The Struggle for Equal Rights of Women in America - Research Paper Example

?"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal?" Does this mean that the founding fathers of our country did not consider women to be equal? Discuss the status of women then and now from a sociological perspective.  Breaking the Glass Ceiling: The Struggle for Equal Rights of Women in America The battle for the individual rights of women is one of long standing and none of us should countenance anything which undermines it. Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962) Thomas Jefferson’s timeless words, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” have resonated throughout history – a clarion call and one of the guiding posts of American democracy. Many critics have commented, however, that the sentence, so pivotal and so much a part of a nation’s collective soul, has completely left women out of the equation. Its intent was to be a definite statement against slavery, ending centuries of oppression against Africans and calling for an America grounded on the principles of equity and equality, but the use of the word “men” had been construed as an exclusion of women – unfortunately replacing racial prejudice with gender prejudice. Another way of looking at it, however, is that there was no explicit intent to exclude women, that the use of the word “men” simply reflects the tenor of the times, and not a prejudice of Thomas Jefferson or a wanton disregard of the rights of women at large. However, what this tells us is that gender equality was not considered important, or an issue that deserved to be taken up. Indeed, from a sociological point of view, the history of women’s struggle is a history of constant and relentless assertions against a systemic patriarchy and structures of dominance. America is often considered by the rest of the world as a shining example of gender equality and feminism. Whilst in many regions in the world, women were still dealing with issues such as genital mutilation, lack of access to reproductive health, state and religion sanctioned differential treatment between men and women, America has taken striding and definitive steps to ensure that women are offered the same possibilities and opportunities as men. However, the plethora of rights available to women in the United States of America was not handed over to them in a silver platter – it was the outcome of decades, even centuries, of struggle for equal rights and equal opportunities. It was made through the pioneering efforts of brave women who refused to be constrained by circumstances and who demanded the right to exercise their agency and chart their own destiny. This paper traces the evolution of equal rights in America and the progress that women have made in the face of numerous challenges and barriers to their development. It will look in particular into how the social and legal norms have initially been complicit in creating gender differentials and how women have overcome these and have in fact been able to reshape social structures and the legal system in order to advance their cause. This paper will also look into the progress that has been made by women engaged in the professional practice of math, science and engineering and the particular challenges and issues that women face as they embark on their careers. Finally, this paper will recommend some strategies that can be employed in order to further improve women’s prospects and create more inroads and opportunities for women to explore and eventually conquer. If we begin to trace the root of gender differentiation, and even subordination, it is imperative to consider the notion of gender as social construct and see how men and women are assigned different social roles and are treated or considered differently because of perceived biological differences. As expressed by Lorber (1994: 56) – Western society’s values legitimate gendering by claiming that it all comes from physiology – female and male procreative differences. But gender and sex are not equivalent, and gender as a social construction does not flow automatically from genitalia and reproductive organs, the main physiological differences of females and males. In the construction of ascribed social statuses, physiological differences such as sex, stage of development, color of skin, and size are crude markers. As a result of this, women were then considered less able than men to hold jobs, embark on careers, make decisions, and hold public office. This was also why male children were mostly preferred over the female children. While America can in no way be compared to China, wherein girl babies were being killed by their parents, there still used to be a bias against girl children. Women have been considered as the weaker sex, unable to carry out masculine tasks and duties requiring intellectual development. In the past, a little girl would learn from her mother that a woman’s place was at home – doing household work like cooking and cleaning and watching over young children. Indeed, societal norms have greatly affected women in many cultures. Women, in most cultures, are considered to be inferior, a situation that has continued to hinder their career progress. In many societies, men and women are assigned distinct social roles which are restricted by certain norms. The perception of the role of women in the workforce has widely changed over time in the society. Historically the society viewed women society as in the home taking care of the husband and children. Social norms required the woman to be submissive to the husband and should not leave the home for work. Social norms treated women traits as meek and submissive and work especially in demanding fields like engineering would make them lose the traits. Hence this discouraged women to work in demanding occupations like engineering, science and mathematics with low pay. We must bear in mind that these “dichotomous, mutually exclusive categories that shape our understanding of the world are gendered and they are key to the production and reproduction of violence at all levels” (Confrontini 2006, p. 333). This cultural pressure to be a homemaker and not to aspire to work professionally or to yearn for achievements such as those done by men was what impacted on access to education by girls vis a vis boys. According to the Women’s International Center. Formal education for girls historically has been secondary to that for boys. In colonial America girls learned to read and write at dame schools. They could attend the master's schools for boys when there was room, usually during the summer when most of the boys were working. By the end of the 19th century, however, the number of women students had increased greatly. Higher education particularly was broadened by the rise of women's colleges and the admission of women to regular colleges and universities. In 1870 an estimated one fifth of resident college and university students were women. By 1900 the proportion had increased to more than one third. In the 