The 21st Century has seen an impressive shift in traditional family dynamics and greater

recognition of gender in legislation has helped pull apart gender-role divisions. As a result,
women are far more economically independent and socially autonomous, representing 42% of
the UK workforce (Easton, 2014). However, women are still less likely than men to be
associated with leadership positions in the UK. For instance, they account for only 6.1% of FTSE
100 executive positions. This stark inequality is consistently reflected in pay gaps, despite the
introduction of the Equal Pay Act (Player, 2013). The main purpose of this assignment is to
assess to what extent, despite many advances in developing equality, women are still held back
in the workplace. After first reviewing in turn the employment patterns, the principal theories of
patriarchy, human capital, dual labour market and the reserve army of labour the essay will
contrast them with other viewpoints in order to lead to a conclusion.
The main measures of the equality package, as Ann Oakey (in O'donnell, 1997: 205) calls it,
are as follows: the Equal Pay Act operative from 1975 legislates that women are entitled to equal
pay to man if their work is broadly similar. Since 1984 an amendment stipulates that women can
claim equal pay for work of equal value (Holborn and Langley, 2002). The 1975 Sex
Discrimination Act promotes equality of opportunity between men and women in education,
employment and the provision of services (Ons.gov.uk, 2014). The Emplyment Protection Act
contains the first legal entitlement to maternity leave for women in Britain (Briar, 1997).
Recently, the Equality Act (2010) has introduced a law which states that it is sex discrimination
to treat a woman less favourably on the grounds of her pregnancy (Equalityhumanrights.com,
2014).
There are changes in employment patterns. Although women make up an increasing proportion
of the labour force, they are not equally represented throughout the occupational structure
(Childs and Storry, 1999). Horizontal segregation defined as the separation of men and women
into qualitatively different types of job continues to persist in a muted form (Bilton, 2002: 143).
For example:

Source: Ons.gov.uk (2014).

Vertical segregation which refers to the tendency for men to have higher occupational positions
than women faced little ascension (Bilton, 2002). In particular, Hasard Society Commission still
argues that the higher the rank, the smaller the proportion of women (Hansardsociety.org.uk,
2014). As an illustration women in Scottish parliament felt below the critical mass level
(Assemblywales.org, 2014):

Source: Scottish.parliament.uk(2014)
A big majority of part-time workers are women.

Source: Nomisweb.co.uk (2014)

Walby developed an approach to understanding gender. Paid employment is regarded as a key
structure in creating disadvantages for women (Kirby, 2000: 200). It is argued that that the pay
gap and access to well-rewarded occupations remain significant between genders. Under those
circumstances, low-paid, part-time employment is predominated by women where the average
pay gap is 34.5% (Ukfeminista.org.uk, 2014). With regard to paid employment, Walby (in
Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 116) uses the example of womens presence in the labour
market during the WWII as a justification for the argument that the restricted opportunities has
more influence than cultural values on womens decision about whether to take low-paid
employment.
However, there are gender transformations. Walby (in Slattery, 2003: 163) asserts that
patriarchal structures are less pronounced among younger women due to a generational
difference. While older women are restricted by the constraints of private patriarchy, younger
ones are more qualified and this opens new horizons for them in the labour market (Cusworth,
2009). As a result, 67% of eligible women are nowadays in work, compared with just 53% in
1971 (Ons.gov.uk, 2014).

Moreover, the awareness of sexual harassment at work leads employers to adopt policies. On the
other hand, these advances are tempered by both a polarization between different groups of
women (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004). Furthermore, as Walby (in Haralambos and Holborn,
2004: 119) has put it, the attempt of Cable (Gov.uk, 2014) to make labour market more flexible
may worsen the financial situation of young independent women.
There are some criticisms of Walbys view. Anthias and Yuval-Davis (in Haralambos and
Holborn, 2004) state that patriarchy, capitalism and racism should be treated as one system
which advantages some groups and disadvantages others rather than a three-system where the
components are interdependent. Stacey (in Corrin, 1996: 8) accuses Walby of focusing on a

structuralist analysis, which fails to explain how people negotiate such a system based on their
identity and lived experience. Pollert questions the usefulness concept of patriarchy. To explain,
the excessive focus on patriarchy tends to repress the development of feminist analysis
(Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 120). Another criticism is that the idea of patriarchy involves
the use of an absurd circular argument patriarchy conflates explanation and description
(Pilcher and Whelehan, 2004:127). One other criticism is that patriarchy, unlike capitalism,
cannot be regarded as a system provided that it does not imply an intrinsic motor (Haralambos
and Holborn, 2004: 120). For this reason, gender systems are not constrained men and women
can change their behaviour without abolishment.
According to Parsons (in Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 130) women are naturally suited to the
expressive role of childcare, whereas men are more suited to the instrumental role of
competing in the labour market. Human capital theory (HCT) suggests that mothers are less
valuable to employers than men because they are less committed to work and more likely to
interrupt their careers in order to care for their offspring (Holborn and Langley, 2002). In other
words, the lack of training and qualifications resulting from discontinuous unemployment create
disadvantages for them in the labour market (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004).
HCT attracted several criticisms. Witz (in Haralambos and Holborn, 2004) argues that women
which are continuously unemployed still tend to end up in lower-status and lower-paid jobs.
Correspondingly, Rees (in Haralambos and Holborn, 2004) informs that in an American research
it has been found that human capital theory can represent the explanation of only about half the
pay differential between genders. In a research conducted by Sloane professional qualifications
had a big impact on pay. However, it was also found that gender continued to influence pay even
when qualification were taken into account (Holborn and Langley, 2002). The gender pay gap is
also valid nowadays:

Source: Ons.gov.uk(2014).

