Quaid I Azam University, Islamabad.

Department of administrative Sciences

Gender Discrimination at workplace

Names of group members
 Haseeb dar

 Sheema Mehkar

 Hussain Tariq

 Hussian Bux Chandio

 Muhammad umer

 M. Masood Ahmad

 Nawazish Ali Shah

Submitted To:
Dr. Tahir Saeed

Date: ______________________

Topic: Gender Discrimination at workplace

First of all we are highly thankful to our Allah the
almighty who made us able to work on the assigned
project. After that we are thankful to our parents who
provided us such platform where we can easily utilize our
capabilities for our personal development. We are also
highly thankful to DR. Tahir Saeed whose guideline
throughout helped us a lot in completing the Assigned
project.
 Table of Contents
Abstract__________________________________________
Introduction_______________________________________
Literature survey___________________________________
Theoretical Framework______________________________
Methodology______________________________________
Results___________________________________________
Discussion________________________________________
Conclusion_______________________________________
Recommendations__________________________________
Limitations________________________________________
References_______________________________________
 Gender Discrimination at Workplace:
Causes and elimination
Abstract
This paper presents a theory of gender discrimination in competitive labour markets which does
not rely on any inherent gender asymmetries. Women and men are organized into households
with each having identical household specific human capital. When labour market characteristics
(effort, wages) differ, the possibility of mutually beneficial within household trades arises.
Discrimination involves occupational segregation with men obtaining high paying efficiency
wage jobs and women in piece rate work. It is shown that there always exists a Nash equilibrium
in which firms benefit from discrimination by allocating high paying jobs exclusively to men,
provided other firms also do so, as this ensures their employees (men) enjoy the benefits of
within household trade and will satisfy incentive compatibility at a lower wage. A firm
attempting to hire women in efficiency wage jobs makes strictly lower expected profits, since the
predominance of men in the labour market means women are less likely to enjoy the benefits of
within household trade and more likely to shirk. The model thus provides an intuitive
explanation for discrimination in competitive labour markets even when the sexes are completely
identical. In the same context men are also being discriminated on the same grounds. That’s why
in this study both kinds of discriminations have been considered. So, in this paper Gender
discrimination has been tested through two variables that is female stereotype and masculinity
ideology showing positive relationship with gender discrimination.

Key Words: gender discrimination, culture, feminity concept, masculinity ideology, workplace.
 Introduction:
The research team has selected the topic of “gender discrimination at workplace” for the research
project. In the recent years it is seen that not only women but also men are being discriminated
on the basis of their gender. Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and
attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and
do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. Sex discrimination, on the other hand, may
have legal consequences. Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries,
the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would
not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature in certain
enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries.

Currently, discrimination based on sex is defined as adverse action against another person, that
would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. This is considered a form of
prejudice and is illegal in certain enumerated circumstances in most countries.

Sexual discrimination can arise in different contexts. For instance an employee may be
discriminated against by being asked discriminatory questions during a job interview, or because
an employer did not hire, promote or wrongfully terminated an employee based on his or her
gender, or employers pay unequally based on gender. In an educational setting there could be
claims that a student was excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan,
student group, or scholarship due to his or her gender. In the housing setting there could be
claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or
getting a loan based on his or her gender. Another setting where there have been claims of gender
discrimination is banking; for example if one is refused credit or is offered unequal loan terms
based on one’s gender.
Another setting where there is usually gender discrimination is when one is refused to extend his
or her credit, refused approval of credit/loan process, and if there is a burden of unequal loan
terms based on one’s gender.

