ir degrees of enthusiasm for it.” He states that previous literature is inconclusive, with some scholars alleging that the US has already achieved equality because of legal guarantees, but others arguing that the reality is that there are still informal barriers. This author claims that while companies pay lip service to the promotion of diversity on their websites and in their advertising, and most incorporate formal policies embracing diversity in hiring, the real aim of top management is to maintain the white corporate elite. He arrives at his conclusions through an interview sampling of senior Fortune 500 executives, specifically asking them to define their respective firms’ diversity policy. He found that while most claimed they had such a policy, many could not give details. Others expressed it in very broad categories, diluting the importance of gender and race if mentioned at all. From this he concluded that while most corporations stressed diversity for public relations purposes, few were concerned with steps to actually put it into practice. Finally, while the author admits many women are hired, few are promoted. While I believe there is some truth to this scholar’s allegations, my view is not as cynical as his. His argument that societies and women should be represented proportionately on boards and the corporate ladder as the population ignores other factors at play such as cultural and educational differences, and women’s’ home responsibilities.
The second interesting article explores workplace gender issues from the unique perspective of transgender people who have had to adopt normative roles of both sexes. (Connell 2010 The terms she uses, “doing gender” refers to the incorporation of roles society regards as normal for that particular sex. Initially Connell reviewed the literature supporting this theory of socialization. She then like Embrick conducted interviews of 18 transgender volunteers to learn the workplace experiences of men