mgmt734.as1 perpetuation of sexism in nz-jmaher 3328773

Jess Maher3328773

The Perpetuation of Sexism in New Zealand CultureMGMT 734 Assignment One

Semester 2, 2008

[THE PERPETUATION OF SEXISM IN NEW ZEALAND CULTURE]Sem 22008

The Perpetuation of Sexism in New Zealand Culture

Jess Maher | 3328773

Sexism can be defined in numerous ways, traditionally it ‘was defined as merely as

discrimination against women’ (Reid & Clayton, 1992, p251), Lorde (1980, as cited in Andersen &

Collins, 2007) further described sexism as ‘the belief in the inherent superiority of one sex over

the other & thereby the right to dominance’(p53). Yet despite apparent awareness of this and

over thirty-five years of legislation (Houkamau, 2008a), ‘men still dominate organisations in

almost every sense; in terms of jobs, status, reward opportunities; and men and women remain

segregated into different types of work’ (Halford & Leonard, 2001, p2). For centuries, women

have been placed in an underclass position, made to feel subservient to males’ (Chater & Gaster,

1995, p1), this such behaviour or attitude towards women ‘based on traditional stereotypes of

sexual roles’ (Reid & Clayton, 1992, p252) is the critical concern of sexist discrimination.

New Zealand (NZ) has a ‘hard won reputation for gender progress’ (Harward, 2008, p2),

despite our comparatively high percentage of female parliamentarians; 33% compared to the

world average of 17.2% (Harward, 2008), recent evidence supports that ‘occupational

segregation by sex remains persistent’ (Gwartney-Gibbs, 1988, p264). The NZ labour force still

demonstrates strong evidence of such segregation, in 2006 men equated for 75% of NZ’s high

income earners (over $70,000 p/a), while 63% of women had a personal income between $1 and

$5,000 p/a (Statistics New Zealand, 2006, p5). NZ women occupy lower levels of organisations

(Fawcett & Pringle, 2000, p253) and in 2006 on average got paid 14% less than NZ men in full

time salaried positions (Houkamau, 2008b).

‘Sex discrimination usually makes up around seven percent of (Human Rights) complaints (in New Zealand)

and people complaining of sex discrimination are mostly women’ (Human Rights Commision, 2006, p13)

2 Jess Maher | 3328773

Developed with reference to Houkamau, C. (2008) Recognising power, inclusion

& exclusion; Racism & Sexism in organisations. [PowerPoint slides], Retrieved August 1, 2008, from The University of Auckland University CECIL, MGMT 734 Diversity in Orgs

Figure 1.0 | Levels & Types of Discrimination


Sexist discrimination can be found in two forms, direct and indirect (Houkamau, 2008a),

Figure 1.0 demonstrates how there are different types of discrimination and varying levels within

these. Direct discrimination is discrimination that overtly favours one party over another and is

less common to come across in today’s business environment as legislation has attempted to

erratic this (Houkamau, 2008a, p13). The Human Rights Commission reported in 2006 that ‘overt

sex discrimination against women is increasingly “underground”- complaints are mostly about

indirect discrimination’ (p13) which can be illustrated in a number of ways in the NZ labour

market. Most sex discrimination complaints made to the Human Rights Commission (2006) are

made about employment and preemployment issues such as pregnancy, breast feeding and

childcare within the workforce (p13). Women as the nurturers in society are still expected to

compromise their careers in order to look after their family (Ministry of Women's Affairs, 2007),

there is still a perception that this is of lesser value to society which is support in the poor nature

of the current paid parental leave scheme in place in NZ’s legislation (Families Commission,

2007a). ‘Persistent occupational segregation by sex is widely recognised as one of the most

important factors contributing to the women’s

secondary status in the workplace’ (Acker, 1990,

p140) and recent data shows ‘unequivocally that

gender equality is still far from realises in NZ’

(Harward, 2008, p1).

The three different levels at which

discrimination can occur within the areas of direct or

indirect discrimination also highlighted in Figure 1.0; Individual, Organisation and Social

Structure. The model shows the individual at the centre of the figure as it experiences and

influences the other two layers; Organisations and Social Structure, which influence, affect and

draw reference from each other and the Individual level in a ripple effect of sorts. The broadest

level of this model is the social structure which is defined as ‘the broad social values and ideas

which shape society’ (Houkamau, 2008a, p15). At the individual level diversity is understood as

the influence that the differing perspectives and cultures of each gender has on interpersonal



exchanges (Houkamau, 2008a, p16). The area between these two forces, the organisation level ,

describes the ‘nature of the workplace and paid work’ (Houkamau, 2008a, p15), and for the

purposes of discussing sexism in NZ, this area represents the NZ labour marketplace. This model

of the levels of discrimination has been expanded and explored in order to attempt to

understand the existence and perpetuation of sexist discrimination, within the NZ labour market.

