If a woman chooses a nonconventional career, she then has to acquire a position enabling her to pursue it. She “applies” for a job. It is at this point that the most obvious and concrete examples of access discrimination can occur. The fact of discriminatory treatment in selection decisions has been documented widely. Before presenting these data, however, it is important to consider why such processes are so prevalent.

Because of the lack of competing information, when an individual first seeks to enter an organization, sex stereotypes are apt to be a predominant element in decision making. One of the functions of such stereotypes is a cognitive one—to make the world less complex and less ambiguous and thus more manageable. By treating an individual woman as merely one member of a large and well defined subgroup, “women,” and ascribing attributes to her that presumably are characteristics of that group, a great deal of information about that individual is generalized. Whether true or not, assumptions about any one woman and what she is like are likely to be made on the basis of her subgroup identity when little other information is available.

Without exception, the attributes ascribed to females are not those believed essential to work success. As we already have seen, achievement-oriented traits are sorely lacking in the stereotypical profile of women’s attributes. Consequently, work success, especially in occupations not traditionally feminine, is associated only with males.

Schein empirically demonstrated this by asking male management personnel in insurance companies to describe either women, men, or successful middle-level managers. She found that “men” and “successful middle manager” were described in very similar terms but “women” were described quite differently. Apparently, those attributes characterizing a successful manager are not at all those typically ascribed to women. Success at managerial work is indeed considered to be a “male” phenomenon.

The pervasiveness of this point of view was documented in a study conducted by Feldman-Sumners and Kiesler. In the course of designing the procedure for their experiment, these researchers administered a pretest survey to approximately eighty-five male and female undergraduates at the University of Kansas. Each was shown descriptions of people and was asked to indicate how successful he or she believed them to be. The following professionals were described: pediatrician, writer, child psychologist, surgeon, dancer, diagnostician, clinical psychologist, and biographer of famous women. For each subject, half of these were presented as male and the other half as female. The results were dramatic. In no instance was a woman expected to be more successful than a man! The authors also report that in later work with additional professions and work categories they were unable to find even a single occupation in which women rather than men are expected to be more successful. This was found even when the traditionally female occupations were used, such as nursing and elementary school teaching. This is indeed very compelling evidence that success at work is generally associated with men more than women.

Sex-stereotypic norms also are likely to have a detrimental effect on women’s access to jobs. The demands of traditionally masculine jobs, such as managerial ones, are incongruent with the behavior thought to be appropriate to women. Dealing with subordinates, competing for resources, and making hard-nosed decisions are not activities consistent with the view of women as the gentle sex. Women interested in positions with these job descriptions are apt to be seen as “out-of-line” and to be penalized for their violation of sex-related expectations no matter what their background or qualifications. The result: steering the woman applicant to less challenging positions or not considering her for employment at all.

A related point is that concerning the persistent notion that women are unreliable workers, lacking commitment to their work. Starting from the view that a certain type of lifestyle is appropriate to a woman, many personnel decision makers are likely to assume that a woman would be pursuing a nontraditional career only because she either has nothing better to do (has not as yet any family obligations or has a bad marriage) or she is doing so out of economic necessity. Each of these can neatly explain her unconventional behavior. They foster the belief that if the woman in question should “find a man and settle down,” “divorce and remarry” or “get her hands on some money” she no longer would be interested in working. Taking this point of view, it is easy to understand the argument that the company should not make an investment in such an individual.

Some women are, of course, exempt from these allegations. Generally they are the “masculine” women who fit into “old maid” or “asexual” categories. Because they seem to have clearly rejected their femininity they are less suspect. Their motives for working appear to be clear, their role conflicts minimal, and the risk in hiring them less grave than in hiring a more feminine woman.

*168/187/5*

Related Posts:

• MALE FERTILITY TESTS: FRUCTOSE, ANTI-SPERM ANTIBODY AND POST-COITAL TESTS
• THE MASTERS AND JOHNSON TREATMENT OF SEXUAL DISFUNCTION: THERAPEUTIC APPROACH
• BISEXUALISM: DIAGNOSIS, THERAPY AND PROGNOSIS
• MEN’S SEXUALITY AND WOMEN’S SEXUALITY
• ABOUT SEX IN MARRIAGE
• ERECTION PROBLEMS: SEMIRIGID PROSTHESES
• ERECTION PROBLEMS: ALL ABOUT BLOOD TESTS
• SEXUAL PROBLEMS: FIXING A COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN
• SEX IN YOUR RELATIONSHIPS
• ADOLESCENCE AND EARLY 20′S: ERECTION EASE