Woman & Work in the CJSHow do you define (sex) discrimination?

–Treating people unequally because of personal characteristics that are not related to job performance–Gender specification is used to disadvantage one sex.

•This is a gender neutral definition•What is the typical pattern of sex discrimination – who benefits from discrimination?

–Sex discrimination has historically revolved around the private vs. public spheres of social life

Woman & Work in the CJSHistorical Legacy of Gender RelationsRestricting Women to the Private SphereJustified by three appeals:1. Protection of women as a class:

• Moral (♀ as purer; ♀ as children)• Physical (health hazards, esp. to justify exclusion from ♂ jobs)

2. Motherhood: A woman’s place… Essentialist notions of parenting. Emotion work. Public sphere activities threatens the family.

3. Marriage:Historical reality that single women have possessed more

freedomDisparate impact of marriage for ♀&♂’s lives♀ role in the family has been used to successfully defeat lawsuits

aimed at promotions policies that restrict ♀

Woman & Work in the CJSBasis for Unlawfulness of Discrimination

•1964 Civil Rights Act–Title 7 outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, and disability

•Focused on Large Employers (15 plus full-time employees)•Covers a range of benefits of employment: Hiring, Job assignment, Discharge, Compensation, etc.

•Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Woman & Work in the CJSVarieties of Sex Discrimination•Sexual Harassment

–Quid pro quo–Hostile work environment

•Statistical Discrimination–The idea that women will reduce profits

•Less productive workers•More expensive workers

•Deference to the Masses–Customers–Male workers

Women & Work in the CJSLegal Approaches to Addressing Discrimination:Formal Equality Laws

–All persons be treated identically (gender neutral)–Assumes that “neutral settings” work the same for both sexes.

vs.Compensating Equality Laws

–Sex-specific in providing advantages to women in addressing historical exclusion

•Affirmative Action•Compensation unintentionally may affirm sex-based stereotypes•Protected Classes & Military veterans

Dilemma of Difference

Women & Work in the CJSWhat is token status?Insider vs. Outsider status

Despite the fact that a job is an Acquired status,Ascribed characteristics tend to be used to make distinctions between insiders/outsiders.

The (deviant/outsider) Ascriptive Status becomes a Master Status (Hughes 1945)

This is significant because it is about power; it doesn’t necessarily work both ways in a dominant/subordinate status hierarchy.

Examples of this in CJS?

Working in the CJS: JuriesHistory of exclusionHoyt v. Florida (1961)Question is a jury of one’s peers

All male jury convicts Hoyt of killing husbandUSSC affirms conviction of Hoyt

Overturned in Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)Rape case with male defendant

Voire Dire system of jury selection excluded women in a paternalistic wayexcluded women in a sexist way

Women tend to defer to men in juries

Working in the CJS: Attorneys

Cultural image of the law as a male domain:

Law is logical, rational, impartial, etc.

Contra image of women

Opportunities in law tied to Suffrage (19th Amend.): Prosecutor & Judgeships are frequently elected positions

1970 1980 1998

Law students 8.5% 33.5% ~52%

Attorneys 4.7% 12.0% 26%

Twice as likely to not practice after law school

Working in the CJS: JudgesGender Processes: Networking, Mentoring, SponsorshipWomen less likely to be in private practiceSexism more evident in private practice (immune from policy)Sex segregation in tasks, jobs & assignmentsHistorical roots of Western law:

Common Law traditionStare Decisis

Reinforces sexism, racism and classism – relations of power

Working in the CJS: JudgesReadings:Ch. 29 “Overwhelming Evidence” (Schafran)

Gender & credibility of ♀ attorneysConsequences of this credibility issue?

Ch. 30 “ Women in Black” Toobin• Are women more compassionate?• What factors explain a judge’s philosophy of jurisprudence?•Adversarial or compassionate nature of judges tied to experience (not gender)

Working in the CJS: Police•♀ have been in US Policing since 1910•Historical roots tied to social reform movement of the era: focus on saving children and women•Women have been assigned to women’s work within the PD: Support roles, Juvenile, Domestic

–“Matron” coined – what purpose does this term serve?

•Women officers seen as social workers:–Contrary to the traditional images of police work: crime-fighters, tough, aggressive, masculine–Police powers hinge on the legitimate use of force/coercion–Social connection b/t violence & gender limits ♀ place in policing culture and organizations

Women police face a choice: embrace stereotypes or fight them – each path has costs: seductress, mother, or lesbian. How do women negotiate gender in CJS context?

Working in the CJS: Police1968: First ♀ on patrol (standard police assignment)•How do women officers compare to men?

Job performance measures tend to reify the cultural image of police as “crime-fighters” (the deck is stacked). Question: what constitutes “good” policing?

