Inequalities at work are multiple and take different forms of expression. According to INSEE (source of 2018) in France, while girls do better in school, pursue higher education more often, are more qualified than men with 32% of women aged 25-34 years old as opposed to 26% of men in the same age group, but the activity rate among women (67.6% of women aged 15-64 years old) remains lower than that of men (74.5% of men in the same age group). The wage income gap has been decreasing very slowly over the last twenty years, but women’s wage income is still 24% lower on average than men’s. The wage income gap between men and women is also decreasing. The obligations of family life mean that according to INSEE (2018), women are four times more likely to work part-time than men (30% compared to 7% of men in metropolitan France) because of children. The division of labor into atypical male and female jobs (for example, in 2015 one out of five workers is a woman) and the resulting differences in professional careers introduce retirements one year later on average and direct entitlement pensions that are 42% lower than for men” (INSEE, 2018).
However, the opening up of higher education to women in the 1970s, particularly in the grandes écoles, contributed to a feminization of the various higher professions by allowing women to make up 49% of the workforce in 2012 according to McKinsey’s firm (cited by Boussard, 2016) and 54% in the civil service according to the Direction générale de l’administration et de la fonction publique (DGAFP, 2014, cited by Jacquemart, Le Mancq and Pochic, 2016). But, the increase does not concern managerial functions, which remain relatively inaccessible. Referring again to McKinsey’s study “in financial services, more than 22% of women are middle managers, 13% are senior managers and 9% sit on the executive committee and the “CEOs are all men” (quoted by Boussard, 2016). This difference makes it possible to see how the typification of professions as being more “male”, such as finance, makes it more difficult for women to enter, whereas the figures show that the presence of women in higher professions is as high as that of men.
Therefore, the inequalities in the workplace are the consequence of the division of labor that leads to a difference in treatment in access to employment and the valuation of the jobs held, etc. In her study, Kanazawa (2005) shows that work done by women has less value than work done by men. For Ghiulamila and Levet (2007), women hold worse jobs than men and consequently they earn less than men. According to these authors, wage inequality persists due to the fact that jobs are subject to gender specialization, i.e. job segregation: in sectors where the jobs are feminized, average wages are the lowest, while in less feminized sectors, average wages are much better paid. In other words, there is a “gendered” division of labor, with resulting inequalities.
Taking the example of jobs that are qualified as female, which are therefore much less valued than jobs that are qualified as male. The valuation of the job itself refers to the hierarchization of work (referring to the domination of men), hence the difficulty, if not the impossibility, for women to access it. Women are thus under-represented in positions of high responsibility.
This under-representation echoes the place of women in society and raises many questions about their place in the organization.
Legal formalization such as “the law of August 4, 2014 for real equality between women and men” (cited by Jacquemart, Le Mancq and Pochic, 2016) and the implementation of policies in favor of gender equality, particularly in the labor market, do not completely eliminate inequalities beyond the improvements planned. It is not only a question of wages or salary conditions that cause gender inequalities to persist and thus require the implementation of policies promoting parity. But it is the occupational restriction placed on women in the name of a gendered division of labour, which consequently prevents women from progressing in male-dominated workplaces, from upgrading their skills and acquiring high-level positions (Laufer, Marry and Maruani, 2003). This leads to the maintenance of its status quo, which in turn promotes the “re-actualization” of gender stereotypes and prejudices, thereby contributing to gender inequalities.
Bibliography :
Boussard, V. (2016). Celles qui survivent : dispositions improbables des dirigeantes dans la finance. Travail, genre et sociétés, (1), 47-65.
Gaborit, P. (2009). Les stéréotypes de genre : identités, rôles sociaux et politiques publiques. Editions Le Harmattan.
Jacquemart, A., Le Mancq, F., & Pochic, S. (2016). Femmes hautes fonctionnaires en France. Travail, genre et sociétés, (1), 27-45.
Kanazawa, S. (2005). Is “discrimination” necessary to explain the sex gap in earnings?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(2), 269-287.
Laufer, J., Marry, C., & Maruani, M. (2010). Le travail du genre : Les sciences sociales du travail à l’épreuve des différences de sexe. La Découverte.
Levet, P., & Ghiulamila, J. (2007). Les hommes, les femmes et les entreprises : vers quelle égalité ? Editions L’Harmattan.
https://www.insee.fr/fr/accueil