The dual labour market (DLM) of Barron and Norris distinguishes two labour markets. The
primary labour market is characterized by well-paid, fairly secure jobs with favourable
promotion prospects while the secondary labour market has completely opposite features
(Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 131). Employers make use of tactics such as high rewards in
order to retain primary workers, but secondary workers are regarded as easily replaced. It is
difficult to advance from the secondary to the primary labour market, and women tend to be
found in the secondary sector because of employers sexism and lack of unionization (Holborn
and Langley, 2002).
Beechey identifies several limitations of DLM theory. To begin, it was omitted that some women
in skilled manual jobs such as textile industry still receive low pay, albeit their task is very
similar to primary sector mens jobs; (Holborn and Langley, 2002). Secondly, the DLM theory
does not provide effective explanations for the position of women outside manufacturing
industry (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 132). Similarly, it is inefficient in explaining why
women face promotion less than men even when employed in primary sector jobs (Holborn and
Langley, 2002). In addition, Braverman (in Holborn and Langley, 2002: 25) explains that women
in clerical work has been deskilled in order to cut costs.
Burchell and Rubery (in Albert et.al, 1997) concluded that there is no simple division between a
primary and a secondary labour market. There were identified five clusters of workers with
similar career and work attitudes. To enumerate, the primary segment in the most advantaged
jobs was formed 78% by men; stickers interested in gaining promotion; in contrast, the young
and mobile were 80% men searching for better jobs; 96% of female descenders were women
their domestic responsibilities was the main factor of a downward career; labour market
descenders moved to jobs of a lower social status (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004). In
contradiction to DLM theory, this study claims that there is no perfect fit for gender ascription in
the identified clusters (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 132).
Likewise, in the reserve army of labour, Beechey emphasises the profitability for capital of
having access to a pool of easily expendable labour (O'donnell, 1997:204). In other words,
economies requires a reserve army of labour in order to deal with the changes incurred in
cycles of boom or recession (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 133). Beechey (1983) identifies
several ways in which women are particularly suited to the needs of this reserve army. Firstly,
women are less likely to be unionised and less able to resist redundancy than men. Secondly,
because they are not eligible to state benefits if their husbands are working they are made
redundant and can disappear virtually without trace back into the family (Rose, 2008: 577).
Thirdly, women can accept an underpaid job because they can rely upon their husbands wages.
Regarding the overall applicability of the theory, Beechey (in Haralambos and Holborn, 2004)
concedes that it cannot explain horizontal segregation. Moreover, it does not adequately explain
why a significant proportion of women are able to retain their jobs during periods of recession.
Furthermore, Gardiner (in Rose, 2008: 578) highlights that there are advantages to the employer
in allowing women to retain their jobs during times of recession since they are a comparatively
cheaper. On the other hand, McDowell (in Bilton, 2002) states that there is a sexualisation of

womens labour in the service sector. The reorientation towards a flexible production in the postFordist determines women to be an army concentrated in part-time jobs (Haralambos and
Holborn, 2004). Must be remembered Bruegel (1979) argued that the women protection of
unemployment in recessionary times is threatened by the development of microprocessors which
might replace docile labour; therefore, this theory might not be.
Radical feminists regard patriarchy rather than capitalism as the main cause of female
disadvantage (Holborn and Langley, 2002). Stanko (in Haralambos and Holborn, 2004) states
that sexual harassment is used by men to protect their position. In contrast, women are
sexualized and not taken seriously for promotion. As an illustration, waitresses are expected to be
sexually attractive and secretaries behave as office wives (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004:
135). Pringle (in Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 135) subscribes to those ideas adding that
secretaries are seen as an extension of their boss their job is treated as trivial or invisible.
As an extension, Adkins (in Holborn and Langley, 2002) comments that sexual work has become
integral to many womens family-based jobs in a patriarchal society. Consequently, women are
expected to engage in sexual servicing wives are sexual attractions for third companies in
hotel chains (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 135). Another key point is that there was a strong
horizontal segregation in so-called Global Hotel and Fun Land. At Fun Land operatives of highspeed rides were exclusively males while most catering assistants were female. Likewise, at
Global Hotel chef and cooks were male, while the waitresses were female chains (Haralambos
and Holborn, 2004). These studies provide an extra dimension for understanding gender
inequalities. However, they emphasize the importance of one main source of female
disadvantage confines their scope (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004: 136).
It has been argued that feminists have over-emphasized their finding in order to corroborate their
strongly held beliefs. According to Hakim (in Kirby, 2000: 700) women actively choose parttime work in order to manage the domestic responsibilities with which they actively wish to be
engaged. Notably, there are five myths regarding women`s employment. In short, childcare is
the main barrier to womens employment this is not true because women prioritize child
rearing over employment and they have access to birth control; the stability of womens
employment is equal to mens; lastly, womens work commitment is equal to mens some
women choose a marriage career over a normal one because of their traditional attitudes. In
terms of criticism, Breugel (1996) states that this theory is an ideological vacuum which ignores
how society and the individual woman are closely interlinked. Moreover, Crompoton (in Kirby,
2000: 291-2) suggests that there is a tension between structural and action womens choice
is constrained by existing forms of patriarchy.
To summarize, almost all of the theories offer a structural rather than an individualistic
explanation. In other words, each theory avoids blaming employers or the victims to explain
gender inequality and instead concentrates on the structural relations between the family and the
economy. A conclusion can be drawn that the gendered division of labour still firmly benefits

