t

rL lgal

| &riormatro n Curb." The New York Times, March

tr York Atheneum, 1957.

Failure of the Equal Rights AmendmentBv Jackie Sadker

signaled the stirt of the nationwide desire to maintain the status quo. For many,J-" t"utot s which stalled the passage of the amendment, no nationalryment legislation has been pass-ed in order to substantially alleviate_ the problemsing women in the workforce lHutner 142;. Twenty-five years after the ratification

; assumption which has Proven itself to be faulty, is worth reexamining.women-have made some gains in the area of wage disparities, with the bulk of

occurring in the late 1980s and early 1990s' However, the gap in most

Spring 1997 20

The Equat Rights Amendment, as ratified by Congress inl972:

Section L: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged byUnited States or by any state on account of sex

Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriateion, the provisions of this article

section 3: The amendment shall take effect two years after the date oftion (Boles 31).

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had the potential to be the most effective,., en"t pass"Jguaranteeing equality for women in every aspect of lifp'.The

ng apathy for the seemingly popular amendment and its subsequent failure,ul"il. cli".rg" in the politiiai ideology of the United States. The failure of the

if the original lackluster argument against the ERA-that equality would beover time and not by the addition of mere rhetoric to the United State

.^ L:- l^- ,^.^*^-:n--has been proven correct. Of the issues that continue to hinder women inlace, the uumi.,gt gap, social conditions, and the glass ceiling indicate the

room for improvement.Despite iU of the gains made by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids

loyeito "limit, segiegate, or classify his employees in any way which wouldoi tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities...because of

amendment, it is time to reevaluate women's conditions in the workplace to

individual's sexn (US Constitution Sec. 703a), women today are far from achievingin the workplace, even in such tangible measures as salary differentials'continue to work the same hours accomplishing the same jobs as men, yet theyntly take home smaller paychecks. Since the ratification of the ERA and aafter the public recognized that such a gap existed, the eamings gap between

women has not been reduced significantly.Proposed causes behind the eamings gap differ; however, most aretzed by the same themes. The two most common themes are the presence of

tion in the labor market and the fact that women are less specialized inwork. Other factors include lack of experience, fewer hours, and limiteding opportunities.Opp-onents of the ERA claimed fervently that the Pay gaP_would shrink afterhad been glven a sufficient amount of time to take effect. Twenty-five years

II

I

fields is still substantial enough to be a national concem'The gap rru, u*i."E"ced in every profession across the board, yet apparently,

it cannot be eliminated ""iitli'- The Working Women's Suwey of 191 reported on the

lirp".rtyl"*een male and female wages across various careters. According to this

r"rir"yirt"* are professions such as enlineering and advertising that reveal only

marginat differences in the salaries between men and women' This survey also

concluded, however, that the largest gaps exist in the highest paying-iobs' Meanwhile'

"""ii" r.*"r-*ag" lobs m"r,

""irr rrrEriurrtial$ more than women. In retail sales, for

"*u*pt", u *o*"i', *rrui salary averages about $12^500, whereas a man's annual

,.furf urr"tug"s $19,000. In the accounting as well, women eam $28'000 as comPared to

ii" "l"rug"

iran's salary of $38,000. Similarly, male prgfesryrs in private universitiesearn abou"t $74,000 a year, which is $10,000 more than their female counterparts'

AlookattheeamingsgaPinreferencetoageresultsina.muchbleakerpicture. The average ,ut""y ii.iaie for a man from the time that he enters theivorkforce until the-time he retires, is approximately twenty-five percent. Yet, a

woman's salary increases only about two Percent throughout her.entire working career'

Furthermore, as women guir,"*or" experilnce in the workforce, they are not rewardedi, J"., increases that aie equivaleni to those of their male coworkers' salaries.t isteaa, tne *age gaP increaies exponentially' At the age of twenty-five' women eam

about seventy-sIx feicent of what 'men eam.-By age fifty-five, that number drops to

fifty-eight Percent (Bureau of the Census)'" Not"worthy strides towards closing the eamings gap have occurred during

the time period when the "comparable worth movement" gained momentum' From

lsiz, uJ y.u, that the ERA was ratified, to 1gg0, there was an eight percent decrease in

tn" "a'ni,.gs

gap which is, however, considered to be statistically insignificant. From

1983 to 1996 it decreased by almost twenty percent (Bureau of Labor statistics)' Asubstantial disparity still exists between the sexes'

Another area that has been slow to adapt to the "natural trend" towardsequality promised by enA opponents, is that of iocial conditions in the workplace.