Socially, sexual differences have been used to justify different roles for men and women, in some
cases giving rise to claims of primary and secondary roles. While there are non-physical
differences between men and women, there is little agreement as to what those differences are.
This all leads to lower job involvement of the males and females which in turn affects the job
performance of the employees. This is a cause of concern and it is happening because women
and men feel that they are not being treated equally. We know that individuals are born with a
given endowment of entrepreneurial talent and decide how much human capital to acquire, and
whether to become managers or workers. There are several international conventions like
Seedaw, Beijing platform of actions and millennium development goals which are working to
eliminate all kinds of discriminations faced by the men and women. All of them are ratified by
the Govt. of Pakistan but no implementation has been seen till now in Pakistan. Not only these
Conventions but also media is having a great concern for men and women equality. We selected
this topic because our society is also highly superficial in this area.* Previously a lot of
researches have been made on this topic like The Many Faces of Darlene Jespersen by (Michael
Selmi George Washington University Law School) and The Rights of Remedies: Collective
Accountings for and Insuring Against the Harms of Sexual Harassment by (Judith Resnik Yale
University - Law School) etc.. but all these researches have not clearly explained masculinity
and fiminity ideologies that are causing Gender Discrimination. We have selected these two
variables for research work because according to us these are the two main variables which are
directly causing gender discrimination at every level. So, it is important to eliminate such
discrimination in order to avoid negative effects of it and to give equal rights to both men and
women. This study is an effort to not only identify the factors responsible for it but also to give
solutions to overcome this problem.

Literature survey:
Gender discrimination is a social phenomenon that affects social behavior in many areas (e.g.,
Appleton & Gurwitz, 1976; Berndt & Heller, 1986; Tilby & Kalin 1980). It has been shown that
individuals may discriminate on the basis of target gender (i.e., whether the targets are males or
females) or on the basis of individuating information (i.e., whether the targets behave
stereotypically or counter stereotypically). Individuals behaving counter stereotypically are often
assigned negative evaluations or penalties (Appleton & Gurwitz, 1976; Berndt & Heller, 1986;
Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, & Pascale, 1975; Tilby & Kalin 1980). Most studies done
on gender discrimination have been conducted on adults and in Western societies. Cultures,
however, play an important role in setting social norms and many researchers are now aware that
cross-cultural study provides an opportunity to investigate certain phenomena more thoroughly
(e.g., Bukowski & Sippola, 1998; Schneider, 1998). The present study's contribution is that it
examined gender discrimination from a cross-cultural perspective and focused on early
adolescents. More specifically, the present study focused on the gender discrimination toward
male targets behaving stereotypically and counter stereotypically and investigated gender
discrimination of early adolescents from two different cultures: Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs.

It has been suggested that cultures vary along the dimension of individualism and collectivism
and along the dimension of traditionality (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Shweder, 1990; Triandis,
1989). Collectivitic and more traditional cultures emphasize interdependence among individuals
as well as the importance of social roles and fitting in with the social context and conforming to
societal norms. Individualistically oriented cultures and less traditional cultures, on the other
hand, emphasize independence, self-expression, and the pursuit of personal goals and interests. It
is therefore reasonable to assume that collectivistic/traditional cultures are less tolerant than
individualistic cultures of any transgression from norms, including gender transgressions. We
investigated adolescents from two subcultures in Israel, Israeli Arab adolescents and Israeli
Jewish adolescents. Our study focused on the more traditional Arab population, i.e., those who
live in villages and towns populated exclusively by Arabs and w here education is in the Arabic
language.

Studies have shown that the Arab culture, including the subculture of Arabs living in Israel, is a
traditional and a collectivistic culture (Bierenbauer, 1992; Mikulincer, Weller & Florian, 1993),
which emphasizes the importance of community and family more than the pursuit of self-
fulfillment (Barakat, 1985; Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1990). Conversely, Israeli Jews
belong to a more individualistic and less traditional society emphasizing the individual and
his/her own need above those of the community (Ben-Ari & Azaiza, 1998). Mikulincer et al.
(1993), for example, showed that Israeli Arab adolescents reported closer ties to their family
characterized by a restrictive and stringent nature. Nisan (1987) found differences in moral
judgments of traditional Israeli Arabs and secular Israeli Jewish children, such that the former
judged transgressions from norms, even if these behaviors were permitted, more harshly. Finally,
Moore (1998) found that the meaning of gender identity differed for Jewish and A rab women,
such that Arab women's gender identity was a much more traditional one.

