From Nijole Benokraitis and Joe R. Feagin, Modern Sexism:Blatant, Subtle, and Covert Discrimination (2nd Ed.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1995, pp.184-210.
In the new code of laws which I suppose will benecessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies andbe more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do notput such unlimited power in the hands of husbands. Remember, all menwould be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention isnot paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment arebellion.1
John Adams rejected her request, telling his wife to be patientand to realize that other issues were much more important thanwomen's rights. This male view has been common ever since. Women havebeen told by men, and even by some women, that their rights are notas important as other matters. This has been especially true sincethe early 1980s, with the emergence of a conservative backlashagainst women's rights. This backlash was evident, for example, inthe statements and actions of presidents Ronald Reagan and GeorgeBush, who, with their associates, were opposed to most women's rightsgoals. Reagan himself took a public stand against the Equal RightsAmendment (ERA), and the Republican Party platforms expressed openopposition to abortion and affirmative action programs.
From Abigail Adams to today's feminist activists, the challengehas arisen again and again: "If particular care and attention is notpaid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion." In thisbook we have identified numerous discriminatory barriers facingwomen, especially in the workplace and at school. We have seen womenconstantly facing sex discrimination, and we have seen them fightingthat discrimination. In this chapter, we examine strategies forchange under three general headings: individual pressure for change,change through collective action, and broad societal changes.
One of the biggest misconceptions about sex discrimination is that"you can't fight city hall." Throughout this chapter, boxes entitled"You Don't Have to Take It!" show that women and girls as young asseven years old have done something about sexual harassment and otherforms of sex discrimination. You can do the same!
Even today, most men and many women cling to socially acceptablemisconceptions that perpetuate discriminatory attitudes andpractices. First, women assume that if they work hard and do a goodjob, their talent and ability will be recognized and rewarded.Second, they assume that gender is irrelevant in the distribution ofrewards and that "merit will win out." Third, many assume thatsomeone else will fight the battles for them. Related to this, theyassume that, over time, there will be gender equality. Each of theseassumptions is wrong, and each maintains the status quo of genderinequality.
Every woman has certain rights under U.S. laws. Knowing theserights; and pressing for them, is a major change strategy for womenworking as individuals. In the workplace it is illegal for women tobe fired for filing a sex discrimination complaint against her boss.It is illegal for a male employee doing the same work (even under adifferent job title) to be paid more than a similarly experiencedfemale employee. It is illegal to force a woman to leave her job inthe sixth month of pregnancy. And it is illegal to fire a womanemployee who is talking to others about unionizing. In education, itis illegal to exclude women from government-paidwork-study opportunities, monetary support throughscholarships and fellowships, equal access to institutionalfacilities and athletic benefits, and entry into all areas of study.In domestic situations, it is illegal to rape a wife (under somecircumstances) in all states and to deny credit, mortgage loans, orother financing on the basis of gender or marital status.
The first step to remedy some types of discrimination is for awoman to identify and recognize the sex discrimination. The secondstep is to know and stand up for one's rights. Placing the burden ofgender inequality on women might smack of reinforcing the "blamingthe victim" syndrome. However, most men will not aggressively promotewomen's rights because of their personal and economic interest inmaintaining discriminatory practices. Thus, women must take theinitiative in fighting sex discrimination. At the individual level,these strategies differ depending on the type of discrimination thatwomen encounter.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT! (IN ELEMENTARY AND MIDDLESCHOOL)
|
A 7-year-old girl had to ride to school in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, on a bus with boys who called her "bitch" and made fun of little girls because they didn't have penises, and with a driver who thought it was funny. Over five months, the girl's mother sent 22 pages of complaints to school officials, who lectured the boys and briefly suspended several troublemakers from riding the bus. Because the mother felt that the school wasn't doing enough to protect her daughter, she filed a complaint with the state Department of Human Rights.2 In Petaluma, California, eighth-grader Tawnya Brawdy had to run a gauntlet of boys gathered outside her school who would begin mooing as she approached. According to Tawnya, the harassment "went on before school, during classes, in between classes and during lunch," but her teacher told her she'd just have to put up with it. Boys continued to moo at her all through high school. The U.S. Department of Education found, in a 211-page report, that the schools had failed to protect her. Tawnya's mother sued her district over "emotional distress" and collected $20,000 in an out-of-court settlement. She now heads a group called Parents for Title 9. 3
|
One remedy is active intervention by individuals who do notdiscriminate. As one of our readers put it:
[There are] social/personal responsibilities ofspouses, parents, teachers, legislators, friends, colleagues andothers to act in behalf of victims and themselves. A lot of peoplewon't actively discriminate, but they also won't intervene to preventor stop discrimination (e.g., "You're a big girl. I assume you cantake care of yourself." This translates to "It's really your problem,so it's up to you to find a solution.") There is really a lot to besaid for the notion that if a person isn't part of the solution, heor she is part of the problem . . . Men use this "nonintervention"reasoning mostly to avoid confronting one or more men (are theyafraid, falsely, of looking "unmasculine"?).
Thus, both women and men should actively challengeblatant sex discrimination. Individuals in powerful positions can beespecially instrumental in sending loud, clear, and public messagessupporting gender equality. For example, the mayor of Annapolis,Maryland, once sent a seven-page memorandum to departmentheads in city government outlining ways to eliminate sexualstereotyping and the use of derogatory and demeaning language andbehavior toward women. The memo also included threats of disciplinaryaction for discriminatory behavior.
Another strategy is prevention. Some women accept jobs and entereducational institutions that they know have awell-established reputation for sexism. The motivations forsuch actions are mixed--the company might offer a higher salary, theuniversity might be in an interesting location, the applicant thinksthat "my experience will be different" or that she will change theexisting discriminatory practices. Such high hopes and idealisticexpectations are usually dashed. If, during the course of aninterview or application process, the applicant discovers theinstitution's discriminatory policies or practices, she should citethese as reasons for not accepting the offer and send the rejectionletter to the influential decision makers in the community, company,or institution.
Preventing gender discrimination on a more personal level is alsoimportant. In recent years, many law enforcement agencies, schools,and media organizations have been more willing to raise, publicize,and discuss such neglected issues as rape, sexual harassment, andchild abuse. Consequently, some states have set up rape crisiscenters, shelters for battered wives, and fingerprinting programs inelementary schools. However, such responses are therapeutic orreactive rather than preventive. That is, they focus on what to doafter the offense rather than on teaching women how to avoid orprevent violence, harassment, and discrimination. If more time andeffort were spent teaching children and adolescents that physicalviolence and sexist behavior are never okay in interpersonalrelations, the cultural acceptance of gender discrimination mightbegin to change.
Third, if possible, women should initiate action against the malediscriminator. A woman can verbally protest an insult. Or write amemo. Or discuss the problem with other workers who might be in asimilar situation. All of these are real remedies for women seekingchanges in the sex discrimination they face. Taking action can be asource of empowerment as well as a way of reducing futurediscrimination.
Gathering information on the organization's policies and recordscan be important in fighting discrimination. An aggrieved womanshould collect data to back up her arguments. A company's poor recordof past treatment of women or minorities can be important backgrounddata substantiating a claim of recent discrimination. Checking to seeif other women employees have suffered similar discrimination can beuseful, as can checking court cases against the organization.
