Transcript Women & Work in the CJS

Woman & Work in the CJS
How 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 CJS
Historical Legacy of Gender Relations
Restricting Women to the Private Sphere
Justified by three appeals:
1. Protection of women as a class:
•
•
2.
Moral (♀ as purer; ♀ as children)
Physical (health hazards, esp. to justify exclusion from ♂ jobs)
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
freedom
Disparate 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 CJS
Basis 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 CJS
Varieties 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 CJS
Legal 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 CJS
What 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: Juries
History of exclusion
Hoyt v. Florida (1961)
Question is a jury of one’s peers
All male jury convicts Hoyt of killing husband
USSC 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 way
excluded 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
Law students
Attorneys
1970
8.5%
4.7%
1980
33.5%
12.0%
1998
~52%
26%
Twice as likely to not practice after law school
Working in the CJS: Judges
Gender Processes: Networking, Mentoring,
Sponsorship
Women less likely to be in private practice
Sexism more evident in private practice (immune
from policy)
Sex segregation in tasks, jobs & assignments
Historical roots of Western law:
Common Law tradition
Stare Decisis
Reinforces sexism, racism and classism –
relations of power
Working in the CJS: Judges
Readings:
Ch. 29 “Overwhelming Evidence” (Schafran)
Gender & credibility of ♀ attorneys
Consequences 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: Police
1968: 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 PDs
1998: -♀ 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
20
Percent of full-time sworn personnel
15
10
5
0
Female
All Minorities
Black
Hispanic
Table 12.1 Gender of Full-Time Officers in
Local Police Departments, by Size of Population Served, 1993
Population
Served
All Sizes
1,000,000 or more
500,000-999,999
250,000-499,999
100,000-249,000
50,000-99,999
25,000-49,999
10,000-24,999
2,500-9,999
under 2,500
Total %
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
All sworn employees
Male %
Female %
91.2
85.4
87.6
88.1
91.0
93.0
94.8
95.0
95.6
97.2
8.8
14.6
12.4
11.9
9.0
7.0
5.2
5.0
4.4
2.8
Table 12.2 Race and Ethnicity of Full Time Officers in Local Departments,
by Size of Population Served, 1993
Percent of full-time sworn employees who are:
White
Population served Total
All Sizes
1,000,000 or more
500,000-999,999
250,000-499,999
100,000-249,999
50,000-99,999
25,000-49,999
10,000-24,999
2,500-9,999
Under 2,500
100%
100%
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Total
Black
Male Female Total
80.9%
69.2%
66.2
71.9
80.6
86.3
89.8
91.6
92.8
91.7
75.2%
61.7%
60.1
64.5
74.2
80.7
85.1
87.1
88.9
89.3
5.7%
7.5%
6.1
7.4
6.3
5.5
4.6
4.5
3.9
2.3
Hispanic
Male Female Total
11.3%
17.7%
21.0
17.7
12.4
7.2
5.4
5.1
4.1
5.3
9.1%
12.8%
16.1
14.3
10.4
6.3
5.0
4.8
3.8
5.0
2.2%
4.9%
5.0
3.4
2.1
.9
.5
.3
.3
.3
Other
Male Female Total Male Female
6.2% 5.5%
12.0% 10.0%
7.0
6.1
9.0
8.2
5.4
4.9
5.1
4.7
4.3
4.1
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.4
1.9
1.8
.7%
2.0%
.9
.9
.4
.5
.2
.1
.1
.1
1.5%
1.2%
5.8
1.4
1.6
1.4
.6
.6
.5
1.2
1.4%
1.0%
5.4
1.2
1.5
1.3
.6
.6
.5
1.1
.1%
.2%
.4
.4
.1
.1
-
Table 12.3 Top Five Local Police Departments With
Percent of Women and Minority Officers
Department
# Sworn Officers Percentage
Women
Pittsburgh, PA
Madison, WI
Washington, DC
Boulder,CO
Bossier, LA
1,122
327
3,618
137
176
29
28
25
24
23
Washington, DC
East Orange, NJ
Gary, IN
Jackson, MS
Atlanta, GA
3,618
285
243
417
1,612
69
66
63
62
58
Laredo, TX
McAllen, TX
Brownsville, TX
El Paso, TX
Santa Fe, NM
269
195
180
1,013
117
100
90
82
66
56
Black
Hispanic
Department
# Sworn Officers Percentage
Asian/Pacific Islander
Honolulu, HI
San Francisco, CA
Berkeley, CA
Vallejo, CA
Culver City, CA
Oakland, CA
San Jose, CA
1,619
2006
199
141
119
617
1,336
76
14
12
11
10
10
10
American Indian
Modesto, CA
Tulsa, OK
Long Beach, CA
Duluth, MN
Lawrence, KS
248
800
838
141
110
10
6
5
4
4
Figure 12.2 Percent of Female Officers in
Representative Large Police Departments and
Percent in Supervision, 1992
Chicago
Dallas
Detroit
Los Angeles
New Orleans
New York
Philadelphia
Seattle
0
5
% of All Officers
10
15
20
% of Supervisors
25
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 Staff
Institutionalized 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 employment
Struck down in early 1970s for police
Dothard 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 requirements
Implemented 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 Staff
Similar History as ♀ Cops: Social Reformers focused on
saving wayward women.
♀ uniquely suited to addressing ♀ problems
Opportunities 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 ♀ cops
Men’s prisons provide opportunities for career
advancement
Security 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)