Female Dominated Fields Suffer From Low Pay, Research Paper Example

When considering the general division of labor within society, one of the pertinent points of analysis is the gender division. This division reflects some of the ever-present discrepancies within the work force and the economy, particularly in terms of how women workers tend to be concentrated in specific labor fields and moreover, that such fields offer low-paying wages. Accordingly, insofar as women laborers comprise an extremely high percentage of the work force in the service and domestic fields, these fields suffer from poor wages, a situation that has been difficult to change. In the following essay, we shall examine this phenomenon. First, we shall begin with a summarization of this discrepancy in pay and how women remain concentrated in certain occupations. Secondly, we are to discuss some of the reasons for such a discrepancy, considering prominently how continued gender stereotypes and prejudices within American society are reflected in the low wages that women receive. A significant contributing factor to this situation is globalization, as the economic gap between countries, coupled with the general movement towards a globalized economy, aggravates this phenomenon. In conclusion, we shall summarize these points and examine some of the obstacles that stand in the way of overturning this situation.

The academic literature tends to emphasize a certain paradox at the heart of the issue of women entering the work force. On the one hand, women are continually becoming a part of labor fields in the Western World. On the other hand, such integration is essentially an integration into specific occupations, as opposed to an integration into the general economy. As Damian Grimshaw notes, “female employment concentration refers to the crowding of women into a few occupations which account for a large proportion of total female employment.” (Grimshaw, 1998, p. 15) What this empirical observation suggests is that the apparent integration of women into the work force is only an illusory integration, according to a differentiation along gender lines: “despite the progressive integration of women into the labour force, a strong differentiation in the jobs held by men and women continues to be observed.” (Grimshaw, 1998, p. 15) Accordingly, the apparent increase in women’s labour participation is inflated in terms of the increase of the presence of women in specific sectors of the work place. The statistics on such integration are therefore misleading: they are rather more consistent with, as Grimshaw notes, a segregation of labour as opposed to an integration of labor. (Grimshaw, 1998, p. 15)

In these terms, the issue of discrepancy in pay between men and women becomes clearer, insofar as such discrepancies appear related to such segregation: The occupations in which women work are largely traditionally low paying occupations. Yet the reason for this segregation is perhaps the product of certain societal norms, as opposed to economic considerations. Raymond Gregory suggests this, when he notes that: “Historically, employers have tended to categorize women as capable only of ‘women’s work’, positions that exist in relatively few occupations and rank among those with the lowest status and compensation.”  (2003, p. 19) Such areas of “women’s work” are the so-called nonprofessional professions, which include occupations such as cleaners, servants, child care workers, nursing aides, amongst other professions. (Gregory, 2003, p. 19) Accordingly, such women’s work is primarily concentrated in areas of domestic and service labor.

In consequence, the essential “segregation” of women to such fields of labor also entails the segregation from economic prosperity. Citing a study conducted by Janssen-Jurreit using statistics from the U.S. Labor Department, Lois Weis writes: “as wage rates become customary for certain jobs in which there is a concentration of women…these low wage rates come to be accepted as standard for that job and thereby institutionalized on a nationwide scale.” (Weis, 1998, p. 154) Accordingly, to the extent that women make up a sizeable majority in a given occupation, the pay for this occupation concomitantly decreases. This phenomenon suggests that the primary reason for discrepancy in wage payments is directly correlated to the question of gender. That is to say, normative associations between occupation and sex determine greater societal views of the relative value of a given occupation. In the case of women, such value therefore undergoes a devaluation, becoming a lesser form of labor, as Mitchell notes: “paid domestic work is distinctive not in being the worst job of all but in being regarded as something other than employment.” (p. 13) This alludes to a certain societal prejudice, in which men are associated with work in itself, whereas the labor that women perform is not considered in terms of work. In other words, labor itself becomes coextensive with male gender roles. As Rosemary Crompton suggests, this notion alludes to “an essentialist model of the innate and natural character of differences between the sexes.” (2006, p. 2) This is what Crompton terms the “ideology of separate spheres” (2006, p. 2), the idea that there is an essential distinction between the sexes: this distinction is reflected in the society and the economy’s division of labour. According to this interpretation, the economic value associated with some jobs is completely derivative of traditional norms.  From such a conclusion we could hypothetically suggest that if, for example, men largely dominated domestic work, the societal view of this occupation would change and there would be a subsequent increase in wages within these fields. The reasoning for such pay disparity is therefore essentially societal as opposed to being indicative of an economic inability to pay these workers: Society simply does not view women’s work as work.