Organizations themselves sometimes have data on their own internalproblems. Companies doing substantial business with the federalgovernment sign contracts requiring them to take affirmative actionto correct discrimination against women and others in theirworkplaces. Usually, the company must prepare an affirmative actionplan that spells out its weaknesses regarding the hiring of women,and that lays out goals and timetables for hiring women to correctits deficiencies. This plan is kept in the files of the organizationand should be available to employees. It is enforced by the Office ofFederal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the office within theDepartment of Labor responsible for supervising the implementation ofexecutive orders on desegregating the workforces of federalcontractors.
If discussing the program with the boss does not work, anaggrieved woman can pursue internal grievance procedures, file acomplaint with the EEOC, or consider a lawsuit. The 1964 Civil RightsAct (Title VII) prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, wages,promotions, and fringe benefits on the basis of gender. The 1963Equal Pay Act requires equal pay for substantially equal work. The1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act protects pregnant women capable ofdoing their job from being fired or demoted because of pregnancy.These laws are enforced by the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (EEOC). The 1991 Civil Rights Act now permits victims ofsexual harassment and other sex discrimination to collect substantialcompensatory and punitive damages from discriminating employers.
The National Association of Working Women recommends that anindividual who is being sexually harassed at work should do at leastthese things: (1) keep a diary of each incident, with key details;(2) face the issue early on by telling the perpetrator that thesexist words or actions are highly inappropriate; (3) follow up onthis confrontation with a written statement on the events; (4)organize against sexism with fellow workers; and (5) know and use thefirm's grievance regulations. If following company grievanceprocedures does not work, then she should go to the EEOC.4
In 1980 the EEOC put out a statement conceptualizing sexualharassment as a form of gender discrimination, one that clearlyviolates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.5 (EEOC data for 1986and 1990 show that the number of harassment complaints increased by25 percent in the intervening period.)6 Sexual harassmentcan significantly affect a woman employee's mobility and must besubstantially eradicated if women, at all employment levels, are tomake further progress. A woman with a harassment or other sexdiscrimination complaint has six months after a discrimnatory act tofile a complaint with the EEOC. Unfortunately, the EEOC is seriouslyunderfunded and has generally had a huge backlog; it may take a longtime for the agency to make a ruling in a particularcase.7
If the EEOC cannot help, a woman can sue on her own. Since thelate 1980s, there has been a significant increase in the number oflawsuits in this area of sex discrimination, a few with costlysettlements for employers. Recent lawsuits by individual women havebegun to change the workplace climate in some firms and governmentagencies. The first major court decision on sexual harassment came in1986, when the Supreme Court (in Meritor Bank v. Vinson)ruled that harassment is discrimination under the 1964Civil Rights Act. Subsequently, the EEOC ruled that firms mustimplement "immediate and appropriate corrective action" in sexualharassment situations.8
In 1993 the court made proof of harassment less difficult forwomen complainants by dropping the previous requirement of a victimhaving to demonstrate "severe psychological injury." In November1993, the Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.that Teresa Harris was not required to show she was "severelypsychologically injured" by the sexual harassment of her boss inorder to get compensation for sex discrimination. The court rulingshould make it possible for women to successfully pursue sexualharassment cases in the federal courts. In the decision, JusticeSandra Day O'Connor indicated that "no single factor [is] required"in establishing this type of sex discrimination: "Whether anenvironment is hostile or abusive can be determined only by lookingat all the circumstances. These may include the frequency of thediscriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physicallythreatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; andwhether it reasonably interferes with an employee's workperformance."9
Challenges to sex discrimination are more effective when theyinvolve women who are backed up by other women and sympathetic men.Friends, family, coworkers, and supervisors should actively supportwomen challenging sexual harassment and other sex discrimination.Related to this, working women should develop networks with the wivesof offenders. Very often, there is a rift between women workingoutside the home and housewives. Working women and students aresometimes self-righteous about not being "just housewives";housewives--however intelligent, well educated, and talented--mayfeel threatened by stereotypical images of young, attractive, andsuccessful women who are out to seduce their hardworkingbreadwinners. If such misconceptions were reduced on both sides,through seminars, lunches, and workshops, for example, women couldattack and reduce gender inequality more effectively in both the homeand the workplace.
Because of pressure from individual women, some organizational andinstitutional changes have occurred, especially in regard to blatantforms of gender discrimination. By choice and out of economic need,women have moved into the workplace in ever greater numbers in recentdecades. Many women now enjoy greater economic independence. Thisoutside work can change relationships with men, since women canchoose to divorce or marry with less concern for the economicrepercussions. The movement of women into the workplace helps womenbuild bonds with other women. Moreover, working women increasinglyinteract with men in nontraditional settings as lawyers, accountants,doctors, and police offcers. This gives women a greater sense oftheir own personal worth and identity, which, in turn, increases thewillingness of some to press against all barriers to achievement, bethey blatant or subtle. In addition, men learn how to be equal oreven subordinate rather than to dominate from these new women atwork.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT! (IN HIGH SCHOOL)
|
A high school student at Duluth Central High School in Minnesota felt humiliated by the vulgar graffiti in the bathroom stalls. She complained for a year and a half. When school administrators ignored her complaints, she filed charges with the state and prepared to go to trial. She finally reached a settlement that clarified sexual harassment policies and paid her $15,000 for "mental anguish." This was probably the first school in the nation to pay damages to a student who was sexually harassed by her male peers.10
|
Implementing remedies to change subtle and covert genderdiscrimination is more difficult because, as we saw in earlierchapters, most Americans (especially men) are not conscious of thesebarriers. Because these obstacles can be difficult to measure anddocument, many people assume that subtle and covert sexdiscrimination issues are not worth pursuing. Such assumptions arewrong. It is critical to educate women and men about the existence,processes, and harmful effects of subtle and covert sexdiscrimination.
1. Raise people's consciousness. Talk to each other. Compareexperiences. Share information about in-house politics andabuse of women workers and students. In doing so, assume that sexdiscrimination is environmental rather than "natural" or innate.
2. Reevaluate definitions of stereotypically masculine or femininebehavior in mixed groups. For example, why do we penalize women forcrying but accept male outbursts, when both are acceptable forshowing such emotions as anger or disappointment?
3. At the end of the day, think about the situations that made youfeel angry, defensive, humiliated, or tense. Were such reactionsbased on your lack of performance or other people treating you as awoman rather than a person? Were you treated fairly? Or were youexploited, manipulated, ignored, or demeaned? If so, was this becauseyou are a woman or because you "screwed up"? In answering suchquestions, compare your experiences with those of men in comparablesituations or predicaments.
Then, do something!
To counteract subtle and covert sex discrimination, women and mencan implement a variety of equally subtle and covert strategies.
1. Help yourself: Find out who the respectedleaders are and solicit their help and advice on things such aspresentations, reports, and procedures. Ask them for tips about howto improve. Do some careful research. Compare your work loads andresponsibilities with those of others (especially men's). If you aredoing more, point this out--politely, but firmly--to supervisors atevery opportunity. Point out your important accomplishments to yoursupervisor. Compare your salary with that of men with similarachievements. Volunteer to help colleagues, do the job seriously, andcommunicate that you expect to be acknowledged. Ask your "enemies"(for example, male chauvinists) to evaluate your products, devisecooperative strategies to improve your work, and solicit their helpin making your contributions known to others. In terms of committeesor similar assignments, be selective: Devote your time only toimportant committees, volunteer to chair an important committee toavoid serving on two or three meaningless committees, and do yourhomework. Be active during meetings, but don't be the first to speakto problems. Be brief and well informed in your comments, don't takesilly comments seriously, and don't be on the defensive. If you feelyou'll be in the minority, especially when the majority of theopposition is male, don't start with a compromise. Argue for morethan you expect; work toward a compromise and make it clear that youare compromising because you're willing to "carry the ball" in the"team effort."
