It is well known the fact that since the
people started to develop their life on Earth, the little conflicts between
women and men started. Some people think that the reasons can be religious, cultural
or even political. The main idea is some people considering the woman inferior
For instance, in the 19th
century, a woman’s place was believed to be at home, because family life and
motherhood were acknowledged by the society to be an enough sentimental fulfillment
for females. These constructs were the ones to keep women without doubt from the
public field the most. The concept of women making political speeches, giving
lectures, or other public speaking wasn’t even taken into consideration. It was
way out of the line. Nevertheless, during the 19th century, altruistic missions
started to expand the female role of duty and feminism emerged as a potential
Some notions of inequality gave the idea
that the sexes were ‘equal but different’. On the other hand, law and custom
still enforced female dependency, with some shared rights and responsibilities.
As women won self-determination and opportunities, male power was inevitably
and significantly downsized. Without regard to that, men did not lose the prescribed
duty to provide financial support to his own family. Additionally, the
parliamentary franchise, the main attribute of democratic impartiality, was intentionally
and over and over again restrained from women.
It is crucial to emphasize that women
started to gain power in front of the men during the 19th century. It is well
known that males occupy the most important roles in the society. For example,
the most powerful and the greatest leaders of the world were men (Martin Luther
King Jr., Thomas Jefferson, Alexander the Great etc), the greatest physicians,
mathematicians (Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla), the best
cosmeticians, doctors, chefs and so on. The preponderance of men in the most
important positions is a historical legacy of the old belief of “separated
spheres”, which was known to efficiently exclude women from most of the
areas of public life. That exclusion had a linguistic dimension: a specific restriction
on women talking in public was one way through which it was maintained. Must be
pointed out that women also had important discoveries that changed the world,
women as Hedy Lamarr, Beatrix Potter, Marie Curie, Ana Aslan etc.
The reason that we’ve chosen this topic was
that it’s an actual and persistent theme. Most of the time we don’t see this
topic directly, but promoted in a delicate way by mass media and the other
manners of communication.
In our personal point of view, this subject
represents a radiography of the nowadays’ society because it engenders a myriad
of actual issues as domestic violence, sexism, discrimination, of these days’ women.
My interest is to approach this actual
topic by answering to one of the questions that regard the issue of sexism: Are still women discriminated in the
workplace nowadays? Before we’ll start answering our research question I’ll
respond to a pre-question regarding the required topic.
What does sexism mean?
Mary Talbot(2010) says that “Sexism is
about discrimination on the grounds of sex, based on assumptions that women are
both different from and inferior to men. It is a label for behavior that
systematically derogates women.” The word itself was only composed at the end
of the 1960s. Earlier in the decade, the term “male chauvinism”,
invented by women student activists, was used to criticize the attitudes of
their male counterparts.
The word “sexism” is situated at
the base of the discriminated women’ issue.
The pervasive, systematic constrains, which
prevent a lot of women from getting to positions full of control, status,
power, or influence in their organizations, are usually initiated in tactfully
sexist interactional and erratic behaviors. Gender is an important and prominent
variable in organizational intercommunication and cooperation, a “widespread
social category”, even when it is not openly referred to. Gender
stereotypes and regular assumptions about convenient behavior are especially clearly
seen when we analyze the burden on women in leading positions, and the diapason
of strategies they cultivate to operate the pervasive double-bind that weaken
their institutional efficacy.
Regarding this issue, must be pointed out
the application of the suffix “-man” in job names – businessman,
postman, makes women in such
occupations out of sight. Even to all appearances gender-neutral job nouns, as driver and writer, and unmarked job names as doctor, are believed to direct attention to men, for that reason,
the urge for the compound nouns lady
doctor (but not gentleman doctor),
woman writer (but not man writer), woman driver (but not man
driver). This unevenness implies that doctoring, writing and driving are by
some means covertly gendered and understood as male activities. It’s
interesting and encouraging, that the compounds now sound slightly odd. You almost
never bump into similar compounds with man
or male. Actually, the only one that
bears in mind is the male nurse, even
though there may be more, probably referring to persons employed in low-paid positions.
