Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Double Standards for Women in the Workplace

Introduction

Issues pertaining to discrimination have always been contentious. This is not only in the United States but also in other parts of the globe. The contention may have emanated from the fact that a large number of countries across the globe have had a history of slavery and discrimination. This discrimination, however, takes the form of racism or even ethnicity where individuals from particular racial or ethnic backgrounds discriminate against others or even oppress them simply based on the fact that they do not share the same race. However, recent times have seen the cropping up of other forms of discrimination that cut across the races, ethnic backgrounds, and even religion; gender discrimination. This form of discrimination traverses the varied environments including the individual homes and workplaces. Needless to say, women are always on the receiving end of the workplace discrimination. Indeed, research shows that women are treated in a manner that is different from that of their male counterparts. Irrespective of the varied ways in which the double standards of treating women are exhibited, it is evident that it is aimed at crippling their capacity to advance and develop professionally and in their careers.

Research shows that double standards are applied in the kind of treatment to which women are subjected in the workplace. Scholars have noted that while men are labeled as bosses, women are called bossy in instances where they exert their authority even within the varied areas of their jurisdiction. Indeed, similar behaviors would be interpreted in a different manner subject to the sex of an individual. For instance, women would be christened as show offs, while their male counterparts would be seen as smooth when both of them express knowledge in particular subjects. Studies done by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics have revealed that women in the workplace who have children below the age of 18 earn considerably less than their female counterparts who do not have kids. Men who have kids below the age of 18, on the other hand, earn considerably higher than those without. On the same note, other studies have revealed that women earn significantly less for every child they have, which means that their earning potential would considerably decrease with increase in the number of children. Their male counterparts, on the other hand, are more likely to have immense gains in the salaries that they earn when they get married, as well as when they get children. Indeed, their earning potential increases with increase in the sizes of their families or increase in the number of children under their care. Scholars have explained the immense differences in the earning potentials of mothers and fathers and stated that working mothers are presumed to have ambivalent commitment to their work. In most cases, working mothers are perceived as potential flight risks in the business entities, in which case the organizations do not see them as worthy of any more investment. Indeed, working mothers are, at best, denied plum assignments and travel opportunities, under the guise or excuse of ambivalent protectionism, where the bosses would insinuate that “ they do not want to leave their kids and homes that much”. In instances where women take charge and elect to ask for higher salaries, they are viewed in a much more negative light than their male counterparts. Indeed, women in the workplace live under the unwritten rule that they should take care rather than take charge. Studies have underlined the fact that both women and men would view a woman who asks for a considerably higher salary in a much more negative light than their male counterparts who have similar credentials and who ask for the same salary or even higher. This underlines the fact that men would be rewarded for their being outspoken, while their female counterparts would be expected to follow the rules or toe the line for the greater good.

Moreover, scholars have examined the hiring aspect pertaining to both genders and noted that men will, more often than not, get the benefit of doubt from their potential employers. In most cases, men will be hired on the basis of their promise, while women will only be hired based on their quantifiable and demonstrated experience. Indeed, the words of men will, more often than not, be considered truthful, while their female counterparts will be challenged more and be required substantiate their views, as well as deliver data to show that they know what they are saying. Women would, almost always, be rendered invisible until such a time when they demonstrate otherwise. In instances where a woman wants to be noticed, she would have to present their ideas and substantiate them clearly, have mentors, ask for assignments, as well as build immense networks, communicate her achievements and success, not to mention convey her aspirations. This means that they usually lose out not because they were outperformed by their male counterparts, but because they were never presented with an opportunity to play. Even then, scholars have noted that women would rarely obtain sufficient feedback, which would essentially, stymie their professional and career advancement. Professional development and advancement is, almost always, dependent on rigorous, continuous and all-inclusive feedback pertaining to their performance. This is, in fact, the only way they would grow and improve. Research has shown that male bosses, who are the majority, would be uncomfortable about delivering such information to their female employees, which would, essentially stymie their progress and professional advancement, relative to that of their male counterparts.

