Gender in America
As of 2013, the gender ratio in America is 0.97 male to 1 female. Non-binary genders are not currently accounted for in official data.
Employment
For women, discrimination in the workplace manifests itself in a few key areas: gender (and racial) wage gap, harassment and discrimination in hiring, promoting and firing (National Women's Law Center, 2000).
As of 2013, the gender ratio in America is 0.97 male to 1 female. Non-binary genders are not currently accounted for in official data.
Employment
For women, discrimination in the workplace manifests itself in a few key areas: gender (and racial) wage gap, harassment and discrimination in hiring, promoting and firing (National Women's Law Center, 2000).
Wage gap
As of 2010 and 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that a woman working a full-time job earns an average 82% of what a man in the same situation earns. Of course, this has to be broken down further by race and gender:
- A white man makes $1.24 for every dollar a white woman makes
- A white man makes $1.34 for every dollar that a black man makes
- A white man makes $1.43 for every dollar a black woman makes
- A white man makes $1.52 for every dollar a Hispanic man makes
- A white man makes $1.67 for every dollar a Hispanic woman makes
Intuitive explanations such as maternity/family leave and productivity are often used to explain this wage gap problem, but studies have shown otherwise. As established by the Council of Economic Studies, women who of the same age, occupation, experience and education as men and who make the same career choices as men are still held back by the existing wage gap. This report, as well as those of numerous other studies spanning different occupations and industries, attribute this persistent wage gap at least partially to discrimination. (National Women's Law Center, 2000)
Hiring, firing and promoting
Legally, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on gender. For example, pregnancy discrimination laws bars employers from firing an employee due to reasons related to pregnancy and maternity. While some companies abide by these regulations, systematic disadvantages continue to stay put against women.
The glass ceiling, otherwise known as vertical occupational segregation, is the underrepresentation of women in high-ranking positions. The issue is known as such because women are in a position where they are able to see the senior managerial jobs, but are blocked from ascending to them. For women of colour, the road block is known more severely as the concrete ceiling, where a lack of mentors and role models results in them being unable to see the top at all.
It has been reported that the biggest barrier is the “old-boy network”, where male corporate leaders who decide who to promote look mainly to the ones who resemble them the most (Feminist Majority Foundation, 2014). Very often, women are overlooked in favour of former colleagues and acquaintances from school. Such discrimination is accumulative in the sense that as less and less women are promoted on each corporate level, the pool of women to choose from becomes smaller and smaller. Not only does this hamper the progress of women as corporate leaders and their influence, but also has a more immediate impact in terms of salary, which concerns an employee’s socio-economic welfare directly, and can explain why, on the whole, women fare much worse than men in the labour market.
Alongside this is horizontal occupational segregation, where men and women are overrepresented and underrepresented in different fields and occupations. Women are limited to traditionally feminine domains such as nursing and experience difficulty in entering male-dominated ones such as those in the STEM field. Although men also face the reverse, the glass escalator effect alleviates this as men in women-dominated fields ascend much faster than the converse. What this means for women is that they have much more limited occupational choices because of their gender and associated stereotypes, limitations that often affect their livelihood and pay. Over the course of a full-time working woman’s life, pay inequity will result in her losing earnings of $700 000 if she’s a high school graduate, $1.2 million if she’s a college graduate and $2 million if she’s a professional school graduate.
Legally, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on gender. For example, pregnancy discrimination laws bars employers from firing an employee due to reasons related to pregnancy and maternity. While some companies abide by these regulations, systematic disadvantages continue to stay put against women.
The glass ceiling, otherwise known as vertical occupational segregation, is the underrepresentation of women in high-ranking positions. The issue is known as such because women are in a position where they are able to see the senior managerial jobs, but are blocked from ascending to them. For women of colour, the road block is known more severely as the concrete ceiling, where a lack of mentors and role models results in them being unable to see the top at all.
It has been reported that the biggest barrier is the “old-boy network”, where male corporate leaders who decide who to promote look mainly to the ones who resemble them the most (Feminist Majority Foundation, 2014). Very often, women are overlooked in favour of former colleagues and acquaintances from school. Such discrimination is accumulative in the sense that as less and less women are promoted on each corporate level, the pool of women to choose from becomes smaller and smaller. Not only does this hamper the progress of women as corporate leaders and their influence, but also has a more immediate impact in terms of salary, which concerns an employee’s socio-economic welfare directly, and can explain why, on the whole, women fare much worse than men in the labour market.
Alongside this is horizontal occupational segregation, where men and women are overrepresented and underrepresented in different fields and occupations. Women are limited to traditionally feminine domains such as nursing and experience difficulty in entering male-dominated ones such as those in the STEM field. Although men also face the reverse, the glass escalator effect alleviates this as men in women-dominated fields ascend much faster than the converse. What this means for women is that they have much more limited occupational choices because of their gender and associated stereotypes, limitations that often affect their livelihood and pay. Over the course of a full-time working woman’s life, pay inequity will result in her losing earnings of $700 000 if she’s a high school graduate, $1.2 million if she’s a college graduate and $2 million if she’s a professional school graduate.
Transgender discrimination
Unemployment among transgenders is at 13%, almost twice as much as the national average. The ethnic differences follow the trend--multi-racial, Latino, then black transgenders having the highest rates. 47% of them have experienced job discrimination in the form of getting fired or being denied a job or a promotion due to their gender identity/expression. 97% have experienced mistreatment, harassment or discrimination at work in the form of invasion of privacy, verbal abuse, physical or sexual assault. These challenges in the workplace threaten the transgender community’s livelihoods, such as in terms of income, housing stability and healthcare (National Transgender Discrimination Survey, 2009).
Unemployment among transgenders is at 13%, almost twice as much as the national average. The ethnic differences follow the trend--multi-racial, Latino, then black transgenders having the highest rates. 47% of them have experienced job discrimination in the form of getting fired or being denied a job or a promotion due to their gender identity/expression. 97% have experienced mistreatment, harassment or discrimination at work in the form of invasion of privacy, verbal abuse, physical or sexual assault. These challenges in the workplace threaten the transgender community’s livelihoods, such as in terms of income, housing stability and healthcare (National Transgender Discrimination Survey, 2009).