Figure 2.1 demonstrates the multiple considerations with the individual level of

discrimination; socio-biological, socialisation, identity theories

and cognitive categorisation. Socio-biological considerations

(2.1,1) help to explain the different types of work both men

and women are predisposed for different kinds of work as

they are physiologically different (Houkamau, 2008a, p15).

Evidence of ‘men and women choosing certain kinds of work

because they naturally desire particular roles’ (Houkamau,

2008a, p17) is demonstrated in the differences between the

top ten jobs for men and women recorded in NZ’s 2001

census; men occupied managerial, technical and trade type

roles whilst women took on social, communicable, relational

and nurturing roles (Houkamau, 2008a, p5). The independent consideration of socio-biological

factors of difference between the sexes ignores the affect of socialisation, which is debatably of

even more influence on these perceptions and understandings of gender than physiological

differences alone (Powell, Butterfield, & Parent, 2006).

Within this context, socialisation (represented in Figure 2.1,2) refers to the gender roles

in which we are socialised and operate without conscious awareness of them (Houkamau, 2008a,

p18). In order for systems or structures to continue ‘ordinary people internalise the rules’ (Chater

& Gaster, 1995, p3) which is an unconscious process taken by following gender role models and

ideologies projected (Frable, 1997; Houkamau, 2008b). This is a simular concept and process as


Developed with reference to Houkamau, C. (2008). Recognising power, inclusion & exclusion; Racism & Sexism in organisations. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from The University of Auckland University CECIL, MGMT 317'734 Diversity in Organisations


experienced through social identity theory (Figure 2.1, 3) in which we ‘adopt expectations about

masculinity and femininity and expect members of other social groups to be “like” their group’

(Houkamau, 2008a, p19). The perception of gender roles and socialisation demonstrate rigid

models and expectations within society, creating social stigma experiences by anyone attempting

to stray from expected identity models (Frable, 1997; Powell, et al., 2006; Pringle, 2008). The

tendency for segregation by gender of work and social roles is partly created through

organisational practises (Acker, 1990), the inequalities of which are demonstrated at an

organisation level (demonstrated in Figure 2.2).

Discrimination is experienced in the difference in the nature of paid and unpaid work, as

experienced in terms of broad gender roles which assist to shape organisations (Houkamau,

2008a, p38). Human Capital Theory (Figure 2.2, 1) refers to the inequality present within the

preference or tendency of organisations to invest more into the skill formation for men over

women within the labour market (Houkamau, 2008a, p23). If all factors were equal between the

genders, the more years people work, the more opportunity presented for skill formation, yet

women do not have equal control over work experiences relative to men as they commonly have

to miss sometime from the workforce and their careers as they physically give birth to children

(Cohn, 1985; Houkamau, 2008a; Marshall, 1984). Further

evidence of the effect of the discrimination within the

organisation level is demonstrated in the consideration of the

‘glass ceiling’ within the NZ workforce; an invisible barrier

that influences the level to which women are able to rise in

an organisation (Callister, 2004; Houkamau, 2008b).

The culture of organisations (Figure 2.2, 2) makes

reference to the nature of current organisations benefiting

me over women (Houkamau, 2008a, p20). Since men have

held the majority of power historically in organisations, ‘they take their behaviour and

perspective to represent the human, theorising that organisational structures and processes as




gender neutral’ (Acker, 1990, p.142). However the nature of the patriarchal system and

masculine culture or organisations has shaped the way we perceive work and the workplace

(Acker, 1990). The social structure layer of sexist discrimination contains the broader values

which feed into sexist activity in the workforce. Figure 2.3 demonstrates the aspects which make

up the organisation level of discrimination; resource distribution and ideology, power is

structural and occupational spheres. This level has strong influence and effect on the

organisational level (featured as Figure 2.2, as well as the Individual level, further explored

below). Resource Distribution and Ideology (Figure 2.3,1) draws reference to the hierarchy in and

given society and its effect on the stratified nature of resource distribution (Houkamau, 2008a,

p22).

