These changes over the past few decades can explain, to some extent, the changing motivations of women in the workplace, as their opportunities from schooling age have remained close to males’. With women’s opportunities similar to men’s in education, this results subsequently in an alteration of traditional gendered roles and refrains – which the woman in society had previously felt.
Through feminist theory, it is possible to understand this move away from a male dominated educational system, hence workforce. This has subsequently shaped much of women’s employment patterns. I will elaborate on this somewhat throughout the course of the essay.
Firstly, this initial change in gendered patterns can be clearly reflected generally by looking at the amount of women in the labour market, where 100 years or so ago, they would have previously been unable to enter. The number of women working from 1971 to 2005 has increased by 14%, showing that the actual number of women in employment has gone up by approximately 4 million over the last 35 years (National Statistics Online).
In order to fully account for the rising number of women in the workplace for example, it should be noted the many alternative living and working patterns now exist, greatly in response to feminist thought with its desire to seek equality. This can be highlighted effectively in the changing gender roles and the depart from traditional gender constructions of masculine and feminine norms (which I mentioned earlier). With the increasing participation of women in the workforce due to their being more accepted there (part and full-time), this has resulted in the changing role of the male in domestic life. The conventional model of male ‘breadwinner’ and domesticated female has been modified throughout the lives of many. This has been a major factor in women’s liberation from the traditional ties of the domestic sphere. Thus with many women choosing to include a career into their lifestyles, males are becoming increasingly more integrated into the previously female domestic domain, thus remodelling women’s previously reserved positions in the home.
This disintegration of gender divisions in jobs can also be highlighted through the increasing number of women in the present day in previously male jobs. Women now outnumber men in medical schools (BBC News Online: 2008), a definate sign that equality in the workplace is increasing.
Thus, through feminism’s desire to uproot traditional structures of the division of labour and patriarchy, the woman is seeing much more participation in the workforce and responsibility for her family’s earnings. The model of the home has been modified greatly, thus a step towards women’s liberation. These changing patterns of employment can be explained partly through feminist theory.
A major change in gendered patterns of work can also be seen in the increasing number of part-time positions taken up by women (Ginn, 1996:167). Contemporary women are taking more control over their independence by making their own earnings, thus many are now completely independent of men in terms of this. It is through a breakdown of the traditional division of labour and patriarchal structures– which liberal and radical feminism so eagerly tried to challenge – that women have been able to escape the restrains of the domestic sphere. In order for this restricting division of labour to change, feminists encouraged women to consider working in and outside the home to “assume responsibility for her own development” (Tong, 2008:16) in order to fully become an independent and autonomous individual
Much of the ideology formed in these engrained processes has been uprooted; as a result women have much more choice and say over their destinies (Humm, 1992:53). Part-time work makes this possible as many are able to maintain time for a career and also for bringing up children while they are off work.
By challenging, also, engrained stereotypes within society and questioning the ultimate ‘differences’ between man and woman, Mary Wollstonecraft and other liberal feminists pursued the notion of rights, in a further search for equality. Mary Daly and other radical feminists also discuss the negative effects of patriarchy in constructing and maintaining models for strict ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ roles. Patriarchy is seen by these feminists as part of society’s structure which is a major contributor to women’s oppression, due to engrained ideology. Through their combined efforts to uproot patriarchy in society, they have radically pursued the notion of androgyny (Tong, 2008:59). They propose this apparent solution in order that the gender role constraints - which have been engrained into our society – be banished. It is through these proposals and efforts of feminism to uproot the traditional division of labour and patriarchal structures, that much of society’s structure has been adapted. By questioning traditional ‘masculinities’ and ‘femininities’ in this way and by rethinking patriarchy, the role of the man – in the house, for example – has adapted dramatically in recent years. In general his masculinities have been redirected and he no longer permanently holds the superior position of leader and rule-maker. Thus there is a much more evenly distributed force of power within the household, where women are not solely expected to take responsibility of the household and the children. What now becomes a more likely scenario is a sharing of duties between the man and woman, in both the public and private sphere. Thus, the changing ‘masculinities’ in the home can be seen as a major contributor in the liberation of women, and subsequently in their ability to work.
The accommodation of women into the workforce via part-time work – for example – is a noticeable result of this. Previously dominant patriarchy, through its collapse in many institutions, has allowed women to excel in places previously banned to them. Thus feminist theory becomes relevant for interpreting this change in traditional gendered patterns of work.
Although feminist theory seeks equality amongst men and women, and has encouraged, for example, changes in women’s participation in the workforce, there are also gendered patterns of work which this theory cannot account for. Although the number of women in employment has increased over the past 100 years, there is still a dramatic difference between men’s and women’s participation in the workforce, with the employment rate sitting at roughly 79% for men compared to 70% for women (where half were part-time jobs) in 2008 (National Statistics Online). In addition– at present – a huge three quarters of women are incompletely focused on careers due to their desire to bring up children (Warner, 2008:1) and leave the work force- either permanently or temporarily.
In relation to feminist theory this represents a sustained inequality in the workforce, yet there are particular problems with thinking of this employment pattern in this way. Firstly, by regarding these trends in relation to feminist theory it fails to take into account – to an extent – the natural differences between men and women, which unsurprisingly cause inequalities between them. Although these inequalities have been minimised, through – for example – the changing role of the man within the household, it is still the woman who reserves the natural obligation for childbirth. This factor is a major contributor in shaping and restricting women’s employment patterns (Ginn, 1996:169).