The most compelling explanations of gender inequality are materialist theories that use cross-
cultural data on the status of women and men. Materialist theories explain gender inequality as
an outcome of how women and men are tied to the economic structure of society. Such theories
stress control and distribution of valued resources as crucial facts in producing stratification.
They point out that women's roles of mother and wife, although vital to the well-being of society,
are devalued and also deny women access to highly valued public resources. They point out that
gender stratification is greater where women's work is directed inward to the family and men's
work is directed outward to trade and the marketplace When women do enter the labor markets,
they often are concentrated in lower-paying jobs. Women also enter the labor market later than
men and often have to leave periodically because of child care responsibilities. Historically,
women have had lower levels of education than men, but recently this trend seems to have begun
to reverse. (Eitzen, 2000:251).

The gender role approach focuses on learning behaviors that are defined as masculine or
feminine. The gender role approach emphasizes characteristics that individuals acquire during
the course of socialization, such as independence or dependent behaviors and ways men and
women relate to each other (Eitzen, 2000:252).

The gender structure approach emphasizes factors that are external to individuals, such as the
organization of social institutions, including the concentration of power, the legal system, and
organizational barriers that promote sexual inequality. These approaches tend to differ in how
they view the sexes, in how they explain the causes and effects of sexism, and in the solutions
they suggest for elimination of inequality. Both individual and structural approaches are
necessary to a complete understanding of sexism. This chapter places primary emphasis on social
structure as the cause of inequality (Eitzen, 2000:252).

Gender related attributes also play their role. An appropriate theoretical foundation for
explaining differences between male and female service providers originates in the sociology
literature and is referred to as feminist theory. This theory proffers two perspectives regarding
gender-related differences in performance. One argues that there are a wide variety of issues that
are impacted by society’s attitudes towards women (Hooks, 2000). These attitudes are based in
the history and institutional structure of society. As a result, women are treated differently than
men, so that the performance of businesses owned by women suffers. Another stream of
literature argues that there are innate differences between male and female approaches to issues.
These differences lead women to take different actions than males in similar situations (Buttner,
2001; Fletcher, 1998).

According to rational bias theory, there are instances in which engaging in discrimination seems
justified to an employee, even though he or she may be aware of regulations prohibiting bias and
may personally prefer to treat others equally (Larwood & Gattiker, 1985; Larwood et al., 1984).
Employees in decision-making positions understand that they have to take into account the
attitudes and preferences of other people, such as superiors and clients, in order to enhance and
develop their own careers. It follows that decision makers may choose to discriminate if they
believe their superiors or others having power over their careers expect or prefer it. Thus, an
employee's display of "rational bias," in which discrimination may be viewed as both
instrumental and intentional, is the result of perceiving external pressures from superiors or
clients to discriminate.The perceptions that business norms favor discrimination and that
compliance with the norms is important to business success are two basic tenets of rational bias
theory. If these components are not accepted by decision makers, then the decision makers are
less likely to feel external pressures to discriminate (Larwood et al., 1988a, 1988b). This
suggests preconditions for rational bias to be operative in producing gender discrimination in the
workplace: (1) business people are viewed as generally more accepting of one gender than the
other - at least in the organizational functions being examined; and (2) those making personnel
decisions feel pressure toward deferring to the norms of business (Dexter, 1985; Larwood et al.,
1988a; Szwajkowski et al., 1991).The first precondition, referred to as the "preference norm,"
does not need to accurately represent the beliefs of those in business - rather, the perception that
the preference norm may exist could be sufficient to make it of concern. The second
precondition, referred to as "compliance instrumentality," suggests that managers anticipate
consequences to their careers if they do not adhere to perceived business norms. Previous
research has demonstrated both the actual existence of the perceived business norms and that
they take priority over employees' own beliefs (Gealy, Larwood, & Elliot, 1979; Larwood &
Gattiker, 1985).