2. Help other women. Whenever possible, nominate women toprestigious or powerful committees, work assignments, or othervisible and important responsibilities. If men are suspicious about a"women's bloc," throw them off guard by having the most outspoken,feminist woman nominate a male. Follow that nomination with women'snames. If you are in a position to evaluate women, don't be shy aboutcomparing the "double-day" obstacles of married women(especially mothers) with the lack of such responsibilities of singlemen, husbands, and fathers who have more time to devote toemployment. Be sure to encourage other women evaluators to do thesame. Evaluate women honestly--encourage their accomplishments but behonest and constructive about weaknesses and limitations. If a womansuggests a worthwhile policy, procedure, or idea, reinforce herimmediately, both in writing and in informal communications. Neverassume that the proposal is too good, intelligent, or worthwhile tobe ignored by decision makers. Never assume that feminists or womenworking in such female-dominated areas as social work, nursing, andclerical work are too unsympathetic, close-minded, calloused,or too successful to accept constructive criticism or help. The women(and men) who work to improve women's rights may appear publicly tobe very tough, independent, and strong. Privately, they are the mostlikely to feel embattled and isolated because they are oftenattacked. Give them your support, especially in public and inwriting. Such support might motivate fence-hangers to get moreinvolved in gender inequality issues:
We had a "women's libber" in the department for aboutsix years. She didn't get tenure--I'm not sure why--and left lastMay. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I miss her. I didn't agreewith a lot of things she did--like lobbying for day-carefacilities and raising sex harassment issues--but she made me think.. . . Why do I put my wife down at parties even though I really loveher? . . . I flirt with students. . . . I tell sexist jokes in class.. . . I have a lousy relationship with most women . . . I'm gladshe's gone, but, damn, if I don't miss her. (Male faculty member inan economics department)
3. Recruit the help of men. Develop alliances withsympathetic men. Solicit their support, communicate openly, and don'tput them on the defensive. Work together, coauthor projects andpapers, and encourage the involvement of men who do not haveprofessional relationships with women. Become more aware of men whohave good intentions, but who behave in sexist ways. Very often, menwho are fathers are at least concerned about daughters (if not aboutwives, mothers, or girl friends) and are more open to discussionsabout sex inequality.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT! (IN A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY)
|
Frustrated by the institution's ineffective handling of complaints of sexual assault and harassment, students at Brown University listed the names of men they accused of raping women on the walls of women's bathrooms. When university offcials ordered the list eradicated, graffiti reappeared in indelible ink and spread to other bathrooms. Brown's president denounced the students' actions, but he also proposed changes in university policies for dealing with sexual assaults on the campus.11 Four women students sued Carleton College in Minnesota, charging that the college failed to protect them from two male students who the women said were known by Carleton administrators to be harassing and dangerous. The women contended that the college bungled their cases by advising them not to go to the police when they were harassed and attacked and then they failed to punish the men adequately through its own judicial proceedings. The students said that they were among seven women at Carleton who made complaints to the Carleton dean of students' office between 1984 and 1987, accusing the same two men of sexual assault.12 Carleton College settled the lawsuit out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.
|
There are limits to the changes that individual women and men canbring in the area of sexism and gender discrimination. Group effortsare essential as well.
The women's rights movement in the United States has been alivefor nearly 150 years. In 1848, several hundred people, including 40men, attended the first major women's rights convention in SenecaFalls, New York. Led by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, theconvention represented women organizing collectively for major socialchange. The convention passed one resolution, in a close vote,calling for the "elective franchise," the right to vote for women.This convention launched the women's movement. From the 1850s to theearly l900s, the women's movement, although small in numbers, wasactive in demonstrations as well as other political and legalactivities. In numerous states, women attempted to vote.Occasionally, small groups were successful, even though their voteswere "illegal." Women also demonstrated for voting rights at the 1876Centennial exposition in Philadelphia.
In the years 1910-1912, Washington, California, and severalother states yielded to suffragist pressures and established theright of women to vote. Between 1910 and 1917, the number of membersof the National American Woman Suffrage Association grew from 75,000to over 2 million. Demonstrations and other protest activitiessecured passage by Congress of a full-suffrage constitutionalamendment in 1919. After this major victory, the women's movementbecame relatively dormant, until its resurgence in the1960s.13 Women have organized to fight forwomen's rights since at least the 1840s.
Since the 1960s, there has been an increase in women'sorganizations, including political action groups, unions, and smallergroups of women working in companies and government agencies. One ofthe best things women and feminist men can do is to organize againstsexism. In the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Anita Hill,a former staff member under Clarence Thomas, a nominee for theSupreme Court, charged Thomas with sexual harassment. Although theSenate Committee managed to duck the implications of the charges, theHill-Thomas hearings radicalized many women and increasedtheir participation in women's organizations and in politics.
In a number of discrimination cases, women employees have begun tofight back as a group, often in the form of a class-actionlawsuit. Recently, four women workers in California, who wereemployed at the Chevron Information Technology Co., instituted aclass-action suit on behalf of all the women who had beensexually harassed at the company--only the fourth class-actionsuit ever filed for this type of sex discrimination. The women,according to one press report, reported that male managers "grabbedwomen workers, told filthy jokes and sent pornography, underwear andhostile notes through the interoffice mail."14Unfortunately, in February 1994 a California federal judge ruled thatthe case could not be prosecuted as a class-action suit inregard to the sexual harassment charges (because he thought theharassment was an individual problem, not a Chevron problem) and thateach woman would have to pursue her case individually. Nonetheless,this suit received wide media coverage and showed women employeesthat there can be strength in numbers.
The first successful class-action case dealing with sexualharassment, filed in 1988 and approved as a class action in 1991,involved women complainants at Eveleth Taconite Co., a mining firm.The lawyers for the women said that male employees grabbed thecrotches of women employees and scribbled sexist graffiti indicatingwomen's "hot spots." The harassed women workers testified that themanagement had allowed the harassment to persist and thereby createda difficult work climate for women employees. A federal court decidedin mid-1993 that the firm was responsible for the hostileworkplace and must pay damages to women workers.15
Some of the group cases have brought considerable remedialsettlements. In December 1993, the Commonwealth Edison Co., a largemidwestern utility, agreed to distribute $3.3 million to severalthousand female job applicants as settlement of a legal suit broughtby the EEOC on behalf of the women. The court suit argued that someofficials in the company had discriminated against women in hiringfor meter readers and nuclear-plant operators. 16
As we have noted previously, in the spring of 1992 State FarmInsurance company agreed to pay $157 million to hundreds of womenworkers in order to settle a 13-year lawsuit brought by femaleemployees who charged that they had been denied jobs as insurancesales agents. In addition, a female manager of asavings-and-loan branch in Washington, D.C., sued thebank and one of its top executives for gender discrimination. Shesaid he pressured her to have sex, which she acquiesced in out offear of losing her position. The male executive denied theallegations, and the bank officials said they knew nothing aboutthem. Although a district court ruled against the woman, a federalappeals court reversed the lower court decision, putting companies onnotice that they are responsible for sexual harassment by a malesupervisor.17
As a result of these court cases, and the AnitaHill-Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991, many corporateexecutives have become more sensitive to issues of sexual harassmentand have implemented grievance procedures to reduce hostile workenvironments. A number of observers have argued that corporatechanges will eventually bring a revolution in this regard: "But thenext step in this revolution . . . is how ever-clearerdefinitions of sexual harassment are being implemented by more andmore corporations around the country. . . . companies are searchingfor better ways to protect themselves, laying down their own laws tostop behavior that isn't just unwanted, but is alsoillegal."18 Many companies and public organizations arenow providing new regulations, hotlines, and training sessions onsexual harassment. The Corning corporation has used videotapesshowing different types of harassment that women employees face; andFirst Boston investment company requires its workers to sign anagreement indicating they will observe the firm's sexual harassmentregulations.19 Some government employers are alsoattending to sexual harassment problems. For example, at theUniversity of Florida, the provost, working with other universityadministrators and faculty and staff members, has instituted monthlysexual harassment sessions and workshops for faculty and staffmembers (with 200 to 300 present at each): Strong informal pressuresare placed on university departments and units to send employees tothe sessions.