-irt"lti

typur of discriminatitn 1e.g. verbal) which occur in daily interactions are more

often directed to women than mei and serve to devalue as well as demoralize working

women. The resulting social patterns often hinder the female's chances of career

advancement'In other words, for a woman who can break out of a menial level of labor and

finally enter into an occupation that guarantees a higher wag:, there'are still manydisadvantages in terms o? the work environment. Ll comparison to her malecounte{parts, a woman faces constant bias and discrimination, both subtle and blatant'some common patterns of such bias include: dismissingwom€n's ideas, passing overwomen for p,o^otio''', and denying women the credit they deserve for someaccomplishment (Reardon 50-5aj' Consequently, the femaleemployees who have been

*bj"iJt" such discriminationinevitably feel undervalued and, as a result, is often

less productive. An added result is that the employing business itself loses by having a

i"rr'pr"a""tive wor5orce and a less diverse management team- As thesediscriminatory Pattems and stereotyPes beco-me a major f1cto1.in the woman,s inability

to ascend to management positions tire so-called "glass ceiling" is created (Reardon 7&

e2).Despite the continuation of harmful stereotypes and negative attitudes in the

workplacgpubticoplnionregarding.theneedforwomen,sequalityintheworkplaceisskyrocketing. AcroJs the boaid, puShc opinion polls have shown an increased

".l"pt*." Jf working wo*"t uttd u gto*ittg awareness of their contribution to the

21 Public PolicY

Iirulconcem.rrry profession across the board, yet apparently,rng h'6=n s Suwey of 1991' reported on thePEc various careers. According to thisiErlg ard-advertisine that reveal onlvb ur erd womm' This survev alsopaitr rn the highest paying,jobs. Meanwhile,bft tu: than r^/omen. In retail sales, forlr-qrtf25m, whereas a man's annualf trr:I, *wur eam $28,000 as compared toftf rl fofessors in private universitiesIre tbt their fumale counterParts.fuc o egP r€sults in a much bleakerfrn iur Ore tisE $at he enters thelFcdy tterrlv-five Percent' Yet, a

-paul

thqghfl'rt her entire working career.rcn trrortforce, they are not rewardedbbdt|rd male coworkers' salaries.fl; Ar t: ege of twerrty-five, women earnc D7.FfftY-five, that number droPs toIbgfucnigtgaP have occurred duringntt must' gain€d momentum. From[b lS, Ourres an eight percent decrease inff b be lLtistiolly irsignificant. Fromft prrql (Drreau of labor Statistics)' Ar t -tb.dTr b the'natural trend" towardslfu d rd.l cntditiqs in the workplace.IH) rrbcur in daily interactions are morelgc o&ehr as well as demoralize working

-Edt

fuiale's chances of career

ftohtctof a menial level of labor and

-elih:rwage, there are still manY

b- tr comparison to her malebrd dlrinination, both subtle and blatant'e diro**ng women's ideas, passing overbafuotdit they deserve for somelqrrrrdy, the fumale employees who havebeenllyfa undewalued and, as a result, is oftenh.!"loylng business itself loses by having ab: arenagetnent team. As thesef bccre a maior factor in the woman's inabilityrralled -glass ceiling" is created (Reardon 7&

dd ster€otyPes and negative attitudes in thebd fr women's equality in the workplace isloFnin polls have shown an increasedFrmg awareness of their contribution to the

v(Kahn218-238).Ironically,theseattitudesdonotcarryoverintoactionsandi'ii" *.tprace' The fact ihat the shift in.social nor13.9,1beli:l::":^1t:,^,^

ji,J il;;ffi ;;i.;il";"i changes, reflects the same univillingness to completeCtiag" L equaliiy that characterized-the failure 9f ,th" EY--

