CareerBuilder and EMSI study shows women earn nearly $24,000 less than men on average. (2013, Apr 25).
Career builder and EMSI conducted a study to determine how men are more privileged than women in their occupations and salary levels. According to the findings of this study, women earn about twenty-four thousand dollars less than their male counterparts on average. These shocking results are effectively backed up by factual data that reveal how the two genders and attack up in the paid occupation. The findings reveal that most of the highest paid jobs are preserved and occupied by men while women take up jobs that do not pay as much.
The study indicated that on average a man in America earns $68,000 while a woman earns $44,400. For instance, 83% of the CEOs are men while women’s concentration is noted in low paying jobs such as nursing, elementary school teachers, and interpreters. Highest paying jobs such as petroleum engineers and engineering managers have men taking 97% of the most senior positions while women take just 3%.
This study intends to share the findings of gender disparity as far as occupations and wages are concerned. The limitation of this study involves the lack of variety types of sources as well as regions, thus limiting its credibility in being generalized. The research, though, has sufficiently analyzed factual data and presented the finding in a logical and more understandable format.
Ezzedeen, S. R. (2015). Portrayals of career women in Hollywood films: Implications for the glass ceiling’s persistence. Gender in Management, 30(3), 239.
The society has for a long time portrayed men as breadwinners, heroes, and decision makers as compared to the woman representation as weak, fragile, helper, failure and always needing a man for help. These perceptions have been forced to generations after the other, and the media play a big role in discriminating against the woman. Ezzedeen confirms these claims by carrying out a study on 165 career women as presented by 137 films. In the author’s discussion, the women were portrayed negatively with stereotypes that threaten the personal and professional traits of a woman.
The findings indicate that the women were shown as mean and having conniving traits, being promiscuous, isolated, failing in intimacy and having a challenge balancing work and family, which explains why the glass ceiling endures. The limitation of the study is that there is no correlation amid the films portrayals and the actual career attitudes. The author should deepen his scrutiny and investigate the relationship between the film portrays and the circumstances on the ground.
Forrest, A. (1998). The industrial relations significance of unpaid work. Labour, (42), 199-225.
Forrest does a very conclusive study by looking at the works of other researchers to find out the real picture of unpaid work that has placed women in a disadvantaged position in the society for many centuries. The intention of the study was to investigate the systematic neglect of the unpaid work that women perform both at home and at their work places just because the society deems them as domestic workers or wives.
The author analyses several theories of previous scholars to challenge the existing theoretical frameworks about the unpaid work that have marginalized the women for long. The author used more than a hundred-previous works to provide a rich literature review from the late 1900s to the 21st century. This study is relevant in shedding light on how the women are underprivileged by doing too much unpaid work. The study findings on Forrest’s investigation suggest that women do twice as much of unpaid work as their male counterparts. Forrest further indicates that marriage makes the situation even worse by doubling the amount of the unpaid work.
Even though men do unpaid work such as the traditional division of labor that require them to do work such as repairs, maintenance and yard work in their homes, women end up doing twice as much of unpaid work both at the workplace and home. Although the author cited no limitation in his study, it is limiting the effectiveness of the findings by just using secondary sources from the previous works. The research, however, provides a variety of findings and analysis the varied works of several decades to effectively provide an answer to the question of privileges of men and women in the division of labor and payment.
Tischler, L. (2004, 02). Where are the women? So what happened? Fast Company, 52-60. Retrieved
Tischler started his research early in 1986 in attempts to understand why so few women held managerial positions in top jobs, even though the competed just as good as their male counterparts. In his analysis, Tischler indicates that by 2004, after over thirty years of women’s movements, and when business schools graduated just as competitive female as males every year, there still evidence of very few women taking top jobs. The intention of his study was to reveal the real cause of the concern since he was convinced it was nothing about failure in school or lack of talent for the top jobs. After years of investigating a group of the University of California who had attained their MBAs, the author had a conclusive finding that explained why there were more men in top jobs than their female counterparts.
The study findings suggest that women were just as competitive as men, but they were reluctant to move from one place to another when a job demanded. Therefore, employers preferred to give men the top jobs since they are more flexible and willing to relocate whenever the situation demands. Tischler, further indicates that women preferred to live close to home so that they could keep the family together, which limited their flexibility to move around when their job demanded. This study is relevant because it will enlighten people about the demanding roles of women other than the jobs, and hopefully, the employers will consider these findings and give women top jobs.
The limitation of the study is that the research findings were corrected from a group of graduates from just one university in the US, which clearly overlooks other factors such as culture variations in different countries in the world, male chauvinism in some cultures, and corruption in organizations as well as gender disparities in the workplace. The evidence of sampling error indicates obviously that it is incorrect to generalize the findings of this study and imply that these are the only factors affecting every woman in the business world. The other needs to put into considerations other factors that limit the women from getting the top job in different parts of the world. There is a need for a richer literature review to compare and support the views of the author.
Urgent, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 64-92.
Urgent and Blackstone carried out an analysis of a survey that used interview questions on a youth development study and general social survey to determine the relationship between gender and sexual harassment in the workplace. According to these researchers, the female workers experienced much sexual harassment at all ages as compared to their male counterparts. The authors further assert that factors such as workplace power and the gender associations had a significant influence on sexual harassment.
The main limitation of this study is the lack of primary sources to provide real-time findings on the current issues of sexual harassment and how the data presents the aspect of women being underprivileged. The authors need to analyze a large volume of previous and current works as well as conduct primary research from primary sources for more conclusive findings.
References
CareerBuilder and EMSI study shows women earn nearly $24,000 less than men on average. (2013, Apr 25). PR Newswire
Ezzedeen, S. R. (2015). Portrayals of career women in Hollywood films: Implications for the glass ceiling’s persistence. Gender in Management, 30(3), 239.
Forrest, A. (1998). The industrial relations significance of unpaid work. Labour, (42), 199-225.
Tischler, L. (2004, 02). Where are the women? So what happened? Fast Company, 52-60.
Urgent, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 64-92.