Still, there are many workplaces where no serious action is beingtaken. One of the serious offenders is, ironically enough, the lawfirm. A 1993 survey of about 800 lawyers in large law firms in 14cities found the following: Three quarters of the firms had officialregulations against harassment, up from 38 percent in 1989. Notsurprisingly, the male and female lawyers had opposing views on thepresence of sexual harassment in their workplaces. While the majorityof men felt it did not exist, about 70 percent of the womenlawyers said it did exist on the job. In addition, just overhalf the female lawyers, but only 6 percent of the male lawyers,personally reported being a victim of sexual harassment in theworkplace. Clearly, the legal institutions in the United States needas much attention as other workplaces.20
The women's equality movement came dramatically onto the nationalstage in the 1960s. More women were working outside the home, butwages and working conditions remained poor, and male dominationremained entrenched. Women had previously joined in various movementsfor reform, such as movements for black civil rights, but now theypressed their own cause. Protesting women became the target of ragefor many in the dominant male group, who ridiculed them as "libbers"and "bra burners." But the counterattacks did not stem the rise ofthis movement. Various organizations were created, ranging from theNational Organization for Women (NOW), to the Women's Equity ActionLeague, to the New York Radical Feminists and the National BlackFeminist Organization.
Founded in 1966, NOW has fought for a variety ofantidiscrimination remedies at the state and national level. In 1984,NOW set up the National Committee to Support Women Strikers at Yale.It helped raise money to assist strikers with expenses and to pay fora nationwide publicity effort. The strike for equal pay for work wassuccessful. In addition, NOW groups have registered voters duringpresidential campaigns. In the 1980s and early 1990s, NOW groupscharged presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush with failing toprotect women's rights and with reducing the effectiveness of civilrights enforcement programs. They and others protested the ways bothRepublican presidents had encouraged the EEOC to gut employmentrights law enforcement.21
Women's organizations such as NOW have used a variety ofstrategies to bring about changes in society. One common strategy isto change the law. This has been accomplished in civil rights andequal opportunity legislation from the 1960s to the 1990s. New lawsare often activated by court cases, some of which have led toimprovements in the conditions of women. Normally a conservativeforce, the law has sometimes been used to expand the rights andopportunities of subordinad Americans. For example, Title IX of the1972 civil rights law bans sex discrimination in college programsthat are federally funded. In the last few years, women athletes havefiled suit against discrimination in athletic programs at CaliforniaState Univer sity, the University of Texas, Colorado State, Auburn,Brown, and Colgate. These lawsuits have often been won, therebysuggesting an effective remedy when neither the national athleticassociations (for example, the NCAA) nor the federal government havebeen active enough in eradicating this type ofdiscrimination.22
Women athletes have been assisted by women's organizations. Localand national NOW organizations have filed several lawsuits to bringequal treatment to women athletes in college athletic programs. Forexample, in October 1993 the California State University systemsettled a NOW lawsuit by agreeing to implement gender equity inathletics by the year 2000.23
Other strategies used by women's movements to protest inequalityinclude electoral strategies, nonviolent civil disobedience, andlegal marches and demonstrations.
Most leaders in the AFL-CIO, an association of nearly 90 unionsand more than 13 million unionists, are still white men, although thenumber of women in top posts has grown slowly in recent years. Inpart because of this exclusion, women have organized their own unionsto fight sex discrimination in the workplace. Such groups as theWomen Offfice Workers (New York), Women Employed (Chicago), UnionW.A.G.E. (Oakland), and 9-to-5 (numerous cities) arefighting for better conditions in the workplace. These unions areconcerned not just with the usual workplace concerns such as wagesand working conditions, but also with women in the workplace. Inrecent years, the number of women workers in unions has grownsubstantially, even though union membership in the United States ingeneral has declined. More than half of all workers signed up byunions since 1970 have been women. Women in unions earn substantiallymore than nonunion women, and they typically have better workingconditions and fringe benefits. Union organizing has often broughtimproved pay and conditions to many women employees. The unionizationprocess is usually started by workers sharing a common grievance; theworkers hold meetings and then conduct a legal election to see if themajority of employees support a union. Under U.S. Iaw, managementmust negotiate in "good faith" with the workers' association aboutwages, hours, grievance procedures, and working conditions.
One of the most important of the national women's organizations,9-to5 (National Association of Working Women), had grown to15,000 members by 1993 and had members in 250 U.S. cities. The groupoperates a hotline to help women in white-collar jobs withdiscrimination.24 This organization's lobbying effortsalso helped to assure that victims of sexual harassment were coveredin the 1991 Civil Rights Act.
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees(AFSCME), a union with a large number of women employees, has been anactive advocate of comparable worth. AFSCME, which has a legalsection that works on employment issues, has been aggressive ingetting comparable worth into bargaining sessions with publicemployers. In 1983, federal district judge Jack E. Tamer ruled inAFSCME v. State of Washington that the State of Washingtonhad violated Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act by paying peoplein predominantly female jobs less than those in similar-skill,predominantly male jobs. Judge Tamer ruled that the discriminationagainst women "has been and is manifested by direct, overt, andinstitutionalized discrimination." This case affirmed the principleof equal pay for work of comparable value that had been establishedin the Supreme Court case Gunther v. County of Washington(1981). However, in 1984 the Reagan administration's Departmentof Justice quickly moved into the appeal process against the womenand for the State of Washington. This AFSCME case was appealed to theNinth Circuit Court, which in 1985 decided against the principle ofcomparable pay for comparable work.25
Another major union with a large number of women members is theService Employees International Union (SEIU). Between 1975 and 1994,this union nearly doubled its members. The union grew from 400,000 in1975 to more than 1 million in the mid-199Os, one of thebiggest increases for any union in the United States. Workingaggressively to organize women and minorities in servicejobs--including office, health care, janitorial, and public sectorworkers--SEIU has challenged institutionalized discrimination in anumber of companies.26 Another group, Women Employed, wascreated in the mid-1970s to fight discrimination in both payand working conditions. Women Employed has set up career counseling,networking information, and professional development seminars. Theseprograms and workplace discrimination counseling services have beenestablished for the 1,800 members in the area around Chicago. TheWomen Employed Institute (WEI) is a national leader in research andadvocacy to advance women's rights in the workplace.27
