Glass-ceiling research shows women continue to be harmed by gender stereotypes.  Managers continue to discriminate against female subordinates because they incorrectly perceive women as having greater conflicts between their family responsibilities and their work responsibilities than men, reports The Academy of Management Journal. Somewhat surprisingly, both male and female managers harbor this misperception.

The study, entitled “Bosses’ Perceptions of Family-Work Conflict and Women’s Promotability: Glass Ceiling Affects,” was conducted by members of the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Department of Managerial Studies. Lead author Jenny Hoobler commented that she expected that “[w]hat we’re talking about … is one of the subtle, entrenched forms of discrimination that make up the glass ceiling.”

The study cautions women about using company-sponsored programs such as on-site child care, flex time or paid parental leave, which are designed to assist employees with work-life balance. The problem is that managers may view use of such benefits as confirmation of women’s greater susceptibility to work-family conflicts, and then view such women as less committed to the company and less promotable than their male counterparts who do not make use of such benefits.

The authors recommend that to reduce the potential that gender stereotyping will affect workplace decisions, companies should educate managers about their own possible biases and should be aware of and guard against allowing “biased perceptions of caregiving roles” to affect promotion decisions.

Unemployment is painful for anyone who wants to work but is unable to locate a suitable position.  With the increases in unemployment finally starting to lessen, the aftermath of layoffs has come into focus.  The manufacturing and construction industries were two of the hardest hit by the recession, suffering higher job losses than other industries.  Because these two industries employ disproportionately large numbers of males, men have suffered an equally disproportionate number of job losses. 

Since December 2007, men were at the receiving end of more than 74% of cuts.  Women, on the other hand, hold nearly 50% of payroll jobs, making them less vulnerable to financially motivated layoffs.  In June 2009, a record 1.4 million men left the labor force, as compared to a near-record 1.2 million women. 

The highest unemployment rate for men since the Great Depression was 10.1% in 1982.  In June, that number reached 10%. Post-Great Depression, the record for women was in 1982, 9.3%. Currently, it’s 7.6% today.

What is less easy to quantify is the impact this shift has had on workplace and home-life dynamics.  As more and more women find themselves in a position of the sole wage earner, societal attitudes inevitably will be affected in some way, even if it’s not immediately noticeable.

Becky Beaupre Gillespie, of Good Enough Is the New Perfect, wrote a very insightful post detailing the struggle she and her husband have experienced in navigating their roles since he was let go from his job with a national law firm.  Her journey is surely one that many working women are experiencing across the country.  How it will impact the gender roles is yet to be seen.

While in law school, I was defeated in the semi-final round of a moot court competition.  The reason for the loss?  My outfit. I’d worn a pantsuit and a female judge, who was a judge in real life, also, ridiculed the choice, telling me that no “real lawyer” would ever have worn pants to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court, which was who we were “pretending” to argue before in the competition.  The harsh criticism came as a total shock to me and I’ve never forgotten it. 

Well, after these many years, I’ve finally been vindicated. In her first argument before the country’s highest court, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, former Dean of Harvard Law School, wore a navy blue pantsuit and light blue blouse. So it seems that my judge was wrong.  A woman would and, in fact, did wear pants before the Supreme Court after all.  Does this brazen fashion choice signify a coming of age for women in the legal profession? 

Well, almost.

It would have been a far more remarkable silent victory but for the fact that it wasn’t silent at all.  Kagan’s choice was all over the legal newsboards.  Above The Law ran a story detailing the choice and discussing the outfit at length. The fact that her clothing garnered so much attention lessened the potentially important impact of what was surely a high point in Kagan’s legal legacy.  Had the media not found it so remarkable, Kagan’s pantsuit choice may have been a much more significant symbol of how far women have come in our profession.  But, by spotlighting it as a key point of interest, the news stories just reminds us that our fashion choices do matter–at least to the interested public. 

Nonetheless, the fact that Kagan was not dissuaded in her selection by the media’s interest does give me a great deal of satisfaction.  Would I follow Kagan’s lead?  I’d like to think so but I dare not speculate.  After all, an attorney with Kagan’s pedigree has plenty of reasons to be as confident as she was–she’s got the legal acumen to back up any outfit she “dares” to wear. 

See also:

Gender Discrimination & Dress Codes. Who wears the skirt, I mean, pants in your office?

Are Women Attorneys Being Stricken by a Pantsuit Pandemic?

The Pantsuit Pandemic Part II