In addition, women are subjected to double standards with regard to the looks that they possess. Scholars have noted an incident in Iowa where a woman had her services terminated by her male boss, not on the basis of issues pertaining to her performance in the workplace, but because she was too sexually attractive that she could have put the boss’ marital vows in jeopardy. Upon suing the male boss, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the ruling of a lower court, which had stated that it was within the boss’ discretion to fire her for this reason. Of course, men have also been subjected to this form of discrimination, where their appearances would be used for penalizing or promoting them. Indeed, research has shown that men that have “above average” looks earn about 5% more than their counterparts that are less attractive. On the same note, it has been noted that workers that have “below average” looks earn approximately 7-9% less than their counterparts that are considered as having average looks. However, the case of women is not so straightforward. Indeed, women would be discriminated against in the workplace in instances where they seem to be too aesthetically appealing. Scholars have noted that a large number of workplaces channel young women that are conventionally attractive to the out-front support or even subordinate jobs, where their appearance would be used to add some value to the corporate brand, even though their own careers are not gaining any value. Indeed, young women would be placed in these visible cheerleader positions even in instances where their professional development would be more appropriate in their being unseen in laboratories, or even addressing individuals from a position of power and authority. Psychologists have noted that their confidence suffers an immense beating as they spend a large proportion of their formative years worrying that their professional and career advancement is a reflection of the evaluation or assessment of their aesthetic attractiveness, rather than being linked to their performance or accomplishments. It goes without saying that their male counterparts do not have to worry about such issues pertaining to attractiveness, rather they are concerned more about their merits, performance and accomplishments, which are the things that would drive their advancement on the career or professional front. This means that their professional development would be lagging behind as that of their male counterparts soars high even in instances where the young females have better academic qualifications, as well as more enhanced knowledge pertaining to issues regarding their workplace or the performance of varied tasks in the places of work.

On the same note, the objectification of women is not limited to their workplaces. The media has played an immense role in calling for attention to the attractiveness and sexual appeal of women in their workplaces. This is especially so in the case of powerful women in the political arena. These women, more often than not, have immense attention directed to their sexuality and appearance. Researchers have taken the example of Angela Merkel, whose “attractiveness gap” was a subject of discussion in the western media as Germany held elections. It goes without saying that the fetishistic sexualization of powerful women is rigorously used against women as a diversionary tactic in instances where the real economic, social and political power is at stake and within their reach. Psychologists have underlined the distraction and demoralizing aspect that is subjected to an influential woman or any young woman in instances where she is persistently treated like a bimbo or even told of the unattractive features or sense of fashion that she carries. Indeed, this gauntlet of scrutiny has been credited with the immense gap or difference that exists between the number of women and men in positions of power and authority. More often than not, young women who possess great qualities of leadership are reluctant to get to the positions of power and get public eye, as they see the abuse, whether negative or positive as a proposition that they stand no position of wining, and one to which their powerful male counterparts would not be subjected. This means that they would have any ideas that they harbor pertaining to advancing professionally or getting to positions of power nipped in the bud, thereby crippling their chances of ever rising.

Works cited

Cobble, Dorothy S. The Other Women’s Movement: Workplace Justice and Social Rights in Modern America. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Print.

Williams, Christine L, and Kirsten Dellinger. Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace. Bingley: Emerald, 2010. Print.

Wilen-Daugenti, Tracey, Courtney L. Vien, and Caroline Molina-Ray. Women Lead: Career Perspectives from Workplace Leaders. New York: Peter Lang, 2013. Print.

MacLean, Nancy. Freedom Is Not Enough: The Opening of the American Workplace. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008. Print.

Williams, Christine L, and Kirsten Dellinger. Gender and Sexuality in the Workplace. Bingley: Emerald, 2010. Print.