In addition, liberal feminist theory - which encouraged women to combine work outside and inside the home, and which stresses that women can only become autonomous if they are completely self-sufficient (Tong, 2008, 14) – had the habit of neglecting the lower-classes and their struggles to do this. This is highlighted in Friedan’s critique based on an assumption that most women worked, primarily for other reasons other than basic survival (Tong, 2008, 44), which in actual fact a majority of lower-class women actually had to contend with. This high demand and tough solution for liberation has been reflected in these womens’ difficulties in working full-time while attempting to provide childcare for their children while they are at work. Thus, many married women simply had to rely on their partners while many single lower-class mothers did not have the option to work.
In this respect then, it can be said that feminism is not relevant in interpreting gendered patterns of work as women frankly could not combine the two. The model of the “superwoman” emerged here, through feminists proposals for women’s liberation; a woman who did not stop, a woman who worked and then did the housework. This was largely the effect of feminist’s proposals for women to become independent of men, in order to be equal to them. However, this did not necessarily have this effect as women. As although their thoughts on employment changed, men’s thoughts on housework did not. Thus, women were left to do both; they had a certain “double expectation”. So, with feminist theory warning women of the restrictions of staying at home, many simply could not combine the two, and if they did, they still put in more hours than men. This is still relevant today, with the reality that women still do more work in the house, with women spending approximately 1 hour 30 minutes more on housework per day than men (National Statistics Online).
Thus, although feminist theory has been relevant in interpreting many changes women have encountered in employment, it still is not enough to account for the sustained gender roles which emerge in the house, thus the sustained gap between men and women in employment.
The present reality of the gender divisions in the pay gap – for example – is another aspect which feminist theory is not enough to explain. Although feminism has prompted much change in societal structure and has resulted in women’s increased opportunity to some extent, there are many aspects of inequality still evident in contemporary society. In Great Britain men are still paid 17% more than women, with only 1 in 5 men working part-time compared to 2 in 5 women (Fitzgerald, 2006:7). This demonstrates the amount of discrimination against women that is still, to the present day, apparent.
However, to challenge the liberal feminist critique, there are some gaps which liberal feminist theory does not sufficiently address. With, presently, 2 in 5 women working part-time this means that there are also a large number of women not employed at all – 9% more women are unemployed than men (National Statistics Online). Feminist theory is not relevant in interpreting this pattern of work, as it suggests – for example – that women, in order to be completely autonymous, must enable time for a career, even if they choose to have children (Tong, 2008:20). However, this fails to take into account a majority of lower-class wives and increasing numbers of single mothers today who simply cannot afford to work and provide necessary childcare at the same time. Feminist theory has prompted changes in societal structure, and accounted for many changing ‘masculinities’ within the home and elsewhere. It is relevant in present patterns of work in the respect that, as more and more women choose to work, men are taking more responsibility within the domestic sphere. This means that increasingly, men are taking more time to look after children and to engage in domestic chores - a sector which was previously reserved for the woman. This change demonstrates itself in the emergence of paternity leave, reflecting the father’s new role within the domestic structure. Although feminist theory is relevant in this respect, it is certainly not for interpreting the gender pay gap. This gap suggests that there is still – to this day – many aspects of ‘femininity’ which are less regarded than ‘masculinity’. It demonstrates that male power still dominates largely over women, and that existing structures of patriarchy are still prevalent in our society.
Through feminism, many changes in gendered patterns of work can be highlighted. From the late eighteenth-century, it has encouraged women to challenge their place within society, and has encouraged many alternative living patterns, all in search of women’s liberation. Many changes that have thus resulted in changing gendered work patterns since the eighteenth-century have been encouraged by feminist theory and its proposals. Notably, these include the increasing number of women in the work force, brought on – for example – through new labour laws, the rise of women in previously male dominated jobs and the trend of women in part-time employment. Betty Friedan to an extent seems correct in saying that the feminist “spark” had been “ignited”, “and it spread like a nuclear chain reaction” (Cited in Banner, 1984:247).
Although these changes in gendered employment can be seen with relevance to feminist theory, not all gendered patterns of work can be seen in this light, with – for example – the prolonged pattern of more men in the workforce and the reality of the gender pay gap. This represents to some extent an upholding of male patriarchy throughout society as a whole, which due to long engrained ideology, seems difficult to completely uproot. Thus, although feminist theory can be said to be partly responsible for many changes in women’s opportunities and changes experienced in the workforce, it seems that there are some areas which will require more than awareness and a questioning of gendered values to be altered completely.
Bibliography
-
Banner, L.W (1984) Women in Modern America, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
-
Fitzgerald, R & McKay, A (2006) Gender Equality and Work In Scotland, Fitzgerald Associates
-
Ginn, J (1996) Feminist Fallacies: a reply to Hakim on women’s employment, British Journal of Sociology, Vol.47, no.1, pp.167-174
-
Humm, M (1992) Feminisms: A Reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf
-
Tong, R (2008) Feminist Thought: A more comprehensive introduction, Perseus Books Group
-
Warner, J (2008) Labour’s Equality Bill discriminates against men, Telegraph Blogs (7/11/08)
-
Commission for Equality and Human Rights (20/11/08), Equality Act 2006 – Overview,
-
National Statistics Online (20/11/08), Lifestyles; Gender,