♀ tend to have better citizen interactions than ♂♀ less aggressive style♀ less likely to use force

•Recent emphasis on Community Policing: in concept less concerned with crime fighting: more interested in promoting “liveability” of communities (order maintenance tasks key)•Advancement in hiring may be tied to political process: more women in local govt. increases hiring in PDs1998: -♀ are 10.5% of all police

- 5.6% of top command jobs-125 police chiefs (of approx 17,000)

Figure 12.1 Women and Minority Local Police Officers, 1987, 1990, and 1993

0

5

10

15

20

Female All Minorities Black Hispanic

Percent of full-tim

e sworn personnel

Population All sworn employeesServed Total % Male % Female %

All Sizes 100 91.2 8.81,000,000 or more 100 85.4 14.6500,000-999,999 100 87.6 12.4250,000-499,999 100 88.1 11.9100,000-249,000 100 91.0 9.050,000-99,999 100 93.0 7.025,000-49,999 100 94.8 5.210,000-24,999 100 95.0 5.02,500-9,999 100 95.6 4.4under 2,500 100 97.2 2.8

Table 12.1 Gender of Full-Time Officers inLocal Police Departments, by Size of Population Served, 1993

Percent of full-time sworn employees who are:

White Black Hispanic Other

All Sizes 100% 80.9% 75.2% 5.7% 11.3% 9.1% 2.2% 6.2% 5.5% .7% 1.5% 1.4% .1%1,000,000 or more 100% 69.2% 61.7% 7.5% 17.7% 12.8% 4.9% 12.0% 10.0% 2.0% 1.2% 1.0% .2%500,000-999,999 100 66.2 60.1 6.1 21.0 16.1 5.0 7.0 6.1 .9 5.8 5.4 .4250,000-499,999 100 71.9 64.5 7.4 17.7 14.3 3.4 9.0 8.2 .9 1.4 1.2 .4100,000-249,999 100 80.6 74.2 6.3 12.4 10.4 2.1 5.4 4.9 .4 1.6 1.5 .150,000-99,999 100 86.3 80.7 5.5 7.2 6.3 .9 5.1 4.7 .5 1.4 1.3 .125,000-49,999 100 89.8 85.1 4.6 5.4 5.0 .5 4.3 4.1 .2 .6 .6 -10,000-24,999 100 91.6 87.1 4.5 5.1 4.8 .3 2.6 2.5 .1 .6 .6 -2,500-9,999 100 92.8 88.9 3.9 4.1 3.8 .3 2.6 2.4 .1 .5 .5 -Under 2,500 100 91.7 89.3 2.3 5.3 5.0 .3 1.9 1.8 .1 1.2 1.1 -

Population served Total Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

Table 12.2 Race and Ethnicity of Full Time Officers in Local Departments, by Size of Population Served, 1993

WomenPittsburgh, PA 1,122 29Madison, WI 327 28Washington, DC 3,618 25Boulder,CO 137 24Bossier, LA 176 23

 Black

Washington, DC 3,618 69East Orange, NJ 285 66Gary, IN 243 63Jackson, MS 417 62Atlanta, GA 1,612 58

 Hispanic

Laredo, TX 269 100McAllen, TX 195 90Brownsville, TX 180 82El Paso, TX 1,013 66Santa Fe, NM 117 56

Asian/Pacific IslanderHonolulu, HI 1,619 76San Francisco, CA 2006 14Berkeley, CA 199 12Vallejo, CA 141 11Culver City, CA 119 10Oakland, CA 617 10San Jose, CA 1,336 10

 American Indian

Modesto, CA 248 10Tulsa, OK 800 6Long Beach, CA 838 5Duluth, MN 141 4Lawrence, KS 110 4

Department # Sworn Officers Percentage Department # Sworn Officers Percentage

Table 12.3 Top Five Local Police Departments With Percent of Women and Minority Officers

Figure 12.2 Percent of Female Officers in Representative Large Police Departments and

Percent in Supervision, 1992

0 5 10 15 20 25

Seattle

Philadelphia

New York

New Orleans

Los Angeles

Detroit

Dallas

Chicago

% of All Officers % of Supervisors

Working in the CJS: Police

Police-related Readings:

Ch. 31 “Invisible No More: A Social History of ♀ in US Policing” (Schulz)

Ch. 32 “Current Barriers & Future Promise for ♀ in Policing” (Harrington & Lonsway)

Ch. 34 “Interactive Effects of Race & Sex on ♀ Police Officers” (Martin)

Comparing Cops & Prison StaffInstitutionalized Sexism & Heterosexism– A historical objection frequently cited as cause for limiting ♀ has been physical characteristics– Ignores that the vast majority of the job does not require physical force

•Height & weight requirements for employmentStruck down in early 1970s for policeDothard v. Rawlinson (1977) for penal staff

But held that in some circumstances the BFOQ exception was legal: women staff in men’s prisons

•Physical Agility Tests replaced physical requirementsImplemented in a way that was unrealistic

•Preference for military veterans (reproduces a heterosexist work environment)

•Women less likely to be assaulted or injured by prisoners

Working in the CJS: Prison StaffSimilar History as ♀ Cops: Social Reformers focused on saving wayward women.♀ uniquely suited to addressing ♀ problemsOpportunities for ♀ staff in men’s prisons only become real in 1970s (after Title VII)Women staff face problems of discrimination in men’s prisons for many of the same reasons as ♀ copsMen’s prisons provide opportunities for career advancementSecurity level of prisons is best predictor of ♀ staff experiences.

Ch. 35 “♀ in Conflict” (Belknap)

Challenges that Hinder Opportunity

– Paternalism that is justified as “Preferential Treatment” for women in the CJS

•Prestige and rewards are reserved for those who get the chance to perform. Paternalism works against women.

– Higher Expectations for women workers•Tokens often forced to represent their entire class•Women have to be better qualified and perform better in order to measure up

– Networking Dilemmas•Informal relationships & Socializing are often pivotal to career success. Sexuality important.

– Sex stereotyping in Job Assignment (Sex segregation)