--^- --^Lr^-. r^^i,til"";j;h" ;;; ;;;;; ""d,

unfortunately, most conunon problems- facing

is sexual harassmlnt' Statistics overwhelmingly reveal that the effects of

nent can be devastating to both the harassed employee andthe entire.business'harassment is defined as "any unwanted ptetst'ie for sexual.act*i?,''yPi:illliioii"iutlo*f,ips with unequal po*er" K;hn 219). In order to legally constituteharassment, behavior ̂.rri

b" iexual in nature, unwelcomed, and related to thelace by its ability to create a "hostile working environment" or a "quid Pro quo"

,i (Uiarrstording;. Ttrese criteria are deliberitely ambiguous'-reflecting theof Uotn poliy proscription and legal,actions relating to.the issue "l.t:Ii*t. Employers tiremselves must take-the steps top.revenll*i::T:I1T:

" n"t"I*t ri"." ift"* l"fittle federal harasiment legislation that is practically

on a day-to-day basis (Understanding)'One of ihe inherent problems in dealing with sexual harassment is that any

ive action relies on the victim reporting the offense. unfortunately, it is muchcorrunon for victims to ignore the incident or to resign than.to report it'

,eni victims are plagried by both guilt and a seveie dlop in self-esteem' Sincepercent of ,"*.,"1hit"ssers are inLhigher position tJ."-ll,Till^1",1n*""^ ,^- ,-

scale than their victims (Fritz 4-8), riost vicUms are intimidated to file for fear

hsing their job (Quina 152)'" Anotirer reason that victims are unlikely to report a violation is the common, as seen in the public reaction to the Hiil-Thomas hearings, to disbelieve theEven though ui Rrcr study indicates thatless.thT lI" !:]::^11:l::i::1.,,

ssment claims ire false (Karsten'541, u do*it ant attitude is to scrutinize the victimher motives for reporting the incident. one executive of a prominent investmentcins firm went to the extieme of suggesting that a means of punishing.the.victim if

Jf"i"a harasser is determined inn&lnt be established (Quina 88). Sadly, theseniaa'ute reasons and malevolent attitudes inspire many victims to try to-ignore the

ssment though studies show that seventy-five Percent of victims who did so foundthe harassm6nt either continued or increased (Quina 45-49)'

Sexual harassment is the most difficult condition to measure over the twenty-year period in question regarding the affect or lack of affect o1 * tY,

TP,ti-*",t'" f*ith;i;ftt J"ifr the nu"mber 6f *o^"tt reporting incidents increased after theue entered the pubi*ic eye as a valid issue, this siatistic is not a measure of the actual

of incidents of harassment that occurred. Taking this fact inlo account' a

son of figures reveals that sexual harassment has dropped :r1:tl",in1l'J tT*li6.-1. tiZ[, ninety percent of the female workforce report_ed that they had a;onal experience of sexuat harassment in their workplace (Redboo$

-i]?^tj'^:itir";i'"t];rty_ri* p"r."rrt of women reported experiencing such haras.smel;3";;;;;i;;i.J"t'"Jtt "t

the cost of ad-dressing [he. sexuaL harassment issue forinesses was about $327 million over a two year period in the early 1990s (US Merit

Sytt"*") While these studies indicate a marked reduction of women who haveiperlenced harassment, the reduction is not nearly "":1qh: .C^1T-t1,:lg-j*,,,pu';r.t oro6""l and economic costs of sexual harassment, even forty-six percent is alaUstic that is unacceptably high.

Another area in w'hicliinsufficient gains have been made concerns the "glass', fn" p-Uf"- of the "glass ceiling" ias n-ot recognized as a valid problem untii

Spring 1997 22

1991 when the Glass Ceiling Commission was established. This commissron wascreated to study the "glass ceiling" effect in the workplace. [n the years since itscreation the commission has published several bleakreports concemins the conditionof women in the workplace but has yet to initiate any federal policy to Xlleviate theproblem.

The Glass Ceiling Commission outlines three disfinct levels of the ceilingitself. The first level is apprenticeship, during which the working woman faces nodiscrimination in hiring but is subjecl to sexull harassment. The"second level, afterapprenticeship but before top management, is termed the "pipeline." This is the criticalleyet.of tlg glass ceiling where womin's upward mobility generally becomes stalled.The third level, facetiously termed "Alice in wonderland," Is *he.e the effects of theglass ceiling are truly evident. The presence of the glass ceiling is manifested in a ratioof employees that can range from two woman for every three iren to one woman forevery twenty men (us Merit Systems). The Commission's most revealing findingsinvolve the percentage of women employed compared to the percentagebf men-employed in senior management positions in Fortune 1000 compani"r] Th" resultsreveal that less than five percent of the employees at this level are women (FeministMajority).