In addition, it can be suggested that traditional societal narratives that associate women’s work with specific occupations, thereby affecting the lower wage standards of these occupations, is also aggravated by the greater economic situation of globalization. Particularly, it is the nature of an economic gap between First World and Third World countries that makes women search for economic opportunities in countries such as the United States. Hochschild observes that third world women “work abroad for long periods of time because they cannot make ends meet at home.” (p. 117) In many cases, however, the job possibilities for such Third World women are in occupational fields traditionally associated with women, such as domestic work and the service industries. Furthermore, according to their status as Third World women, the standards for these women’s pay is much lower, which contributes to the overall low-paying nature of these professions. Accordingly, an important part of the devaluation of domestic and service work is reflective of what Hochschild suggests is a new form of imperialism, insofar as it “harks back to imperialism in its most literal form: the nineteenth-century extraction of gold, ivory, and rubber from the Third World.” (p. 26) These women laborers have become instruments of a similar imperialist gesture, as they are forced to look for low-paying occupations in foreign countries according to the economic dictates of globalization.

The empirical data therefore confirms a direct correlation between the presence of women in certain occupations and the low wages of these occupations. As noted above, women have been integrated into the work force, but this integration has come about in sectors already dominated by women. Hence, these sectors have not undergone a radical change – they merely have afforded more women with the opportunity to work. Moreover, since this integration has occurred in sectors traditionally associated with women, this demonstrates a societal normativity or stereotype that determines the possibilities of women’s work: this integration has occurred precisely in service and domestic jobs that are traditionally held by women. This phenomenon indicates the certain stability of such stereotypes within society, as there has been no substantial alteration in the conception of what jobs women are capable of doing. At the same time, one can understand that the potential integration of men into these sectors in order to counteract such a lack of equilibrium is restricted by both societal and economic factors. There is no economic incentive to enter these professions for men; furthermore, there is a societal stereotype that enforces the notion that such jobs are to be held by women. Certainly, there have been changes in labor fields that have allowed for a stronger female presence, but the academic literature suggests that general societal conceptions of women have not changed, and this is reflected in the economic data.

The consistency of this societal conception also explains the difficulty women face in changing their labor situation. Such a change would essentially entail a resistance to the overall ideology and social construct of society, not just a movement for improved pay. Gender roles would have to be transformed in order to effect a revaluation of labor. Moreover, the combination of such traditional societal narratives with a new form of imperialism that uses the framework of global economy to utilize Third world women complicates matters further, as such women are not only the victims of gender bias, but are also susceptible to the mechanism of class difference. All these factors suggest that the difficulty in a breakthrough in wage earning is tied to a complicated relationship between the economic and the social The two work in concert to exclude women’s opportunities within society, according to traditional gender roles that assign a devalued meaning to women’s labour, and, in consequence, remove the potential for an alleviation of the division of labour in the economic sector

Works Cited

Crompton, Rosemary. (2006). Employment and the Family: The Reconfiguration of Work and Family Life in Contemporary Societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Gregory, Raymond F. (2003). Women and Workplace Discrimination: Overcoming Barriers to Gender Equality. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Grimshaw, Damien. (1998). The Future of Female-Dominated Occupations. Mitchell. Paris:  OECD Publishing.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell.  “Love and Gold.” Mitchell, ________. “The Job Today.”

Weis, Lois. (1988). Class, Race and Gender in American Education. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.