By bringing up such imbalances when
referring to the two genders, analyzers of sexiest processes have politicized groups
that were a while ago thought-about to be impartial. It has been disputed that,
in English, when words get categorized as female, they are consistently
devalued, repeatedly picking up a negative association. Examine in contrast bachelor and spinster, for instance.
To get a better view of this topic let’s
take a clear example of women discrimination in the workplace. For instance,
the political places like the government, parliament, and others that require a
good public speaking skill. Women that desire to emerge as members of
parliament complain much that local party affiliations tend to choose male
candidates as they think women are worse public speakers. This kind of
discrimination is based on beliefs about male-female differences that are not born
out by the evidence.
The evidence says that you
cannot anticipate a someone’s communication type from their gender: there is
too much overlap within men and women, and too much diversity between each
group. Of course, there are women who correspond to the generalizations, but
there are also many who do not. The women MP’s, police officers, soldiers,
salon-owners, are too numerous to be brushed off as simply marginal exceptions.
What makes the difference in choosing a man
or a woman as an MP’s and what must be underlined is the women’s disposition to
behave differently from men. Women MPs do not stick to the rules because they
are timid conformists: they do it to counter the perception that they are
interlopers. These practices of acting are problem-solving methods that women
follow in some circumstances. They neglect the way women “are”, and
everything to do with the seat women are put in.
This is the problem that truly has to be taken
care of if women are to take interest in public life on equivalent terms. The issue
is not that men and women have particular talking styles, yet no matter what
style women use, they are likely to be criticized by various norms. Women are required
to constantly indicating their professional ability, at the same time also demonstrating
that they did not lose their feminine delicacy – that they are not, for
example, aggressive or heartless.
There is a long-established hypothesis that
considers the style of communication to be the root of differences between men
and women. It is disputed that women’s inclination for cooperative and agreeable
approaches of interacting puts them at an inconvenience in the public sphere,
whose standards are additionally competitive. Women are said to have problems
in exercising power directly, in acting decisively, and in managing the aggression
or conflict. They might be seen as capable lieutenants, but not as promising
commanders-in-chief. They are additionally said to lose out to men because they
are too secretive about their personal achievements. While competitive men are occupied
blowing their own trumpets, supportive women are sharing the credit and missing
out on the remunerates they deserve.
To sum up, regarding a woman in a managerial
position can be found statements quarreling this kind of position for them in
society. For example, the literature of management is full of statements like
the following: “A woman’s leadership style is transformational and interpersonal,
while a man’s style is based on command and control. Women managers promote
positive interactions with subordinates; encourage participation and share
power and information more than men do. Women leaders use collaborative,
participative communication that enables and empowers others, while men use
more unilateral directive communication.” – Cameron D.(2008). In the business
world woman are associated with the words – positive, participation, enable,
empower while men are associated with the words – command and control. This
rhetoric really makes you ask yourself why women are not at the steering wheel
of every profitable business and why men are more frequently chosen instead of women.
In conclusion, if you are a
woman that works in a traditional and hierarchical masculine field you have two
possibilities: quit your job or become more masculine.
In the traditional hierarchy, the women will have to fight to get an
important job, but the majority of women don’t want a position as a leader. In
the political systems, under 5% of politicians are women.
If you are a woman and you work
in a traditional and hierarchical masculine field you have two possibilities to
succeed: quit your job and take a job in which the females have a right route
or behave like a man. The male style still opens many doors and the studies
confirm the fact that the women who are more “male” dressed have more
chances to get a job in a leading position. So it can be clearly highlighted
the fact that women have always had problems in the workplace. There are
discursive behaviors that penalize women in many workplace contexts while manifesting
active discursive resistance to sexist behaviors. But this doesn’t mean that
the man must be feminized or the woman masculinized.
Both the women and men must
understand that each system is vital in various moments on the road of success
and the way to the top of the pyramid. Not the gender is important, but the
mind with which you can succeed in every job.