There has been strong evidence to suggest that was are still operating in a society based

on patriarchal beliefs (Acker, 1990; Cohn, 1985; Fawcett & Pringle, 2000; Gwartney-Gibbs, 1988;

Marshall, 1995; Powell, et al., 2006) and whilst some feminist research suggests that this should

be ignored the ‘attempt (of feminists seeking invisibility) to play down the gender difference may

bring to the fore the way gender is inherent in enterprise’ (Lewis, 2006, p467). Reference is also

made to the influence of the patriarchal mindset of society when considering that Power is

structural (Figure 2.3, 3). This is wide amounts of literature from the feminist movement which

explores how the dominant groups in society hold power as they design social institutions

according to their own preferences (Acker, 1990,p.142). This also clearly relates to the gendered

nature of organisations experienced within the organisation level of sexist discrimination, as does

the paradigm presented within the Work/Home divide

(Figure 2.3, 3).

Historically the ‘domestic sphere has been the key

source of (women’s) identity, meaningful activity and

satisfaction’ (Pringle & Dixon, 2003, p292), however these

‘traditionally female tasks have long been taken for granted

and undervalued’ (Chater & Gaster, 1995, p. 2). Occupational

spheres draws reference to this divide between the domestic




sphere (‘home’ or unpaid work) and the occupational sphere (work) demonstrated within NZ’s

society (EEO Trust, 2007; Pringle & Dixon, 2003; Sauers, Kennedy, & O'Sullivan, 2002). NZ was

one of the last Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Countries to

implement paid parental leave and the current scheme in operation is one of the least generous

in terms of level and duration and one of the most restrictive in terms of criteria for access and

flexibility of use (Families Commission, 2007b). The perceived difference between the value of

paid and unpaid work is further illustrated by an ‘income and status inequity between men and

women (which) is partly created in organisational processes’ (Acker, 1990, p140). As it is clear

than each of these levels interacts, influences and draws reference to the others, to explore

them in isolation has the potential to misconstrue the perpetuating nature of the interactions

between these

levels.



Figure 3.0

has been

developed to

demonstrate the

interplay and

perpetuating

nature of the

varying levels of

sexist

discrimination

within the NZ

labour market and

wider society (see

Appendix A for a

considered

application of this model in more detail). The factors considered within the individual level of

discrimination provide a basis of understanding as to the initial development historically of social

constructs within NZ. NZ women have been living in a patriarchal society since the countries

settlement (Chater & Gaster, 1995; Eichler, 1989; Sauers, et al., 2002) and the effect of the

society within which one lives can be of direct influence on the basis for reference in terms of

socialisation, identity theories and cognitive categorisation. Within such a patriarchal structure

where ‘women have been made to feel inferior and subservient to males, the status of unpaid

work has long been undervalued’ (Chater & Gaster, 1995, p1). ‘The total value of unpaid work

(home) in NZ in 1999 was $40 billion, which is equivalent to 39% of NZ’s gross domestic

product(GDB) , females accounted for 64% of the work completed which is equivalent to $25

billion’ (Statistics New Zealand, 2001).

The patriarchal nature of NZ’s economic and social structure is influences every level of

the model and its effects are reverberated throughout (Fawcett & Pringle, 2000; Harward, 2008).


Simplified model developed from Appendix A with reference to Houkamau, C. (2008). Recognising power, inclusion & exclusion; Racism & Sexism in organisations. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved June 24, 2008, from The University of Auckland University CECIL, MGMT 317'734 Diversity in Organisations


The underlying influence of the patriarchal structure is clear in the models and identities

experienced by individuals, NZ organisations and their cultures and also the broader social

structure (Debono, 2001; Frable, 1997; Houkamau, 2008b; Sauers, et al., 2002), demonstrating

the influence and impact one layer can be have on the others. The biological and gender cultural

difference within the individual level of discrimination; specially the fact that women physically

give birth to children and are viewed as the nurturers of society, enforces the perception and

expectation of women as less dedicated to organisations (Fawcett & Pringle, 2000; Gwartney-

Gibbs, 1988; Marshall, 1984; Pringle & Dixon, 2003). The role of gender differences in personal

relationships between the sexes seems to be of less importance. Whilst there are endless

amounts of literature to deal with discrimination of organisations when considering ethnicity or

race, there is very little reference to managing the differences experienced in gender (Lewis,

2006). Explanation for the lack of literary attention paid to the cultural differences between

genders which occasionally occur, is partially due to the fact that the majority of individual

compromises between the genders (for example mothers and father sorting child’s a carpool) is

relatively free of such sexist discrimination. Fathers in NZ have long expressed a desire to be

more involved in family life, over half of NZ fathers repost to be likely to paid paternity leave as a

legislative requirement as an independent paid parental leave entitlement (Families Commission,

2007a).