1920’s, the women’s suffrage movement, after steadfast campaigning and lobbying was able to claim the right to suffrage for women. The agitation for the cause had began at the end of the civil war, and while gains had been clinched at state levels, it was in the year 1920 when the 19th Amendment was incorporated into the United States Constitution, stating: “"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." This was an important legal victory that had been won, solidifying the ranks of women and articulating the gender cause in mainstream arenas. In the 1960’s, a radical change would then take place. The sexual revolution had begun – with women keen to prove themselves and reclaim their space. They were exploring previously-forbidden terrain, celebrating their sexuality and diversity and resisting institutions that continue to suppress their rights. The Pill, or the contraceptive medication, had come into fashion – thus pushing women to discover new sexual frontiers and exercise her agency and autonomy even more. Alongside that, crucial pieces of legislation were passed. The Equal Pay Act, which was enacted in 1963, prohibits employers from discriminating workers in terms of payment based on their gender. (Wyer, 2008: 119). It requires that employees pay workers same pay for jobs requiring equal skills, responsibilities and efforts. The Equal Pay Act is overseen by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which requires employers to keep their records of work and payment. Another regulation towards women progress in science, mathematics and engineering careers relates to clause VII of the Civil Rights Act enacted in 1964. This act forbids discrimination on the basis of gender when hiring, promoting, assigning or firing employees. Women in these career fields have been affected by pregnancy and discrimination. However, by 1978 the law was amended and now provides that pregnant women should not be discriminated against, instead giving them the opportunity to receive the same benefits as men. Despite the rising need for child care since many mothers work away from home, only few companies in the US have policies to cater to such workers. Despite the courts prohibiting the discrimination of pregnant at work, they are still experiencing segregation. For instance, they receive less pay as it is argued that they take a maternity leave. In the fields of engineering, science and mathematics, the common social perception is that these jobs are for men alone. Women are perceived to be irrational and emotional and thus have no capacity for jobs that require mental discipline and rigor. Social and family pressures also discouraged women from taking up careers in the sciences, in engineering or in mathematics, as these careers were perceived to be masculine. They also required decision-making, and women were perceived to be weak in such. Thus, involving them in such demanding careers as science and engineering was not favorable. Clearly, stereotyping in professions in the United States has also affected women’s orientation to such fields. (Layne, 2009: 120). However today, women have proven this wrong and many of them have contributed in interventions. In the early 1920s, it was even against the social norm for a woman to do heavy jobs such as those involved in engineering. (Sheffield, 2005:90). There are also certain taboos associated with these jobs, in the sense that they are said to take time away from the family and the woman’s allegedly primary responsibility as a spouse and mother. Also, since these professional careers require higher education or longer years in academic training, many women find it impossible to even be academically qualified for such positions. Women find themselves facing pressure from their families and society to get married immediately and raise a family, and thus, women who seek higher education, such as a masters degree, used to be frowned upon or thought of as an aberration. Worse, they may even be derided for not being attractive enough to get a spouse and higher education is the “next best thing.” What we see here at play is the gender stratification hypothesis, which states that in case of societal stratifications based on gender, there are more social inequalities based on social norms. This happens particularly in demanding fields such as mathematics, science and engineering. Socio-cultural aspects such as teachers’ and parents’ attitudes towards the girl child shape the attitude of the female student’s interest in a certain career. These notions have been whittled down considerably in this day and age as women are making rapid inroads in male-dominated jobs. Another theory to look into is the Occupational-Crowding Hypothesis, which states that women are sometimes intentionally isolated from certain occupations (Solberg and Laughlin, 1995: 692). This means that women’s failure to pursue certain professions may come as a result of the unfavorable social climate, certain jobs being deemed inaccessible to women. Feminism’s evolution: the doctrine of intersectionality It is wrong however to look at female subordination without looking at other axes of difference. This now brings us to the concept of intersectionality. The concept of intersectionality was conceived by the United Nations in 2001, such concept stating that: An intersectional approach to analyzing the disempowerment of marginalized women attempts to capture the consequences of the interaction between two or more forms of subordination. It addresses the manner in which racism, patriarchy, class oppression and other discriminatory systems create inequalities that structure the relative positions of women, races, ethnicities, class and the like … racially subordinated women are often positioned in the space where racism or xenophobia or class and gender meet. They are consequently subject to injury by the heavy flow of traffic travelling along all these roads. (United Nations 2001). Intersectionality was first used as a concept to trace the layers of oppression undergone by black women. Frankenberg, the famous feminist, for instance, admitted that she she had at first considered race far removed from her work as a Marxist Feminist. To quote her, “I saw racism as entirely external to me, a characteristic of extremists or of the British State, but not a part of what made me or what shaped my activism.” (1993: 53) Her race consciousness was triggered by the observation that unlike those she campaigned in the All-Cambridge campaigns who were whites like her, those she worked alongside in the feminist movement in the United States were “lesbian women of color and white working class women” (ibid, 54) – bringing forth a heterogeneity that demonstrated the unities and linked experiences of women from all over the world. Indeed, keen understanding of the notion of intersectionality and the multiple axes of difference that impact on women and their lives should inform human rights work and human rights interventions in the field of development. Many theorists, however, feel