Inch by Inch
| DOI | 10.1177/0734371X13510379 |
| Published date | 01 March 2014 |
| Author | Vanessa M. Fenley,Mary E. Guy |
| Date | 01 March 2014 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2013
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2014, Vol. 34(1) 40 –58
Inch by Inch: Gender
© 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Equity Since the Civil
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X13510379
rop.sagepub.com
Rights Act of 1964
Mary E. Guy1 and Vanessa M. Fenley1
Abstract
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was influential in leveling the playing field for women.
More than the actual protections afforded by the act itself, it triggered subsequent laws
that collectively have lessened the pay gap, provided protections from harassment,
and increased opportunities for women to participate in education, sports, and
workplace opportunities that were previously reserved for men. However, the pace
at which these changes have occurred has extended over generations, and the goal
of parity has yet to be reached. This article traces legislation that has helped women
advance in the workplace and concludes by arguing for the expansion of how gender
is conceptualized. Rather than the dichotomous male/female view, gender equity
should embrace fairness for all, wherever they fall on the continuum from masculine
to feminine.
Keywords
gender equity, civil rights, sexual harassment, pay gap, employment
On any given day, the status and position of many women in American society seems
equitable to that of men. Barriers to basic rights and privileges—to vote, to own prop-
erty, to have access to elite professions, to earn fair wages—have been removed. Since
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, women’s pay has increased in proportion to
that of men and sexual harassment is now understood to be discriminatory rather than
merely the side effect of a “normal” working environment to which women should
adjust. Moreover, women’s access and participation in higher education has skyrock-
eted. Job segregation, however, continues and women, on average, earn only about
1University of Colorado Denver, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mary E. Guy, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, 1380 Lawrence St., Ste. 500,
Denver, CO 80217-3364, USA.
Email: mary.guy@ucdenver.edu
Guy and Fenley
41
US$.81 for every dollar that men earn (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011b) due to
enduring cultural values about the worth of “women’s work” compared with the value
of “men’s work.”
This article traces the headway made by women with a focus on women’s integra-
tion into the workplace, using Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a legislative
marker. First, we situate the status of women prior to passage of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act. Then, we summarize the process by which passage of the Act was achieved,
including the circumstance by which “sex” was added as a protected class under Title
VII of the bill. Next, we highlight significant legislative and judicial initiatives that
have shaped women’s status in the workplace since 1964. Finally, we go beyond
binary male versus female thought to highlight residual gaps in employment equity
that remain for gender minorities, commenting on the need to accelerate progress
toward gender equity.
The path by which gender equity has proceeded demonstrates the tortuous, cyclical
process that accompanies social change: Laws are vaguely written; when an employer
is charged with a discriminatory act on the grounds of that law, courts examine and
rule on the details of a specific case. When the courts rule in a way deemed incompat-
ible with the intent of the law, new legislation is introduced to fill the narrow gap
exposed by that ruling (Eidmann, 2008). This incremental path produces halting
advances, each met with the checks and balances of judicial oversight followed by
legislative modification in the midst of grudgingly slow social change. The following
discussion unfolds much as legislation has, by first treating male as the norm and com-
paring women’s status to it.
Women’s Historical Status in the Workforce
Up until the 1960s, the norm was for women to enter the workforce and remain there
until they married, after which it was expected that they would stay at home, raise
children, and perhaps reenter the workforce when their children were grown. The
family income was predicated on the husband’s earnings. Most women were mar-
ried, and families were able to subsist on the husband’s salary, making women’s
employment a nonnecessity for most families. In 1960, almost 45% of American
households were married couples with children below 18 (Wetzel, 1990). The fertil-
ity rate for women at this time was also high; the baby boom peaked in 1957, with
122.7 births per 100,000 women of childbearing age (Wetzel, 1990). Middle-class
White women, therefore, identified primarily as wives and mothers rather than as
members of the labor force. Workforce participation rates were higher for women in
minority families. For example, in a case study examining a middle-class Black
community in Baltimore in 1960, researchers found that 82% of mothers of 5-year-
old children were employed outside of the home, compared with about 19% overall
(McKay, 2007). Among minorities, the composition of men and women in profes-
sional and technical occupations were almost evenly split, a distribution not seen in
the White community until decades later (McKay, 2007). These data illustrate that
the growth in women’s labor force participation in the mid- to late 20th century is
42
Review of Public Personnel Administration 34(1)
Figure 1. Number of women employed by sector—1964-2012.
actually indicative of a surge of White women entering the workforce (Westcott,
1982), rather than signifying a homogeneous change in trends for all women.
Women’s educational attainment also impacted their place in the labor force. In
1960, more than 18% of men 25 years of age and older had completed some college;
less than 15% of women had completed some college (U.S. Census Bureau, 1962).
The largest gender differences occurred among college graduates. While only 5.8% of
women completed four or more years of college, 9.6% of men finished 4 or more years
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1962). Lower educational attainment as well as expectations
that women would marry and raise children all impacted women’s status in the
workforce.
Labor force participation rates for women in 1960 were about 38%, compared with
today’s rate of 58%, and women earned about 59 cents for every dollar men earned
(Reese & Warner, 2012; Toossi, 2002; U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). Figure 1
depicts the industries most commonly employing women from 1964 through 2009.
While manufacturing employed the highest proportion of women in 1964, it has
dropped steadily to employ a smaller proportion of women (U.S. Department of Labor,
2011a). Figure 1 also illustrates a growing service sector, as well as women’s increas-
ing presence in the education and health services, and business and professional ser-
vices industries.
Guy and Fenley
43
Women’s changing status in the workforce results from several commingling influ-
ences: Cultural expectations for women’s and men’s roles have shifted; cost of living
pressures have resulted in two-earner households; and legislation enabling more women
to earn an education, seek employment, and succeed in the workforce have collectively
contributed to the transformation of women’s participation in the labor force.
Women’s Rights Leading up to the Civil Rights
Act of 1964
The 1960s were years of ferment and social change and yet the progress that was
made in women’s rights sprung from the platform that had been set by prior equity
initiatives. The 19th century had ushered in improved property, domestic, and
employment rights for women. As urbanization progressed, women found themselves
freed from farm labor, and those who needed to support themselves and their families
sought work in factories and offices. Women were seeking federal jobs as clerks, a
position previously staffed only by men until the advent of the typewriter in the
1870s. At that time, it was thought unseemly for a woman to work outside the home
and most believed that women should never occupy a post that otherwise could be
held by a man. Women who sought work were thought to have questionable morals
or to be destitute. With this sort of an ethos, the question arose as to how much a
woman should be paid. Federal legislation was passed in 1864 that set wages for
women clerks at US$600 a year, about half that of men for similar work (Van Riper,
1958). At the time, this was thought to be a reform that protected women’s right to
earn a living.
The Pendleton Act, passed in 1883, was silent on the subject of gender and the Civil
Service Commission accepted an appointing officer’s request for the certification of
men or women or both without question until after the 1920s. Until it was made illegal
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers would post job announcements that speci-
fied whether women were eligible to apply. Job ads in newspapers would be listed in
two columns, one for women and one for men.
In the early 20th century, feminists had worked within the existing legal and eco-
nomic structures to level the playing field, including winning suffrage (Hutchinson,
2011). These structures, though, had been developed with masculine ideals in ways
that fundamentally advantage men (Stivers, 2002). If women were to succeed, it had
to be within the confines of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial