Gender Inequality And The Wage Gap Amongst Executives

Gender Inequality and the Wage Gap Amongst Executives

Male dominance is defined as fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of society. This false ideology creates gender inequality and a wage gap. A social policy, the Fair Pay Act of 200, was passed in order to combat these problems. The social constructions that surround the act and hinder its effectiveness are patriarchy, hegemonic masculinity, and the conservative nature of social institutions. The Fair Pay Act was intended to branch as far as college and university campuses, yet parity has not been reached among female and male presidents. Corporate culture and archetypal symbols of leadership also obstruct the Fair Pay Act. However, if the Fair Pay Act eventually succeeds, women can be change agents, and change corporate culture without imposing a hierarchy. The Fair Pay Act has not failed, but rather lacks the power to attack social constructions, which are at the core of gender inequality and the wage gap.

Often the terms sex and gender are used interchangeably in conversation. Yet there is a huge distinction betw

College and University Discrimination

“. . . more women are needed in executive positions to help curb sexual

A final social construction thwarting the Fair Pay Act’s attempts at parity is the conservative nature of social institutions themselves. In this context conservative does not mean Republican, it means resistant to change. Institutions are inherently conservative. This means they exist as an essential constituent or characteristic of tradition. Institutions are generally unplanned, and they develop slowly. Most social institutions in America were created long ago, and they are resistant to change. There are certain social institutions that affect women directly including: family, religion, economy, and education. These institutions were gradually created, but does that mean they must be gradually reformed? This cannot be right, because the Fair Pay Act is a direct result of the reformation of conservative institutions. When an institution is rooted in tradition and patriarchy, it will be innately slow to alteration. In this sphere it seems that perhaps the Fair Pay Act has not totally failed, but is in the midst of slow change. Because of this, a particular society’s institutions are interdependent, because of this; change in one institution tends to bring about change in others. If the change does come about slowly, then there is the hope that not only will the Fair Pay Act reform the economy, but other institutions will follow. But, at this time, institutions remained attached to tradition.

As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the Fair Pay Act has failed to hinder abstract ideas of masculinity. The following paragraphs will examine areas that the Fair Pay Act was intended to reform, and demonstrate how this reform is still a long way off, if it is occurring at all.

The Fair Pay Act is intended to affect many institutions, including education. The policy can be examined on a college and university scale. The majority of university presidents are men, which means that women have been unable to obtain high paying, executive jobs. This phenomenon could be due to the glass ceiling, which “. . . is meant to convey the fact that, even though most formal barriers to women’s advancement have been removed, there are invisible mechanisms that prevent women from advancing . . .” (Anderson, 2003). The Fair Pay Act has been effective in removing the formal barriers mentioned by Anderson but, “. . . as an ‘invisible’ barrier, the glass ceiling is difficult to eradicate through legislation. . .” (Bell, 2002, p.68). The invisible obstructions are truly what is keeping female executives and university presidents from earning as much as their male counterparts. It’s odd that “. . . 58 percent of community college students are women, while only 55 percent of the student population at four-year institutions is female.” (Lane, 2002, p.5), and only nineteen percent of women are presidents at higher education institutions. It would only seem representative of the student population to have the numbers of presidents and board members relative to the student population. Executive positions at higher education institutions are not completely unattainable for women, but when they acquire such positions, they still do not make as much as men (Lane, 2002, p.5). Apart from the glass ceiling, it seems that there are certain standards and characteristics associated with leadership that only hegemonic masculine individuals are seen to posses. At universities “. . . boards, expecting a woman to be less assertive than a man, might not offer a woman the same salary and benefits they give a man. . .” (Lane, 2002, p.5), and this only perpetuates the problem of gender inequality amongst executives. While the Fair Pay Act opens the door for women, it does nothing to prevent from stepping into an economic abyss.

This isn’t the first time social policy has been created to battle ge

Some topics in this essay:
Pay Act, Leadership Index, World Symbols, Act Firstly, Pay Act’s, Norton D-DC, Rights Act, fair pay, Norten Harkin, Fair Pay, fair pay act, pay act, Standards Act, gender inequality, wage gap, “ , women executives, inequality wage gap, social policy, gender inequality wage, inequality wage, hegemonic masculinity, sexual harassment, wage gap amongst, gap amongst executives,