For example, the gendered division of household work is accepted almost everywhere. Boys are more likely than girls to have maintenance chores like mowing the lawn or painting, while girls are given domestic chores like cooking and cleaning. This segregation of household labour tells children that they are expected to take on different roles based on their gender. All humans — regardless of gender — are guaranteed the same fundamental human rights. In fact, fathers who take on an active role in childcare and domestic labour positively influence their children by showing that the adult male role can be nurturing.
This positive role modelling helps boys become better husbands, fathers, brothers and friends to girls and women. At the same time, it positively impacts the self-esteem of young girls and reinforces that both genders are equal. Additionally, mothers who work and take on a financial provider role in the family also help break down stereotypes for their children — especially their daughters — and challenge ideas about the conventional female role.
The Men Women Inequality Gap: the Need for Greater Awareness This study illustrates among other things that managers who are least aware of the existence of discrimination seem to be those who perpetuate it the most difficult to say however in which direction the correlation operates.
Show how useful this article has been. Welcome back Log in and interact with engaging content: show how they matter to you, share your experience Login with your email. Forgot Your Password? Enter your email address and we'll send you a link you can use to pick a new password. Email Reset Password. Login Get an account. Share this article. In order to make this quality content a reality and to give your the best experience on our website Comments, Votes, Newsletter, Content upon your own interest and geographic position… we use technologies that can sometimes need cookies.
Cookie Settings I'm happy. Manage consent. Close Privacy Overview This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website.
These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. Society at a Glance Publication Closing the Gender Gap Publication Your selection for sharing:. Snapshot of data for a fixed period data will not change even if updated on the site Latest available data for a fixed period, Latest available data,. Embed code Use this code to embed the visualisation into your website.
Organizational decision makers also play an important role in gender discrimination. While hostile sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to keep them from positions of power, benevolent sexism can lead to discrimination against women because of a desire to protect them.
Thus, a focus on organizational structure, processes, and practices is critical. The model we have developed extends previous work by Gelfand et al. Gelfand et al. First, we differ from their work by emphasizing that workplace discrimination is most directly attributable to HR practices. Consequently, we emphasize how inequalities in other organizational structures, processes, and practices affect institutional discrimination in HR policy.
Second, our model differs from that of Gelfand et al. The attitudes of these decision makers toward specific groups of employees are critical. However, the nature of prejudice differs depending on the target group Son Hing and Zanna, Therefore, we focus on one form of bias—sexism—in the workplace. Doing so, allows us to draw on more nuanced theories of prejudice, namely ambivalent sexism theory Glick and Fiske, Thus, third, our model differs from the work of Gelfand et al. Fourth, we differ from Gelfand et al.
However, the model we have developed is not meant to be exhaustive. There are multiple issues that we have not addressed but should be considered: what external factors feed into our model? What other links within the model might arise? What are the limits to its generalizability? What consequences derive from our model? How can change occur given a model that is largely recursive in nature?
We focus on these issues throughout our conclusion. In this paper, we have illustrated what we consider to be the dominant links in our model; however, additional links are possible. First, we do not lay out the factors that feed into our model, such as government regulations, the economy, their competitors, and societal culture.
In future work, one could analyze the broader context that organizations operate in, which influences its structures, processes, and practices, as well as its members.
For instance, in societies marked by greater gender inequalities, the levels of hostile and benevolent sexism of organizational decision makers will be higher Glick et al. Second, there is no link demonstrating how organizational decision makers who are more sexist have the capacity, even if they sit lower in the organizational hierarchy, to influence the amount of gender inequality in organizational structures, processes, and practices.
The ability of people to act in line with their attitudes depends on the strength of the constraints in the social situation and the broader context Lewin, , Thus, if organizational structures, processes, and practices clearly communicate the importance of gender equality then the discriminatory behavior of sexist organizational decision makers should be constrained. Accordingly, organizations should take steps to mitigate institutional discrimination by focusing on organizational structures, processes, and practices rather than focusing solely on reducing sexism in individual employees.
In other words, lifestyle preferences could contribute to gender differences in the workplace. Gender imbalances e. For instance, research has uncovered that women with professional degrees leave the labor force at roughly three times the rate of men Baker, Our model is derived largely from research that has been conducted in male-dominated organizations; however, we speculate that it should hold for female-dominated organizations.
There is evidence that tokenism does not work against men in terms of their promotion potential in female-dominated environments. Rather, there is some evidence for a glass-escalator effect for men in female-dominated fields, such as nursing, and social work Williams, In addition, regardless of the gender composition of the workplace, men are advantaged, compared with women in terms of earnings and wage growth Budig, Finally, even in female-dominated professions, segregation along gender lines occurs in organizational structure Snyder and Green, Thus, the literature suggests that our model should hold for female-dominated environments.
Some might question if our model assumes that organizational decision makers enacting HR practices are men. It does not. There is evidence that decision makers who are women also discriminate against women e.
Further, although men are higher in hostile sexism, compared with women Glick et al. More importantly, the effects of hostile and benevolent sexism are not moderated by participant gender Masser and Abrams, ; Salvaggio et al. Thus, those who are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism respond in a more discriminatory manner, regardless of whether they are men or women. Thus, organizational decision makers, regardless of their sex, should discriminate more against women in HR practices when they are higher in hostile or benevolent sexism.
In future work, the consequences of our model for women discriminated against in HR practices should be considered. The negative ramifications of sexism and discrimination on women are well known: physical and psychological stress, worse physical health e.
However, how might these processes differ depending on the proximal cause of the discrimination? In order for the potential stressor of stigmatization to lead to psychological and physical stress it must be seen as harmful and self-relevant Son Hing, Thus, if institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices are completely hidden then discrimination might not cause stress reactions associated with stigmatization because it may be too difficult for women to detect Crosby et al.
In contrast, women should be adversely affected by stigmatization in instances where gender discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices is more evident.
For instance, greater perceptions of discrimination are associated with lower self-esteem in longitudinal studies Schmitt et al. We do not believe this to be true. One potential impetus for organizations to become more egalitarian may be some great shock such as sex-based discrimination lawsuits that the organization either faces directly or sees its competitors suffer.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Crop, et al. Discrimination lawsuits are time consuming and costly James and Wooten, , resulting in lower shares, lower public perceptions, higher absenteeism, and higher turnover Wright et al.
Expensive lawsuits experienced either directly or indirectly should act as a big driver in the need for change. Furthermore, individual women can work to avoid stigmatization. Women in the workplace are not simply passive targets of stereotyping processes. People belonging to stigmatized groups can engage in a variety of anti-stigmatization techniques, but their response options are constrained by the cultural repertoires available to them Lamont and Mizrachi, For instance, it might be unimaginable for a woman to file a complaint of sexual harassment if she knows that complaints are never taken seriously.
Individuals do negotiate stigmatization processes; however, this is more likely when stigmatization is perceived as illegitimate and when they have the resources to do so Major and Schmader, Thus, at an individual level, people engage in strategies to fight being discriminated against but these strategies are likely more constrained for those who are most stigmatized.
Finally, possibly the most efficacious way for organizational members men and women to challenge group-based inequality and to improve the status of women as a whole is to engage in collective action e.
People are most likely to engage in collective action when they perceive group differences as underserved or illegitimate Wright, Such a sense of relative deprivation involves feelings of injustice and anger that prompt a desire for wide scale change van Zomeren et al. Interestingly, people are more likely to experience relative deprivation when inequalities have begun to be lessened, and thus their legitimacy questioned Crosby, ; Kawakami and Dion, ; Stangor et al.
Therefore, changes to mitigate gender inequalities within any organizational structure, policy, or practice could start a cascade of transformations leading to a more equal organization for men and women. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Son Hing. Abrams, K. Social construction, roving biologism, and reasonable women: a response to Professor Epstein. DePaul Law Rev. Google Scholar. Acker, J. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations.
Adamitis, E. Appearance matters: a proposal to prohibit appearance discrimination in employment. Law Rev. Adler, N. Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy White women.
Health Psychol. Baker, J. The influx of women into legal professions: an economic analysis. Labor Rev. Baltes, B. Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: a meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Banyard, V. Reducing sexual violence on campus: the role of student leaders as empowered bystanders.
Barling, J. Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Baxter, J. The glass ceiling hypothesis: a comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Beaton, A. Neosexism among male managers: is it a matter of numbers? Becker, J. Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Yet another dark side of chivalry: benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change.
Begany, J. Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Men Masc. Berdhal, J. The sexual harassment of uppity women. Berger, J. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers. Berger and M. Bernardin, H. Bianchi, S. Maternal employment and time with children: dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography 47, — Is anyone doing the housework?
Trends in the gender division of household labor. Forces 79, — Biernat, M. The language of performance evaluations: gender-based shifts in content and consistency of judgment. Aggression among university employees. Blau, F. New evidence on gender differences in promotion rates: an empirical analysis of a sample of new hires. Bobocel, R. Justice-based opposition to social policies: is it genuine?
Boldry, J. Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Issues 57, — Borrel, C. Perceived sexism as a health determinant in Spain. Womens Health 19, — Branscombe, N. Brass, D. Budig, M. Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: who rides the glass escalator? Burke, R. Organizational values, job experiences and satisfactions among managerial and professional women and men: advantage men?
Women Manag. Cable, D. Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Case, K. Raising male privilege awareness and reducing sexism: an evaluation of diversity courses. Women Q. Cassirer, N. Work Occup. Castilla, E. The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Ceci, S. Chemers, M. An Integrative Theory of Leadership. Chugh, D. Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: why milliseconds matter. Justice Res. Chung-Yan, G.
A critical re-examination and analysis of cognitive ability tests using the Thorndike model of fairness. Cikara, M. Jost, A. Kay, and H. Cleveland, J. Cohen, P. Working for the woman? Female managers and the gender wage gap. Cohen-Charash, Y. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Correll, S. Cortina, L. Incivility in the federal courts. Law Soc. Incivility in the workplace: incidence and impact. Cox, T. Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness.
Executive 5, 45— Career paths and career success in the early career stages of male and female MBAs. Crocker, D. Crosby, F. The denial of personal discrimination. Cognitive biases in the perception of discrimination: the importance of format. Sex Roles 14, — Cuddy, A. Issues 60, — Dardenne, B. Davison, H. Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: a meta-analytic investigation. From sex to gender: a university intervention to reduce sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador.
Issues 70, — De Pater, I. Gender differences in job challenge: a matter of task allocation. Work Organ. Durden, G. More on the cost of being other than white and male. Eagly, A. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Ellemers, N. The underrepresentation of women in science: differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?
Elsass, P. Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the experiences of women and people of color. Elsbach, K. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Fine, S. Firth, M. Sex discrimination in job opportunities for women. Sex Roles 8, — Fiske, A. Confusing one person with another: what errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations. Fiske, S.
A model of often mixed stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Dis respecting versus dis liking: status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Issues 55, —
0コメント