men to the detriment of women in the UK mostly because of the stereotypes that keep getting in
the way of progress. It would be misleading to totally homogenise the theories of female
exploitation in the labour market. However, Hakims perspective is more applicable in a
contemporary society which is not focused on stereotypes anymore and everyone has a choice.
The lower commitment to paid employment by women is the key reason why part-timers, and
therefore women are treated differently in the labour market.

References
Albert, S. and Bradley, K. 1997. Managing knowledge. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University
Press.
Assemblywales.org. 2014. About Us | National Assembly for Wales. [online] Available at:
http://www.assemblywales.org/abthome/about_us-commission_assembly_administration/abtassembly-elections-2/abt-nafw-election-results.htm [Accessed: 2 Apr 2014].
Bilton, T. 2002. Introductory sociology. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Breugel, I. 1996. Whose myths are they anyway: a comment. British Journal of Sociology, 47
(1).
Briar, C. 1997. Working for women?. London: UCL Press.
Bruegel, I. 1979. Women as a Reserve Army of Labour: A Note on Recent British Experience. 3
(1), p. 12. Available from: doi: doi:10.1057/fr.1979.18.
Childs, P. and Storry, M. 1999. Encyclopedia of contemporary British culture. London:
Routledge.
Corrin, C. 1996. Women in a violent world. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Cusworth, L. 2009. The impact of parental employment. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
Easton, M. 2014. Which jobs have more women than men?. [online] Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17287275 [Accessed: 23 Mar 2014].
Equalityhumanrights.com. 2014. EHRC - Pregnancy and maternity: your rights. [online]
Available at: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/your-rights/gender/sexdiscrimination-your-rights-at-work/pregnancy-and-maternity/pregnancy-and-maternity-yourrights/ [Accessed: 2 Apr 2014].
Gov.uk. 2014. Making the labour market more flexible, efficient and fair - Policy - GOV.UK.
[online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-the-labour-market-moreflexible-efficient-and-fair [Accessed: 29 Mar 2014].
Hansardsociety.org.uk. 2014. Women at the Top 2011. [online] Available at:
http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/research/women-at-the-top/women-at-the-top-2011/
[Accessed: 2 Apr 2014].
Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. 2004. Sociology. 6th ed. London: Collins.

Holborn, M. and Langley, P. 2002. Sociology themes and perspectives AS and A-level. London:
Collins Educational.
Kirby, M. 2000. Sociology in perspective. Oxford: Heinemann.
Nomisweb.co.uk. 2014. Census 2011 Economic Activity by sex by age - Nomis. [online]
Available at: http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/dc6107ew [Accessed: 2 Apr 2014].
O'donnell, M. 1997. Introduction to sociology. Walton-on-Thames: Nelson.
Ons.gov.uk. 2014. Full report - Women in the labour market - ONS. [online] Available at:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/women-in-the-labour-market/2013/rpt---women-in-thelabour-market.html [Accessed: 29 Mar 2014].
Ons.gov.uk. 2014. Key Statistics and Quick Statistics for Local Authorites in the United
Kingdom - Part 2 - ONS. [online] Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011census/key-statistics-and-quick-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-the-united-kingdom---part2/stb-key-statistics-part-2.html [Accessed: 2 Apr 2014].
Ons.gov.uk. 2014. Gender Pay Gap - ONS. [online] Available at:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Gender+Pay+Gap [Accessed: 2 Apr
2014].
Pilcher, J. and Whelehan, I. 2004. 50 key concepts in gender studies. London: SAGE.
Player, A. 2013. Gender equality: why women are still held back. [online] Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/dec/06/gender-equality-womenstereotypes-stop-progress [Accessed: 23 Mar 2014].
Rose, E. 2008. Employment relations. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
Scottish.parliament.uk. 2014. SPICe Briefing Election 2011. [online] Available at:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefingsAndFactsheets/S4/SB_11-29.pdf [Accessed:
2 Apr 2014].
Slattery, M. 2003. Key ideas in sociology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.
Ukfeminista.org.uk. 2014. Facts and statistics on gender inequality | UK Feminista. [online]
Available at: http://ukfeminista.org.uk/take-action/facts-and-statistics-on-gender-inequality/
[Accessed: 29 Mar 2014].