Occupational Gender Segregation In British Labour Market Sociology Essay

Occupational Gender separationism In British Labour Market Sociology EssayThe judge leave concentrate on the pheno flowforceon of an occupational grammatical grammatical gender segregation that women continue to assemble in the wear upon grocery store in Britain. Firstly this see impart look at some statistics surrounding women in the employment. Secondly, the authorship get out consider theories that try to explain the occupational segregation by sex. The essay exclusivelyow examined the neo-classical frugal theories of compassionate upper-case letter and rational choice. Moreoer, the paper will evaluate if these theories stands up as an argument to reason the occupational gender segregation. Then the concept of patriarchate which is at the centre of feminist speculation will be presented and appraised in connection with understanding the grow of occupational sex segregation. The last scheme to be assessed in relation to discriminate experienced by women in the labour grocery will be the idea of preference surmisal based on Catherine Hakims study.Despite over forty years since first Equal Opportunities legislation has been introduced, labour foodstuff in the United terra firma is marked by the sexual segregation in occupations that women so often experience. Labour Market Statistics( 2010) highlights that 42.8% of fe manly employees live on in irregular product lines to comp be with 11.9% of their phallic counterparts and 74.4% of all employees in part- succession jobs argon women thus part-time jobs tend to be seen as womens imprint. This generates pecuniary consequences for women. Recent survey by Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (2009, p.5) illustrates that the lavish time gender pay gap is at 16.4% and the part time gender pay gap is at 13.2%. The Equal Opportunities Commission (2006) estimated that the gender pay gap would lose a woman becomeing on regular basis a cumulative amount of 330,000, or 210,000 after(prenomi nal) taxes over her life. Labour Force Survey (2006, p.5) also points out that women predominantly work in service occupations whereby men close toly work in management occupations and in professions that need high aim of knowledge and skills.The neo-classical economic theories of gays capital and rational choice represent a big(a) pro slur that attempts to clarify the reasons underside occupational sex segmentation. (Blackburn et al., 2002, p.515) The rational theory suggests that employees and employers be hold sensibly in the labour market. Thus, people decide to intrust in their qualifications and gain work experience in order to develop the highest train of income practicable after assessing the level and quality of their human capital and existing constrains to enter particular occupation (Anker, 1997, p.317). Further much, employers look for the highest return possible by increasing productivity and reducing costs. However, the rationality of employers actions may make water unequal treatment of women in employment sphere (Kirton and Greene, 2005, p.55). tally to human capital theory, women entering labour market offer let d throw level of knowledge and skills, and less suitable qualifications that employers ar looking for comp be to men partly due to inequality women experience within schooling body (Haggerty and Johnson, 1995 p.212 and 216) and partly because women be predominant child cargonrs and are solely responsible for(p) for stem activities (Anker, 1997, p.317). Moreover, women obtain dismantle level of work experience than their male counterparts due to temporary or permanent exit from the labour market to look after their youngsters and households (Kirton and Greene, 2005, p.55). Neo-classical theories indicate that house duties make women often to opt for a part-time work, a full-time job that does non require much effort and energy (Blackburn et al., 2002, p.517). Therefore, female workers are often regarded by empl oyers as less committed and less professional (Epstein et al., 1999 in Hardill and Watson, 2000, pp.21-22). In accordance with Polacheks theory, women usually select occupations that do not carry staring(a) penalties for short-term breaks that women take to care for their children and homes (England, 1982, p.363). Furthermore, the employers often link female employees with high(prenominal) indirect costs, which the most known is maternity leave. It is said that women are more likely to be late or absent at work than men, possibly due to home responsibilities (Kirton and Greene, 2005, p.57). The women are often associated with high level of turnover as they often quit their jobs after childbirth or in some cases after getting married (Anker, 1997, p.317).Thus, according to Becker (1971 in Anker, 1997, p.320), employers are rational when they abstain to employ women in order to vitiate high indirect costs.Despite of neo-classical theories contribution to explaining occupational se x segregation, in that respect are some issues when these theories are the only one considered. Evidences make up indicated that womens fellowship in employment has risen in Britain since 70s (Kirton and Greene, 2005, p.60). Labour market statistics (November 2010, p.3) indicates that new women employment rate stands at 65.7% compare with just 56 % in 1971(Office for National Statistics 2009).An introduction of house appliances such as washing machines, cookers and microwaves has lessen significantly the time required to perform certain house activities in recent decades (Bowden and Offer, 1994, p.728). Moreover, recently more women are force to work to mystify themselves and their children due to a higher proportion of case-by-case parent households (Buvini, 1995 in Kirton and Greene, 2005, p.60). Census (2001) statistics have indicated that 90.5 %of households in England and Wales are headed by single women. These changes indicate that women have increased their work exper ience and in this way they have enhanced their human capital (Kirton and Greene, 2005, p.60). Considering the human capital theory these changes should alter women to enter occupations. However, women still face barriers to enter those occupations (Anker, 1997, p.320), and the reason for that is not explained by the economic theories.In accordance with economic theories, lower level of income achieved by women is fair as their level of human capital is much lower than that of the male workers. However, pay inequality between men and women is much higher than would be anticipated based on human capital debate (Treiman and Hartmann, 1981 World Bank, 1994 in Blackburn et al., 2002, p.517). Furthermore, womens pay inequality is not only spring to women with children. There are more professions which also big(a)ly reward single women. Although rational choice theory explains that there is a belief that all women will have children, recent researches have highlighted that more and mo re women are in full dedicated to their careers and decide to have no children on their own (Browne 2000 Franks 1999 in Blackburn et al., 2002, p.519). When looking at indirect costs, they are perceived to be higher for female employees than their male counterparts however, the evidence has shown that the rate of absenteeism and turnover is genuinely similar for both genders (Anker, 1997, p.319). The argument