Throughout the 20th century, and especially since the 1960s and 70s, more and more women have entered the wage-labour-market, rapidly increasing their participation in paid employment. However, women came to the market on unequal terms, and despite some progress, are still face significant inequality compared to men at work. Women’s experience of work has been marred by both vertical and horizontal occupational segregation. Vertical segregation refers to the ways in which women have been confined and are concentrated in low-pay positions with fewer opportunities for advancement whereas men tend to dominate high-pay, high-power positions, at the top of the “careers ladder” . Horizontal segregation refers to the ways in which women are concentrated
…show more content…
Women in 21st century Europe and American who go out to work are therefore subject to a “second shift” in the home, after work . This fact has implications for women’s experience of paid-employment. Employers have developed a vision of the “ideal worker”: a worker who puts work first, who can work long full-time hours and who can be perpetually available from early adulthood right through to retirement . Given that someone who has dependents—who has children or elderly or disabled relatives to care for—cannot meet these criteria, and given that women are still, in most cases, (or at least perceived to be) primary carers, the “ideal worker” is, in most instances, an “able-bodied” man. Women are often discriminated against at work because employers fear they might have children or because they have taken a career break. Furthermore, caring responsibilities mean that it is overwhelmingly women who take up part-time and flexible working arrangements. Going part-time incurs a large pay penalty; for example, in the UK, one year of part-time employment could result in women earning up to 10% less per hour, even 15 years later . Part-time workers are subject to a “flexibility stigma” and are often …show more content…
However, the increasing number of women in highly-paid professional jobs, is underpinned by the increased out-sourcing of household labour to third parties. Affluent women earn status by “doing it all”—having a full-time career, thriving children, a contented spouse and a well-managed home . However, this can often only be achieved, by nannies and domestic workers, often from poor countries, who remain in the background .Income-rich and time-poor families are increasingly employing domestic service workers to carry out the labour that would at one time have been the responsibility of the housewife. In recent decades, an increasing number of women are migrating from poor countries to rich ones to work as maids and nannies—a process which Ehrenreich and Hochschild refer to as the “female underside of globalisation” . This is not a process limited to childcare. As Hochschild points out, many families in the US (and elsewhere) are also relying on immigrant or out-of-home care for their elderly relatives . These care workers are part of global care chains: a ‘series of personal links between people across the globe based on the paid or unpaid work of caring’ . Migrant women often have children at home, who are left in the care of others: an older daughter, relative or paid
Women in 21st century Europe and American who go out to work are therefore subject to a “second shift” in the home, after work . This fact has implications for women’s experience of paid-employment. Employers have developed a vision of the “ideal worker”: a worker who puts work first, who can work long full-time hours and who can be perpetually available from early adulthood right through to retirement . Given that someone who has dependents—who has children or elderly or disabled relatives to care for—cannot meet these criteria, and given that women are still, in most cases, (or at least perceived to be) primary carers, the “ideal worker” is, in most instances, an “able-bodied” man. Women are often discriminated against at work because employers fear they might have children or because they have taken a career break. Furthermore, caring responsibilities mean that it is overwhelmingly women who take up part-time and flexible working arrangements. Going part-time incurs a large pay penalty; for example, in the UK, one year of part-time employment could result in women earning up to 10% less per hour, even 15 years later . Part-time workers are subject to a “flexibility stigma” and are often …show more content…
However, the increasing number of women in highly-paid professional jobs, is underpinned by the increased out-sourcing of household labour to third parties. Affluent women earn status by “doing it all”—having a full-time career, thriving children, a contented spouse and a well-managed home . However, this can often only be achieved, by nannies and domestic workers, often from poor countries, who remain in the background .Income-rich and time-poor families are increasingly employing domestic service workers to carry out the labour that would at one time have been the responsibility of the housewife. In recent decades, an increasing number of women are migrating from poor countries to rich ones to work as maids and nannies—a process which Ehrenreich and Hochschild refer to as the “female underside of globalisation” . This is not a process limited to childcare. As Hochschild points out, many families in the US (and elsewhere) are also relying on immigrant or out-of-home care for their elderly relatives . These care workers are part of global care chains: a ‘series of personal links between people across the globe based on the paid or unpaid work of caring’ . Migrant women often have children at home, who are left in the care of others: an older daughter, relative or paid