that whilst the intersections between race and gender are absolutely important, there are other intersections, and implications in other geographical regions, that are underanalyzed. According to Riley (2004) for example, There is as yet limited discussion of intersectionality in terms of class/economic status and race and gender in the global South. If an intersectional approach is to be useful in the development field, it needs to be informed by the experiences and views of women in the South. We need to know how understanding the situation of an HIV-positive woman living in South Africa as an intersection between gender, race and HIV status would affect development work. Looking at race of class, a good example is to examine the positionality of women living in conditions of poverty and vulnerability. For example, in the developing, particularly in underprivileged communities, women often find themselves charged with running the household, running the whole gamut of tasks like cooking, cleaning, taking care of the children, etc. These are important tasks and contribute to the welfare of the family, but because a low value is put on these tasks by the community, those who perform them are valued in a similar inferior manner. So deeply embedded is this perception of women that the assertion of their rights and agency remains to be a continuous struggle. Gains must be fought before they are won. The way forward How then do we ensure that the gains are not frittered and that we continue pushing boundaries and breaking barriers? Stubborn stereotypes stick and even though legally, women cannot be discriminated for their gender, discrimination can come in more subtle and insidious social forms. For instance, women working in these fields work mainly with men and sometimes find it difficult to be accepted as part of the organization. Or many times, they have to suppress their gender and “act like a man” in order to gain acceptance, thus conceding that the man is the ideal towards whom women must aspire. Women in male-dominated fields also find themselves prone to sexual harassment, payment and hiring discrimination. To escape this type of challenge women can prefer to work in organizations with female friendly programs and a zero-tolerance policy on discrimination of any kind. Organizations which offer mentoring programs and flexible work schedules tend to attract many women. So do organizations that acknowledge the multiple and complex roles that women play and respect these spheres. Another challenge is how to cope with gender differences in the workplace. Men and women usually have various interaction styles which happen automatically. Women working in organizations highly dominated by men their daily practices tend to be different from those working in female dominated organizations. Women can avoid this challenge by ensuring that they associate with people who are already working in these fields and are ready to share their knowledge and experiences. Now we move on to the strategies that can be used to improve women’s prospects in the work environment and open up a path for future opportunities in the United States. First, education is the most important first step in ensuring that there are women in the professions of science, engineering and mathematics. Educational institutions must make a conscious effort to train women and attract more women to pursue further studies in these fields. Women who excel academically must be recognized so that they serve as examples to young girls who wish to follow the same career trajectory. In middle school and high school, a culture of learning and academic rigor must be encouraged among young girls and female teenagers. They must never feel that there is a glass ceiling, or that there are limits to what they can achieve. Women should also consider educating themselves through informal ways such as attending conferences, joining professional organizations and keeping updated with trade applications. A report presented by American Association of University Women has established that distance learning is increasing among women. It has also established sixty percent of the nontraditional online studies are women above twenty five years of age. (Lock, 2004: 318). Thus women should take the advantage of internet and online opportunities to remain outstanding in these fields. Too, there must be recognition on the part of institutions that the struggle for equality of gender and for the protection of the rights of women is constant and evolving. We should not rest simply because we have secured the vote for women, have come up with a sophisticated set of sexual harassment laws, and have powerful women holding powerful positions in public office. While these policy changes are important in that they signpost significant societal transitions and paradigm shifts, there are still forces that seek to maintain the gender differential, and there still remain barriers to a truly level playing field between men and women. While old challenges have been addressed, new ones emerge. Everyday there are unseen acts of oppression being perpetrated against women that must be addressed. This means that states and institutions must always work towards creating equitable and fair policies for men and women, so that more women will break glass ceilings and develop herself and her talents and skills in a manner of her choosing. In the end, it is the shared responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure a conducive environment devoid of gender hierarchies and constraints that impede the development of women and the attainment of their aspirations. It is only through our collective efforts – men and women – that we can come up with long-term and sustainable strategies to narrow the gender divide. Confortini C.C. “Galtung, violence, and gender: the case for a peace studies/feminism alliance”. Peace and Change 31.3, (2006). 333-367. Print. Frankenberg, R. (1993) “Growing Up White: Feminism, Racism and the Social Geography of Childhood.” Feminist Review. Vol. 45. 51-84. Layne, Margaret. Women in engineering: Professional life. New York: ASCE Publications, 2009. Print. Laughlin, Teresa and Solberg, Eric. “The Gender Pay Gap, Fringe Benefits and Occupational Crowding.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. (1995). 692-708. Web. Lock, Robert. Taking charge of your career direction. Auckland: Cengage Learning, 2004. Print. Lorber, Judith. Paradoxes of Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Print. Riley, J. (2004). “Some Reflections on Gender Mainstreaming and Intersectionality.” Australian National University. Available at http://devnet.anu.edu.au/GenderPacific/pdfs/19_gen_mainstream_riley.pdf Sheffield, Suzanne. Women and science: social impact and interaction. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2005. Women’s International Center. Women’s History in America, 1994. Web. Wyer, Mary. Women, science, and technology: a reader in feminist science studies. London: Taylor & Francis, 2008 Read More