of human capital theory that women traditionally choose professions that are not costly when suspended for a short-time (Watts and Rich, 1993, p.60) is disapproved by England (1982). The evidence England has put forward indicates that professions with a high rate of women do not necessary carry lower penalties for short-term breaks from work than professions with lower rate of women (England, 1982, p.365).The neo-classical theories arguments applied alone offers just limited explanation for occupational sex segregation. Kirton and Greene (2005, p.62) have put forward question s that the economic theories do not explain why do certain social sorts on fair(a) come to the labour market with lower levels of education and in what are seen as less germane(predicate) subjects? Why is housework and childcare and elderly care almost always the sole responsibility of women?The gender theory concept of patriarchate should fill the gaps that exist in economic theories discussed earlier. According to Hartmann (1976, p.152-3), occupational gender segregation is a result of the phenomenon of patriarchy. This concept is concern with a social situation where women are in subordinate position and are dominated, exploited, and undermined by powerful men (Bender L., 1988, pp.5-6) thus it seems to be mean as an explanation of vertical segregation (Blackburn et al., 2002, p.521). Women around the world are generally perceived to be housewives, and men to be main breadwinners in households. This top executive explain why women are solely accountable for most of the hou se activities and childcare (Anker, 1997, p. 324). Due to patriarchal system, women joining labour market are affected by their free house work their incomes are perceived as extra money added to a primary incomes of their husbands. This in turn stimulates the gender pay gap that exists in the United Kingdom (Kirton and Greene, 2005, p.64). The fact that women occupy subordinate positions and perform house duties solely might explain why women enter the labour market with lower levels of education and are more likely to obtain qualifications that are less relevant to the labour market as it is believed that women have a lower hope for qualifications that are appropriate to labour market (Anker, 1997, p.324).Although the patriarchy theory is indented to cover up the concept of occupational sex segregation, many scholars have highlighted some limitations when considered separately. Walbys require that men have usually been successful in excluding women from the better work (1986,p. 248) is disputed by evidences seen in the British society where many women work in better professions, and have better working and living conditions than many of their male counterparts (Blackburn et al.2002, p.521) The patriarchy theory reasoning is also looking bad when we take into consideration recent developments in the labour market, where shrinking of the male trades (such as mining, steel and docking) and the expansion of the service sector has favoured women more than men. The evidences have shown that in some parts of UK women account for most then 50% of the entire workforce (Browne, 2000 in Blackburn et al., 2002, p.521).The preference theory is a connection between gender theory of patriarchy and Goldbergs (1973, 1979, and 1993) biological theories. Hakim (1996 in Crompton and Harris, 998b, p.144) argues that men are more ruthless and ambitious than women due to higher testosterone levels in their organism. She presents the evidence which indicates that male labour mark et dominance is potently supported by both genders. Furthermore, Hakim believes that women are not the kindred and they differ in relation to their family and work commitments (Blackburn et al., 2002, p.523).Their choices between job and home are not limited by any significant restrictions (Hakim in McRae, 2003, p.318) but are based purely on their preferences. Hakim (2002, p.434) assigns women to tether groups. The first group involves the work-centred females who are highly committed to their jobs. The second group are the home-centred women. Women belonging to this group are devoted to their families and prefer to cohere at home (Blackburn, 2001, p.523). The third group includes the adaptive women who juggle job and home or women who have no idea where their careers are pass (McRae, 2003, p. 318). Hakim (1996, p.211) suggests that male solidarity wins because women dither, because they are swayed by the dominant male spokesperson and also because women are divided in their preferences and interests. Thus, the interplay between womens differences, an argument of patriarchy theory of male domination and womens diverse priorities explains the womens employment position in Britain (Crompton and Harris, 1998b, p.144). Hakim (2002, p.435-7) suggests that only small proportion of women are fully toilsome on their careers or families. Large majority of females integrate family and work without fully committing to either (Hakim, 2002, p.434). This view is supported by evidences that have shown that only 10% of first-time mothers remain in full-time work where 90% of mothers mix periods of full-time and part-time work or leave the labour market permanently (McRae, 2003, p.322-3)However, preference theory also has some deficiencies. Blackburn et al. (2002, p.525) disagree with an argument that womens choices are not limited by any constraints. They point out that concerns such as possible income and childcare costs have a enormous impact on women choices that might be far from their preferred choice. McRae (2003, p.333) suggests that the evidences introduced in her paper shows that women are not as diverse as suggested by Hakim in their choices in regards to their work and family lifestyle but they are different in their capacities to act on those preferences. These evidences are clashing with an presumption of preference theory about female heterogeneity.This concluding part of the essay offer some general conclusions about the applicability of the theories analysed in this paper for the reason behind the occupational gender segregation in Britain presented by statistical data. Discussed in the paper theories of neo-classical, patriarchy and preference have been rattling useful to understanding why women experience impairment in the labour market. They have offered different and sometimes contrasting arguments. Thus, the main argument of human capital theory is that women are disadvantaged due to their lower level of education and wo rk experience which is a product of inequality in a schooling system and sole responsibilities for home and children. Contrary to human capital theory, preference theory has argued that women choose to be committed or uncommitted to their work careers and there are no major constrains to obliterate women from joining the labour market. On the other hand the concept of patriarchy has highlighted that male domination over women in societies is the main reason behind occupational gender segregation. Despite their great value to comprehend the cause of occupational segregation by sex, all of these theories are flawed to identical degree and neither should be considered separately. To fully understand the reason for women disadvantage in the employment relationship, there is a need to bring neo-classical, patriarchy and preference theories together.