Society’s undervaluation of women’s ability to influence business can also be

demonstrated by the perceived lower value and status of roles which are typically or traditionally

female. Not only is there a strong stigma for men to operate the expectations of their gender

group, but within the understanding of socialisation and social identity theory; when ‘individuals

act outside of our expectations of their likeness to their own group, it is perceived negatively’

(Houkamau, 2008a, p43). When women attempt to portray the attributes of power and success

demonstrated by the male culture, they are perceived negatively and find it more difficult to be

taken seriously than their male counterparts (Acker, 1990; Houkamau, 2008b; Powell, et al.,

2006). Glaser and Smalley (1995) describe the labour market as an ocean; they explore the

differences between the “sharks” whom are ‘rigid and hard nosed, preferring to act alone (men

in the NZ labour force) and “dolphins” whom are ‘firm but fair, excellent communicators,



extremely initiative and thrive in teams organised around networks’ (women in labour force)

(pg.9). This metaphor is used to explain how women in business can gain more from utilising

their abilities as a dolphin rather than attempting to act as a shark, in a manner which has

potentially more opportunity and increased competitiveness in today’s rapidly changing business

environment.

When understanding gender as a culture unto itself, women have long held the perceived

role in society as the “nurturers” (Ministry of Women's Affairs, 2007; Pringle & Dixon, 2003). This

perception continues to feed the expectation of women to compromise their careers for children

whilst men can continue to work without any pressure to leave the workforce (Ministry of

Women's Affairs, 2007), in 2006, 90% of those in the role of caretakers were women (Statistics

New Zealand, 2006). The model set by these women in current NZ society continues to

encourage the perception that the possibility for interference between home and work

commitments means that women are perceived to be less dedicated to their jobs than their male

counterparts. This perception leads to the evidence of considerably less women holding high

level positions within NZ organisations than NZ men. The evidence of such social perceptions

within a patriarchal system such as that of NZ’s labour market, is demonstrated but the gender

culture of organisations and the association by society and individuals of powerful and successful

personal attributes being assimilated which masculinity (Jones, Pringle, & Shepherd, 2000;

Marshall, 1984) . Even consideration of wages of two roles shared between the different sexes

demonstrates the inequality experiences by women in the workforce, whom got paid on average

14% less than men in comparative fulltime positions (Statistics New Zealand, 2006). The

influence of this is that the broader social values continue to perpetuate and powerful traits

within the labour market continue to be assimilated towards men (Callister, 2005; Frable, 1997;

Powell, et al., 2006). Women on average still complete the majority of unpaid work in NZ, even

when maintaining paid work also (Statistics New Zealand, 2001) demonstrating a clear inequality

between men and women in the domestic sphere (Callister, 2005; Eichler, 1989; Houkamau,

2008b).

10 Jess Maher | 3328773


“The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm is based on the recognition that discrimination is wrong, it

idealises assimilation” (Thomas & Ely, p125)

For over thirty five years NZ has attempted to take legislative steps to eradicate

‘behaviour or attitudes based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles (Harward, 2008, p3) using

an accommodation approach to diversity. Equality between the sexes will not be achieved using

either an assimilation or accommodation model of managing diversity as both incorporate an

understanding of diversity as a negative influence and ultimately perpetuate the ideology that

one sex is inherently ‘subordinate’ or ‘inferior’ (Chater & Gaster, 1995; Eichler, 1989) to the

other. Whilst ‘even as children gender differences are obvious: girls tend to be collaboration-

oriented; while boys tend to be competition-oriented’ (Glaser, 2008, pg2), this is ‘not a right or

wrong situation’ (Morris, 2008, p3). The difference between the sexes are ‘complimentary’

(Chater & Gaster, 1995, p6), the appropriate approach requires individuals, organisations and

society to ‘value the differences’ (Chater & Gaster, 1995, p7). The key to achieving equality is

found in ‘leveraging the differences so men and women work together in a more collaborative

way’ (Morris, 2008, p3).

11 Jess Maher | 3328773


Appendix A | Perpetuated considerations between levels

12 Jess Maher | 3328773


References

13 Jess Maher | 3328773

mgmt734.as1 perpetuation of sexism in nz-jmaher 3328773

Documents