Many other groups designed to help women with work problems havebeen formed in recent years. In Oakland, California, the AsianImmigrant Women Advocates organization works on labor and othereconomic concerns and works to empower its members. In Boston theWomen's Economic Development (WED) Project, begun in 1991, works inpoorer neighborhoods to provide job training and job access. Thisgroup focuses on single welfare-dependent mothers. Latinas arealso organizing. Mujer Obrera, a community-based workers'organization of mostly Latino female garment workers, was establishedin 1981 in El Paso, Texas. Encompassing domestics and restaurantworkers, this group has joined in strikes against sewing shops in ElPaso, pressing for paid overtime and other major benefits, as well asimprovements in working conditions. To meet the needs of its members,Mujer Obrera has developed a broad array of community developmentprojects: a food cooperative, a clinic, and a credit bank that makessmall loans to members.28
In recent years there has been significant worldwide organizationby women workers. Currently headquartered in Geneva, the WorldWomen's Committee of Public Services International (PSI) encompassesapproximately 370 national unions and 16 million government workersin more than 100 countries. In the fall of 1993, Catherine O'ReillyCollette, former head of the Women's Rights Department at AFSCME,became the new chair of the international organization. Thisinternational group seeks pay equity and an end to sexual harassmentfor women workers around the globe.29
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT! (FACULTY IN HIGHER EDUCATION)
A professor at the University of Hawaii who was fired from her English-teaching position in 1982 has settled for $1.27 million. The U.S. District Court found that she had been discriminated against, that her physical and mental health had greatly deteriorated because of her battles with the university, and that some of her health problems were partly due to a stressful work environment.30 Shyamala Rajender, a native of India, began teaching in the University of Minnesota's chemistry department in 1969. When the university failed to offer her a tenure-track faculty position in 1971, she filed an internal grievance, claiming she had been refused the appointment because of her sex and national origin. She filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the university in federal district court two years later. In 1975, the complaint was expanded by Ms. Rajender's lawyers to a class action suit on behalf of all 1,300 academic, nonstudent, female employees in the University of Minnesota system. In 1980, the university signed a consent decree agreeing to policy changes. The decree's broad scope is still considered by legal experts to be unmatched in higher education. In the past 10 years, 329 individual and group sex-discrimination claims have been filed against the system. Of the claims filed so far under the Rajender decree, 10 went to trial, 195 were settled or decided by special master, 110 were dismissed by the court or abandoned by the claimants, and 14 are pending. The university has already paid almost $7 million in legal fees and settlements, including $1.6 million to settle Ms. Rajender's lawsuit--a $100,000 award to Ms. Rajender and $1.5 million in legal fees for her lawyers.31 The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ordered Howard University to pay its women's basketball coach, Sanya J. Tyler, $1.1 million in damages. Ms. Tyler sued Howard in 1991, claiming that she had been unfairly passed over for the job of athletics director and that she had been paid less than her male colleagues and treated differently because she is a woman. It was the first judgment in which a court awarded monetary damages to a plaintiff in a sex bias case under Title IX.32 A woman who once worked at Alabama State University won a sexual harassment lawsuit against one of the institution's former presidents. The woman charged the former president, Leon Howard, with sexual harassment, invasion of privacy, and assault and battery. The jury upheld the charges, awarding $80,000 in her civil complaint against the former president and an additional $250,000 for a separate claim she had filed against the head of the governing board.33
Changing the behavior of male students, teachers, andadministrators in educational institutions is another majorchallenge. Faculty members, staff, and students can take action toimprove the climate in educational institutions. They can,individually or in small groups, participate more actively inclassroom settings. They can organize women's caucuses and othersupport groups for female workers and students. They can organizeinformal seminars to discuss sexism in the classroom and in informalsocial settings. They can conduct surveys of women students andfaculty to ascertain the extent of and change in gender bias andsexual harassment on the campus. Students can, with the help offaculty members and administrators, develop videotapes and othermedia to teach about discrimination in education. Students can alsouse the campus newspaper to publicize gender bias issues, and theycan demand the inclusion of women's issues in all relevant courses.
Working together with sympathetic female and male faculty members,women students can organize to pressure the high school or collegeadministration to reduce sexism; to issue policy statements making itclear that sexist humor and gender discrimination in and out of theclassroom by teachers will not be tolerated; to revise teacherevaluations to include an assessment of the presence of sexistbehavior or language; and to implement student grievance proceduresagainst teachers who engage in sexist behavior. Individual teacherscan be pressured to change their behavior: to stop using sexisthumor, language, and disparaging remarks about women's professionaland intellectual abilities; to disregard a person's gender inevaluating her or his work; to encourage rather than question awoman's seriousness in educational pursuits; to make sure that womenstudents are drawn into classroom discussions on an equal basis; toensure that women receive the time and professional attention thatmen receive; and to urge women to consider higherpaying,traditionally male careers.34
What can we, as a nation, do about sex discrimination? To answerthis question we can examine government actions--including civilrights laws, executive decrees, and court decisions--as well as thoseof employers in the private sector.
Consider, for example, government action in regard to employment.In the twentieth century, little government action was taken to dealwith employment discrimination until the 1940s and 1950s, when a fewstate and local governments adopted fair employment laws, usuallywith weak enforcement powers and relating to men of color and not towomen. Until the 1960s, only token action was taken by the federalgovernment to desegregate employment by racial group or gender.Several presidents did take a few steps in the direction of enforcingpassive nondiscrimination--for example, Franklin Roosevelt'sestablishment of a Fair Employment Practices Committee in the early1940s--but there was no significant antidiscrimination action at thefederal level until the 1960s, when civil rights groups acceleratedpressure on government. The executive orders issued by PresidentLyndon Johnson in the 1960s required, at least on paper, governmentcontractors not only to cease discriminating but also to actaffirmatively to desegregate their labor forces. These orders werethe official beginning of modern affirmative action programs."Affirmative action" simply refers to positive remedialpractices going beyond passive nondiscrimination to bring previouslyexcluded women and minorities into historically white maleinstitutions.
In the mid-1960s, enforcement of federal contractcompliance in regard to employment desegregation came under theDepartment of Labor, the agency that supervises employers holdingfederal government contracts. According to Department of Laborstudies, compliance reviews of contractors have had some impact inimproving women's employment. The Office of Federal ContractCompliance Programs (OFCCP) has issued regulations that, when builtinto contracts, require all federal contractors to take affirmativeaction to eliminate discrimination in recruiument, hiring, andpromotion procedures.
