To start off, here’s a traditional approach to sex discrimination:

Taking sex into account for a legitimate reason (ex. only considering female applicants for an RA position on an all-female floor) is not discriminatory. A selection process that results in more people of one gender being hired than another is not discriminatory, as long as gender is not being considered (i.e. merit based selection where more people of gender happen to display more merit).

At first, this standard sounded pretty legit to me. But here’s why it’s not:

The way jobs in our society are structured makes them hard for primary caregivers to fulfill. Employers are looking for people who can best fulfill their jobs, and—because of the way jobs are structured—people who are not primary caregivers are more likely to be able to fulfill requirements. Therefore, our system is biased against primary caregivers. And since women are more likely than men to be primary caregivers, women bear the brunt of this bias.

Looking from the traditional standpoint on sex discrimination, it is not discriminatory that more men than women have secure jobs with benefits because more men meet the requirements.

—

Now, here’s another way to look at sex discrimination, called the “dominance approach”:

The dominance approach focuses on the distribution of power in our society. It points out that even though less traditional sex discrimination is occurring, women are still at a huge disadvantage in terms of job structure. From the standpoint of this approach, our system—not necessarily specific people—discriminates against women (because most primary caregivers are women).

For more on this, check out this (slightly older but still relevant) article from the New York Times entitled, “A Labor Market Punishing to Mothers.”

—

When I learned about it, the “dominance approach” resonated with me, and I was kind of surprised that I hadn’t heard more about it before. I think part of the problem is that, from what I’ve seen so far, the world looks pretty fair. I’ve been able to do all the same things as my older brother. I see just as many girls as I do guys here at college. This article from The Atlantic, “The Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap,” highlights the fact that the problem is not visible until later on in people’s careers or when looking at career choices. Women and men in comparable jobs have comparable starting wages. The problem comes after time. The wage gap (for comparable jobs) increases significantly throughout the career path, in large part because many women take time off to start a family, which sets them back. Another aspect is that many women choose different, lower-paying jobs than men—not because they’re not interested in higher-paying jobs but because, like I mentioned earlier, it is harder for women who are primary caregivers to fulfill the demands of these higher-paying jobs.

—

Someone in my class put it an interesting way. She said something along the lines of, “My view has always been that some women choose to be mothers and some women choose to pursue full-time careers, and that neither of these choices should be looked down upon so long as they are what the woman chooses to do. But now I realize that the fact that most women have to choose between a job and a family is wrong.” I, too, think this is wrong, and I believe that we should do what we can to restructure our society so that no one should have to choose between raising a family and having a good job. (For how this could be accomplished, make sure to check out post #5. In the meantime, keep reading the next posts for more aspects of the issue.)

—

*Most of the information I’ve used in this post, including the discussion of the different discrimination theories, comes from Feminism: Issues & Arguments by Jennifer Mather Saul.