It is also argued that it is due to biological reasons that women are deemed unsuitable for certain jobs, historically being that women have been the ‘carer’ and men the hunter-gatherer. This leads to accusations that women are better suited to, and predominately working in the personal services and routine clerical fields.
Many, however, argue the issue of gender has not been identified as having an effect on class structures, which is relative to the ‘Marxist class theory’. Crompton et al (2000) state that the Marxist class theory does not take into account the domestic sphere of work, now classed as hidden work. This is similarly related to the fact that traditionally men and women have socially defined roles in the world of work and labour.
It is difficult to form a class scheme that is equally appropriate to both men and women. This is due to the fact that despite changing attitudes and recent sex discrimination legislation, occupational segregation still exists. Crompton et al (2000) criticise the fact that occupational class schemes will indefinitely produce different results when male and female populations are analysed. Similarly, they state that even when both genders holding the same occupation are investigated, the two genders will undoubtedly be associated with different ‘life chances’.
Women have experienced what many call the ’glass ceiling’ effect. This analogy is often used to illustrate the condition that prevents women from promotion opportunities and achieving high positions or managerial roles within corporate business. Sexual discrimination such as the views outlined earlier or the matter of maternity has often prevented women from achieving such roles.
Marshall et al (1988) found that there are cross-class families within the class structure. It was stated that women usually hold a similar status position in the work arena to their spouses, if not, a lower status. This is proved by the fact it was recorded that half of the men in the service class had spouses of the same social class and the other half were married to spouses in the working class.
It can be said that the social construction of gender is responsible for many views towards women as employees. Developed since the start of the sexes, men are ‘expected’ to be masculine while women are ‘expected’ to be feminine. This can manifest into meaning men should work hard hours and women should carry the domestic burden and work little, if at all. In today’s society, inflexible working hours make it harder than ever for housewives to obtain any work. This illustrates how gender identifies a person as skilled or unskilled as an employee, related to the social factor of entitlement.
The increase in number of jobs in the service sector in Western society has caused women to be ‘pigeon-holed’ into a lower class of job due to the type of secretarial work available. Due to this, secretarial work is now often viewed as ‘a women’s job’. Noon and Blyton (2002) state that any man doing this type of work would “…raise a few eyebrows”. This emphasises that the sex of an individual is very relevant when assessing what roles an individual is qualified for, be it stereotypical or not. This situation is often instilled from an early age; boys encouraged to play masculine games, such as toy guns and girls to play with feminine toys such as dolls. This leads to the discussion that the work of caring has a distinct gender code.
Reagon (1995) illustrates that care work is traditionally thought of as a feminine activity as seen in previous points. Also, care related professions often have flexible working hours, so it is ideal for mothers. Compton et al (2000) believe it is not gendered because care is not an ‘essential’ component of either masculinity or femininity.
Noon and Blyton (2002) state that 17 percent of the female adult population are carers compared to 12 percent of the male adult population. They also view the opinion that women spent more time on care than men, both in and outside the home. Whilst there is a significant percentage for men, this statistic still confirms that the carer related profession is gender-coded, as the female population figures still exceed male.
Bibliography
CROMPTON, R., DEVINE, F., SAVAGE, M., SCOTT, J., 2000. Renewing Class Analysis: The gendered restructuring of the middle classes: employment and caring. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
NOON, M., BLYTON, P., 2002. The Realities of Work. 2nd Ed. Hampshire: Palgrave.
REAGON, B., 1995. Women and the Workplace: The implications of occupational segregation. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
REDCLIFT, N., SINCLAIR, M.T., 1991. Working Women: International Perspectives on Labour and Gender Ideology. London: Routledge.