Clearly, federal legislation is necessary to extend the equal protection clause ofthe FourteenthAmendment t9 lop management positions. rheblass CeilingCommission has documented thiee majo-r requirements before the glass ceilirg can bechipped away. There must be an increase in the number of upper-lEvel managementpositions for women, enforcement of necessary legislation, and support of thosefighting for their rights.

An examination of the failure of the ERA sheds some light on the seemingstagnation of the women's equality movement. The opposition i-rovement to the ERAplanted the seeds for the coniervaiive trend, a trend focused on maintaining the statusquo which hinders social advancement today. Ironically, one of the most commonarguments against the ERAwas that equality was already ensured by the FourteenthAmendment and would evolve naturaly into existence over the.orr.r" of time. yettoday, these same people are dedicated io maintaining the status quo. An examinationof the three major issues for women in the workplu"""olr", the pai two and a halfdecades revealsthat equality is still only a lofty goal and not a reality. Theimprovements that women have made in these three areas exclusivjy followlegislation or court decisions that aid their cause. If these laws keep riraking smallst-rides, imagine where we would be today if they were able to pass a big lail a quarterof a century ago.

RnrsRENcEs

Bureau of the Census, current popuration Reports, consumer Income series p-60:Money Income of Households, Familiesind persons in the lrnited states. No.42,1982.

Bureau of Labor statistics Lgss-L97s, rJ.s. working women: A Data Book,19TZ.

Feminist Majority Web page: NeutshoundNov 21, 1995

Fritz, N. "In Focus: sexual Harassment and the working wom an" personnel. Feb 19g9,PP.+8.

23 public policy

I r.s €stab[shed. This commission waslh dtc workplace. In the years since itsre'.l bbal reports conceming the condition5nt te any'federal policy to alleviate the

radm6 three distinct levels of the ceiling

-ng

rhiir the n'orking woman faces no)crril h.rassment. The second level, afterIt F ErEd the "PiPeline." This is the criticalSqrud mobilit]' generally becomes stalled.li ffmderland," is where the effects of theFd t: drcs ceihng is manifested in a ratioIrr h ct'en' three men to one woman forL C-csrtsron s most revealing findingsbtdcpiled to the Percentage of menia Fqturr lffi companies. The resultsqlopcsa this level are women (Feminist

Errt bqEld the equal protection clause ofltG Pcbqts. The Glass CeilingF4rwlts before the glass ceiling canbef i tb rn-t t of upper-level managementryv l€id.tin, and suPPort of those

dt" BAsh€ds some light on the seemingEtt Tboppcition movement to the ERAld, e tnnd focused on maintaining the statuslldry lurically qre of the most commonFI-r rr elready ensured bv the Fourteenth|ncrce over the course of time. Yetlf Crung the status quo. An examinationrtrrcrlqlre over the past two and a halff r hy gql and not a realitY. Thelblb drr€e areas exclusively followEcrra- U tt€se laws keep making smallat d O,4'wete able to Pass a big law a quarter

tms

b n p6ts, Consumer lncome Series P-60:*.il Pavns in the United States' No.42,

W- Working'lNomen: A Data Book, 1977'

Jftott 21,7995

lnd the Working Woman," Personnel. Feb 1989,

Frances. Equat Pay for Comparable Worth' New York Praeger' 1994'

William and Faye Crosby. "Discriminating BetweenAttitudes andDiscriminating Behaviors," Women and-Work. Vol. I, London: Sage, 1985.

Margaret Foeger. Management and Gender' New York: Prueger'1994'

Kathryn and Nancy L. Carlson. Rape,Incest, and Sexual Harassmmt, New York:Praeger,1989.

Kathleen Kelley. They Don't Get It, Do They? New York: Little, Brown, andCo.,1995.

*;aey,1976.

and Stopping Sexual Harassment: The Sexual Harassment Newsletter' Nov1995.

Sec. 703a, 2ffi0e, 2(a), 1972.

Merit Systems Protection Board Report,7991'.

Women's Surae!, February 1996.

Spring 1997 24