Since the late 1960s, federal contractors have been required tosubmit written affirmative action plans indicating the currentrepresentation of women in job categories and providing foraffirmative goals and timetables for categories where underutilizanonof women exists. The OFCC has delegated compliance actions to otheragencies, which are supposed to review federal contractors in theirarea to see if they are taking remedial action. The effectiveness ofOFCC-fostered affirmative action has been questioned.Compliance reviews by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and otheragencies have indicated that few significant penalties havebeen applied to nonconforming contract employers. Grossly deficientantidiscrimination plans have been approved. During the 1980s, theconservative Republican adminisurations kept the OFCCP from doing anaggressive job, but in the summer of 1991 the OFCCP started a smallproject to look at the "glass ceiling" faced by women and minorityworkers in nine companies doing business with the federal government.The study found that there was a glass ceiling--that women andminorines rarely made it into top management. In the first years ofthe Clinton administration, Department of Labor officials, includingLabor Secretary Robert Reich, made strong commitments to eradicatethe ceiling.35
The 1964 Civil Rights Act, together with its later amendments,prohibits discrimination in employment by larger employers. The EEOCwas created to enforce Title VII of that act, primarily to deal withcomplaints of employment discrimination. The EEOC has theresponsibility of investigating legitimate complaints, of seekingconciliation, and, failing that, of going to court to enddiscrimination. The EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee SelectionProcedures, in principle, cover employers with patterns ofdiscrimination against women and in theory should put federalpressure on them to change. Yet, because of the EEOC's managementproblems and lack of staff, a large backlog of cases has built up, tothe point where many complainants have found no practical remedythrough EEOC procedures. During fiscal 1993, the number of employmentdiscrimination complaints made to the EEOC, was about 88,000. Thiswas the largest ever for the EEOC. The cases won that year broughtmoney damages of $161 million, mostly through adminisurativehearings, rather than through lawsuits. Sex discriminanon was theissue in 27 percent of the cases, the second largest category ofcases after racial discrimination. In spite of increased resolutionof EEOC complaints, however, there was still a large backlog of73,000 unresolved cases as fiscal 1994 began, much higher than in theprevious year. Today, political action needs to be directed atexpanding the staff and funding of civil rights enforcement agenciessuch as the EEOC.36
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE IT! (IN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY)
|
Five women employed at a brewery in St. Paul, Minnesota, filed suit against Stroh Brewing Co., charging that the company's television ads featuring bikini-clad women created a workplace climate conducive to sexual harassment. The lawsuits claimed that Stroh has produced "sexist, degrading promotion posters and advertisements." In one ad, known as the "It Does Get Better" ad, scantily-clad women from the "Swedish Bikini Team" parachute with beer into a rocky campsite occupied by men. The lawyer for the plaintiffs said the company's advertising created a climate in which sexual harassment was more easily tolerated. Lawyers for Stroh were willing to settle but rejected one condition: eliminating other sex-oriented advertising.37 Tobacco companies have tried for years to attract female smokers with slogans such as, "You've come a long way, baby." A state advertising campaign in Minnesota is telling women they've been exploited for too long. One commercial shows a billboard with a young, leotard-clad woman smoking a cigarette. Two male ad executives stand admiring it, and one exclaims that women "will love it." The woman on the billboard suddenly becomes real and stubs the cigarette out on one executive's head. Another 30-second spot shows a billboard with three smiling women smoking cigarettes and the slogan "Women are making the rush to rich flavor." Panels peel off, changing the message to "Women are making us rich."38 Marriott Corporation--one of the nation's 10 largest employers, with 220,000 employees--agreed to adopt specific goals for promoting women to managerial and supervisory jobs in the food and beverage division of its hotel chain for the next 4 years to settle a class action sex discrimination suit. In addition, the hotel chain agreed to put $3 million into a settlement fund to cover back pay claims by as many as 3,000 women who were denied promotions in the past. The suit was filed against Marriott in 1988, claiming that the company's promotion practices discriminated against women because the male-dominated committees systematically excluded women as candidates for jobs above a certain level.39
|
There is no systematic evidence available on the impact ofgovernment enforcement activity on the economic mobility of women.The data on actual changes in the workforce reveal a mixed picture.There have been some gains as the result of government enforcement,but the reasons for these gains are many, including women's protestsand organization as well as government action.
Much remains to be done. U.S. employment policy must give muchmore attention to women workers. Meredith Ann Newman has underscoredthe point:
Policies that treat all workers as if they were mencan no longer be justified in light of the changing demographics ofthe work force. Reasonably priced quality child care, parental leave,and flexible work schedules affect and potentially benefit bothgenders. Such increased flexibility in accommodating familyresponsibilities is crucial to integrating women into upper levelmanagement positions. These policies should be advanced in terms of areflection of society's needs, not as "special favors" for women inthe work force.40
In addition, federal action should eradicate pay inequities in theworkplace.
New civil rights legislation was difficult to pass between 1981and 1991 under the Reagan and Bush administrations. In June 1984, theHouse of Representatives voted overwhelmingly for the 1984 CivilRights Act, which would have barred gender discrimination in alleducation programs if the college received federal aid in only one ofits programs. The purpose of the act was to overturn the SupremeCourt's narrow Grove City College ruling. Following thedesires of the White House, however, the Senate's conservativeleadership killed the bill. In 1984, the Federal Pay Equity andManagement Act passed the House in a nearly unanimous vote. Butagain, the bill was blocked in the Senate by the conservativeRepublican leadership.
Finally, in 1991 the most important civil rights act since the1960s was passed, after much opposition from President George Bushand most other conservative politicians. As we noted previously, the1991 Civil Rights Act permits victims of sex discrimination tocollect compensatory damages and makes jury trials available to them.Significantly, it was passed only after much heated discussionbetween Republicans and Democrats--"and only after the AnitaHill-Clarence Thomas hearings highlighted the problem ontelevision."41
Remarkably, as we approach the twenty-first century, equaltreatment for women and men is not guaranteed by our basic legaldocuments. The U.S. Constitution is a document reflecting racialsubordination in its legitimizing of slavery and the slave trade, andit was not until the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendmentsthat this legal recognition of racial inequality was removed. It isrevealing of the sexist nature of the U.S. legal system that even theliberating Fourteenth Amendment speaks only of the right to vote of"male citizens." This first explicit reference to gender in theConstitution made it clear that no women, black or white, had theright to vote. Women did not get the vote until the NineteenthAmendment (1920), which stated, "The right of citizens to vote shallnot be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state onaccount of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this articleby appropriate legislation."
In recent decades, a Constitutional amendment has been proposed togive women equal rights with men. The wording is similar to thatwhich expanded black civil rights in the Fourteenth Amendment:"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged bythe United States or any state on account of sex. The Congress shallhave the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisionsof this article."
As of the mid-199Os, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) hasnot been ratified by the necessary number of states--largely becauseof strong opposition by male legislators and other conservatives whobelieve the amendment will break down traditional gender roles forwomen and men. Attempts to resurrect the ERA have been difficultbecause of opposition from the male leadership in the White House andin the U.S. Senate. In our view, additional efforts to put the ERAinto federal law are critical to women's future progress. Challengesto the sex-biased character of U.S. Iaws are essential toundermine the patriarchal underpinnings of our economy, oureducational system, and our political system. Most women'sorganizations have pressed for the ERA, which, as many opponentsrecognize, will undermine the patriarchal character of U.S.workplaces, schools, and legal institutions.
As we have seen previously, lawsuits brought by individual womenand groups of women have forced some organizational and societalchanges. Yet, court cases often have a limited impact because theremedies are case-specific and affect only one individual or, atmost, one plant or company. The courts' ability to reshape employmentin an entire industry or other sector is restricted. A company ororganization is first examined for practices that must bedemonstrated to be discriminatory before court remedies can beimposed. Once discrimination has been demonstrated in court, however,the remedies provided by federal courts have usually been specific inattempting "to make whole" the injured parties. While there is no wayin which a female victim can be completely compensated for the lossof energy, status, and money resulting from discrimination and thedelays in obtaining remedies, some federal courts have made attemptsto provide significant monetary compensation for injustice.
Most change coming from the judicial branch has, of course,resulted from legal cases brought by women. Court action benefitingwomen is relatively recent. Not until 1971 did the U.S. Supreme Courtrule against a legislatively-drawn gender discriminationbarrier. In recent years, we have seen a slowing of progress in thefederal court system. It is still the case that many sections of theU.S. Iegal code have a gender bias or use sex-basedterminology that conflicts with the ideal of equal rights for women.Many state laws are similarly gender-biased.
The Supreme Court has been an inconsistent defender of women'srights. As we noted previously, in 1984 the Court ruled that anentire college is not subject to civil rights laws protecting women,even if one of its programs receives major federal aid. In 1986,however, the Court ruled that sexual harassment is illegal genderdiscrimination. In 1994, the Court reinstated a NOW lawsuit anddecided that the antiracketeering law (called RICO) covered theviolent acts of antiabortion activists. Potentially, antiabortiongroups such as Operation Rescue could be bankrupted if they lostlawsuits, for the law permits very substantial compensatory damagesfor victims.42
In 1979, the National Committee on Pay Equity was created by acoalition of labor unions and women's groups to work for equal payfor women in the United States. As a result of their efforts andother organized pressures, a number of states have implemented thecomparable-pay-for-comparable-work principle forgovernment employees. Thus, in 1982 Minnesota adopted pay equity forall local and state government workers. A recent study found that thelaw has greatly benefited women who are government employees.Contrary to the predictions of critics, there has been no reductionin state employees, and women workers saw their pay increase by morethan 10 percent. Five other states (Iowa, New York, Oregon,Washington and Wisconsin) now have similar pay-equity laws,and many other state legislatures have more nearly equalized thewages or salaries for some comparable male and femalejobs.43
Recent books such as Naomi Wolf's Fire with Fire: The NewFe~nale Power and How It Will Change the 21st Centu1y argue thatthe 1990s are different from the "backlash" 1980s, that they arealready a decade in which we have experienced a resurgence of women'spolitical power. Wolf rejects "victim" feminism for a "power"feminism that encourages all women to press for greater politicalinfluence.44 Wolf may be too sanguine about currentpolitical realities. The political difficulties women face arereflected in the slow pace of change in concrete electoral and otherpolitical attainments. In 1992, women were only 6 percent of theHouse of Representatives and 2 percent of the Senate. While the 1992elections added some legislators, including a few more women in theSenate, women still make up less than a fifth of all electedofficeholders in the United States. Rutgers University's Center forthe American Woman and Politics has noted that in 1992 womenlegislators held a fifth of the seats in state legislatures, upsignificantly over the previous decade. The Center has found that, asa group, the women are more liberal than male legislators; womenpoliticians are more likely than the men to press for legislationdealing with human resources issues such as health care, education,and child welfare.45 Assessing these data, one news reportnoted: It's no coincidence that, as the ranks of women legislatorsincreased in the 1980s, many states markedly increased their spendingon education and other programs for children."46
Although women are half the population, no woman has ever servedas president, vice-president, or speaker of the House. Veryfew women have ever served in the U.S. Senate--fewer than two dozenbetween 1920 and 1994--and only modest numbers have been members ofthe House of Representatives. Some observers have forecast majorchanges in the political representation of women in the next decade.Public opinion polls are encouraging in this regard. For example, arecent U.S. News & World Report poll found that 61percent of Americans nationally felt "the country would be governedbetter" if more women were elected. This figure was up from 28percent just 8 years earlier. 47
Some European nations have made greater progress in genderequality than the United States has. It is not easy to create asociety with true equality between men and women after centuries ofinstitutionalized gender inequality. But several countries arestrongly committed to this goal and have made some progress. Forexample, in the 1940s and 1950s, legislative action in Sweden made iteasier for women to combine work outside the home with familyresponsibilities. In the 1960s and 1970s, the principle of genderequality became firmly embedded in Swedish law. Although there arenot enough of these facilities, Sweden has numerousgovernment-financed daycare centers for the young children ofworking parents. The daycare services make it easier for women todevelop careers outside the home. Moreover, when a child is born oradopted, parents are entitled to nine months of paid parental leavebetween them. While it is mothers who make the most use of thisopportunity, some fathers have also taken advantage of parentalleaves. The Swedish health and other social service programs alsoprovide benefits to individuals, not to family breadwinners.Consequently, women generally receive the same health benefits asmen.
In the decades of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, progress towardgreater gender equality in Sweden has continued. There has been morediscussion of human roles, not just of women's roles. The1979-1980 Act of Equality between Women and Men at Work barssex-based discrimination in hiring, promotion, training,working conditions, and salary. The law explicitly allows affirmativeaction on behalf of women who are underrepresented in a job category.Sweden has comparable-pay-for-comparable-work laws. Governmentofficials require private employers to take affirmative action topromote equality. Discrimination in hiring and promotions is bannedby law. However, these employment laws have decreased but noteliminated inequalities in working conditions and pay.48
The tax laws were also reworked to get rid of gender bias, and theeducational system has been reformed so that both boys and girls takehome economics and metalworking classes. Swedish law and practicehave also encouraged greater participation by women in politics. Onethird of the Swedish parliament is now composed of women, severaltimes the proportion to be found in the U.S. Congress. Majorpolitical parties often try to put equal numbers of male and femalecandidates on their slates. Although Swedish feminists have arguedthat progress has lessened in the last decade and that new effortsmust be made, Swedish society has considerably more equality forwomen than one finds in the United States.
Other countries, even those less wealthy than the United States,have implemented more progressive policies regarding working women.More than 70 countries have statutory provisions that guarantee awoman the right to leave employment for childbirth, guarantee a jobwhen she returns, and provide cash benefits for children.Comprehensive daycare systems have characterized many Europeancountries for years. For example, in France, West Germany, and Italymost preschool children are in free full-day public programs.Many European countries routinely allow parents to leave work to carefor sick children.49 It is interesting that greaterprogress has been made in meeting most of these family goals in manyEuropean countries than in tne United States, where "family values"are often celebrated.
When looking at solutions for sex discrimination, we sometimesfeel overwhelmed. When we press for moderate changes in existingpatterns of economic and social discrimination, are we helping toperpetuate a sexist social system that really needs major overhaul?Do women want to be controlled by bosses, male or female, for whomprofit is more important than humane treatment of employees? Workingwomen who gain their independence must question the poor workingconditions that many male workers face. They must begin to questionthe basic values that place profit and jobs over families, theworkplace hazards that increase corporate profits, and the work tasksso closely supervised that workers' needs for autonomy and privacyare ignored. Some analysts have suggested that pressure must bebrought to bear to change radically the U.S. workplace and toemphasize those human values often said (incorrectly) to bedistinctively "female," such as compassion, cooperation, kindness,emotion, and a concern for one's community and other people. In fact,these are basic human values. Incorporating these changesmight require a fundamentally new system of humanized economicdemocracy rather than the troubled and exploitative "free market"system currently in place.
Can remedies for gender discrimination be implemented on a largescale without major changes in the structure of the existing economicand social system? The destruction of the mechanisms of genderdiscrimination on a really large scale might well begin to dismantlethe built-in patterns of gender inequality that constitutefoundation pillars of the society. Major structural changes, such asrevising unequal pay systems so they do not adversely affect women,would have an impact on the larger societal system. Pyramiding alarge number of institutional changes might alter the very foundationof what is now a fundamentally sexist society. Indeed, some mightargue that the basic socioeconomic system would be completely remadein this process. A humanistic, economic democracy could eventuallyresult.
Discriminatory recruitment procedures, unequal pay, sexualharassment, and unfair real estate procedures could be eliminatedwithout affecting the fundamentally capitalistic nature of thesociety--that is, the ownership of businesses and industries couldstill be in private hands. Yet, at the same time, massiveinfusions of women into the organizational structures of thissociety, particularly the highest decision-making levels,would probably alter the shape of this particular U.S. brand ofcapitalism. It could no longer depend on certain female/minoritygroups for the cheap labor and other subordinate positions essentialto its operations. Seen from this viewpoint, capitalism in some formmight survive a thorough purge of gender discrimination, but some ofthe fundamental structural and cultural supports of the system wouldlikely be changed, with perhaps the entire system being humanized inthe process. Greater power and influence for women now in subordinatepositions would necessitate a much greater tolerance for diverseideas, perspectives, and practices that most in the powerful malegroups and networks do not now accept.
The action of women themselves is critical for major reforms inthis society. There are top-down pressures for change,and there are bottom-up pressures in the form of peoplebanding together in organized protest against oppressive conditions.The likelihood of substantial future change depends on thewillingness of women to keep the pressure on. When the entrenchedsystem of institutionalized discrimination gives a bit, that does notmean that discrimination--whether blatant, subtle, or covert--inother areas will disappear. Even hard-won advances can berolled back, as has been the case since the early 1980s. For thatreason, protest against unjust conditions will need to be repeatedfor the foreseeable future. Eternal protest, as well as eternalvigilance, seems to be the price of liberty.
1 John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations (Boston:Little Brown, 1980), p. 392.
2 Jerry Adler and Debra Rosenburg, "Must Boys AlwaysBe Boys?" Newsweek, October 19,1992, p. 77.
3 Ibid.
4 Susan Harte, "Sexual Harassment: How to Deal withHarassment on the Job," Atlanta Journal and Constitution,November 10, 1993, p. F2.
5 Meredith Ann Newman, "Career Advancement: DoesCender Make a Difference?" American Review of PublicAdministration, Vol. 23 (December, 1993), p. 361.
6 Ibid.
7 Ellen Cassidy and Karen Nussbaum, 9 to 5: TheWorking Woman's Guide to Office Survival (New York: PenguinBooks, 1983), pp. 136-139.
8 Kara Swisher, "Laying Down the Law on Harassment:Court Rulings Spur Firms to Take Preventive Tack," WashingtonPost, February 6, 1994, p. H1.
9 Mark Curriden, "Sexual Harassment: Southerners MayFind It Easier to File and Win Their Lawsuits," Atlanta Journaland Constitution, November 10, 1993, Section F, p. 2.
10 Jane Gross, "Cases Challenge 'Boys Will Be Boys'Status Quo," Baltimore Sun, March 11, 1992, pp. 1A, 16A.
11 Michele N-K Collison, "20 Years Later, Womenon Formerly All-Male Campuses Fight to Change TheirInstitutions' 'Old Boy' Images, The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 12, l99O, pp. A23-A24; Mark Starr, "The Writingon the Wall." Newsweek, November 26, 1990, p. 64.
12 Michele N-K Collison, "The College Knew ThisMan Was a Rapist," Carleton Student Charges," The Chronicle ofHigher Education, May 15, 1991, pp. A29-A30.
13 Aileen S. Kraditor, The Ideas of the WomanSuffrage Movement, 1890-1920 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1981);Eleanor Flexner, Century of Struggle (New York: Atheneum,1973).
14 Reynolds Holding, "Women Turn to Class ActionSuits: New Weapon to Fight Sex Harassment," San FranciscoChronicle, January 24, 1994, p. A1. See also Reynolds Holding,"Sexual Harassment Class Action Denied: But Women Can Sue as Groupfor Discrimination," San Francisco Chronicle February 3,1994, p. A16.
15 Ibid.
16 John N. Maclean, "Women Get Money, Training inEdison Settlement Chicago Tribune, December 30, 1993, Zone N,p. 1.
17 "Companies Are Liable for Sexual Harassment by aBoss, a Court Rules," Wall Street Journal, January 29, 1985,p. 9.
18 Swisher, "Laying Down the Law on Harassment," p.H1.
19 Ibid.
20 Thom Weidlich and Charise K Lawrence, "Sex and theFirms: A Progress Report," The National Law Journal, December20, 1993, p. 1.
21 See Dean Takahaski, "Workplace diversity; JobRights Enforcement Agency Comes Under Mounting Pressure: Critics ofthe Reagan-Bush EEOC Hope for Change under Clinton," LosAngeles Times, May 17, 1993 Section D2, p. 8.
22 David Barron, "Increasingly, Women Athletes Go toCourt--and Win," Houston Chronicle, June 27, 1993, p.12.
23 "CSU System Agrees to Equity in Sports Programs,"United Press International, October 21, 1993.
24 Interview with Barbara Otto, Program Director at9-to-5, April 12, 1993.
25 "AFSCME v. Washington State Briefs DueSoon," National NOW Times, vol. 17, September-October1984, p. 5.
26 Nanette Byrnes, "Blue Collar Blues," FinancialWorld, November 23, 1993, p. 26. The next three paragraphs drawon Joe R. Feagin and Clairece B. Feagin, Social Problems: ACritical Power-Conflict Perspective (Englewood Cliffs:Prentice Hall, 1994), pp. 427-431.
27 Women Employed News, Winter 1993, pp.1-3.
28 Mary Hollens, ''Catfish and Community," ThirdForce, May-June 1993, p. 21; Barbara Goldoftas, "WomenHelping Women," Dollars & Sense, December 1992, pp.10-11; Micah Fink, "Weaving Workers Together,"MultinationalMonitor, January-February 1992, p.8.
29 "AFSCME Women's Rights Director Elected to HeadWomen's Committee of 16-Million-Member Public ServicesInternational," PR Newswire, October 25, 1993.
30 Courtney Leatherman, The Chronicle of HigherEducation, 1992, p. A18, under "Faculty Notes."
31 Debra E. Blum, "10 Years Later, Questions Aboundover Minnesota Sex-Bias Settlement," The Chronicle of HigherEducation, June 13, 1990, pp. al3-al4.
32 Debra E. Blum, "2 More Coaches of Women's Teams Goto Court to Press Claims of Sex Discrimination," The Chronicle ofHigher Education, September 1, 1993, pp. A47-A48.
33 Courtney Leatherman, "Jury Upholds Claims of SexHarassment Against Ex-President," The Chronicle ofHigher Education, February 17, 1993, pp. A13-A14.
34 See Roberta M. Hall and Bernice R. Sandler, TheClassroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women? (Washington, DC:Association of American Colleges, 1982), pp. 13-18.
35 Bureau of National Affairs, "Diversity ProgramsMake Business Sense, Glass Ceiling Commission Official Asserts,"Daily Labor Report, 244, December 22, 1993, p. d24.
36 Bureau of National Affairs, "Charges of DisabilityDiscrimination Boost EEOC Intake by 22% in Fiscal '93," DailyLabor Report, 9,January 13, 1994, p. d4.
37 "Female Employees Sue Stroh over Ads," BaltimoreSun, November 9, 1991, p. 3A.
38 "Anti-Smoking Ads Warn Women ofExploitation," Washington Post, September 8, 1992, p. A5.
39 Frank Swoboda, "Marriott Settles Sex-BiasSuit with Promotion Goals," Washington Post, March 6,1991, p. C9.
40 Newman, "Career Advancement," p. 361.
41 Daniel V. Kinsella, "Expect Changes in Labor andEmployment Law," Modern Casting, April 1993, p. 44.
42 AP-Special, "Racketeering Law to CoverAbortion Foes," Toronto Star, January 25, 1994, p. A13.
43 Carol Kleiman, "Comparable Pay Could CreateJobs,"Orlando Sentinel, October 13, 1993, p. C5.
44 Naomi Wolf, Fire with Fire: The New Female Powerand How It Will Change the 21st Century (New York: Random House,1993).
45 "Women in Politics; a DifferentPublic-Policy Perspective," Star Tribune, January 14,1994, p. 16A.
46 Ibid.
47 Cited in Patricia Aburdene and John Naisbitt,"Going for the Gold in Political Arena," The Plain Dealer, December 29, 1992, p. 1C.
48 Birgita Wistrand, Swedish Women on the Move (Stockholm: Swedish Institute, 1981), pp. 5-20. See, also,Linda Haas, Equal Parenthood and Social Policy: A Study ofParental Leave in Sweden (Albany, New York: State Universitv ofNew York Press, 1992).
49 Ann Crittenden, "We 'Liberated' Mothers Aren't,"Washington Post, Febru ary 5, 1984, p. D1.