There is an alternative theoretical perspective that would not accept the arguments advanced by
feminist theory. The foundation for most of this research is the rational economic model (Ferber
& Nelson, 1993). This theory argues that individuals make rational economic choices and seek to
maximize economic benefit to themselves or the firm. Most of these models assume that
customers are economically rational and will make their choices based on the benefits gained
from the transaction, and not the gender of the service provider. Prior research on whether gender
as an impact on the financial performance of professional service providers has not provided
clear insights on whether feminist theory or the rational economic model is more valid. Some
researchers find that women achieve lower financial performance than men (Hisrich & Brush,
1984; Loscocco, Robinson, Hall, & Allen, 1991; Lustgarten, 1995; Chaganti & Prasuraman,
1997; Fasci & Valdez, 1998), while others argue that there is no performance difference between
male & female owned enterprises (Fischer, Reuber & Dyke, 1993; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991).

Davidson & Cooper (1983) found that managerial women experience greater strain and feel
more isolated at work than males which in turn affect their performance. There is gender
difference in leadership because of negative perception and evaluation of women in leadership
(Stelter 2002).

Some employers discriminate against men or women out of deference to the prejudice of their
customers or workers. Until the early 1970’s for example airlines refused to hire male flight
attendants because they claimed their passengers preferred females. Then the supreme court let
stand a lower court ruling that customers discriminatory preferences do not justify gender
discrimination (Diaz v. pan American 1971), opening the occupation of flight attendant to men
(and eventually to older people). Nonetheless, many employers still defer to customers
discriminatory preferences (Trentham and Larwood 1998). A study of females security workers
found that most security firms clients don not care, but the few who expressed a preferences
wanted men (Ericksone, Albanese, and Drakulic 2000:314). Client or customer preferences can
combine gender and race/ethnicity, as was the case among employers who told a temporary
agency to send any “Maria’s” or “Kim’s”__by which they meant Latinas or Asian women
(Rogers 2000). This study of temporary agencies found a widespread desire for workers from
certain sex and racial/ethnicity groups, although clients expressed it through the use of code
words, as when they requested “articulate “or “front office” applicants by which they meant
“white”. Although some temporary agencies refused such requests, many honored even the most
egregious ones, particularly if they came from a major client.

Research Question:
What are the factors causing gender discrimination at work place?

Theoretical Framework:
There are three variables which are under study. Gender discrimination is dependent variable
and it is the variable of primary interest and changes or variations in the Gender discrimination
will be explained by two independent variables (1) Female Stereotype (2) Masculinity Ideology.
Female Stereotype and Gender discrimination have positive relationship between them.
Masculinity Ideology has Positive relationship with Gender discrimination, i.e. greater the
Masculinity ideology greater will be the Gender discrimination and vice versa.
 Review of past researches shows that if there is Female stereotyping then males and females
will not get equal rights and in this way gender discrimination at workplace will be enhanced.
That’s why there is a positive relationship between them.

Past researches also show that concept of Masculinity has positive relationship with gender
discrimination because social norms of our society like concept of masculinity, concentration of
power in the hands of one gender etc... causes the discrimination to increase.

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Masculinity

Ideology

Gender
Discrimination
at workplace
Female
Stereotype

Hypothesis:
 Female Stereotype and Gender discrimination have positive relationship between them.

 Concept of Masculinity has positive relationship with gender discrimination.

METHODOLOGY

Study design

In this cross-sectional co-relational field study data on two independent variables (Female
stereotype, masculinity ideology) and dependent variable (Gender Discrimination at workplace)
were collected from both males and females working in the Quaid I Azam University, Islamabad.

Population and Sample

Population for the study comprised men and women working as teachers or employees in Quaid
I Azam University, Islamabad. Convenient sampling method was used to draw sample out of
population because it was deemed fit by the researchers on the basis of cost and time
considerations. Subjects were chosen in predetermined numbers. The total sample size was n=30
which comprised 14 (46.67%) males and 16 (53%) females. 35 questionnaires were given to
both gender and they all were received back within a time period of 3 days, resulting in 100%
response rate because questionnaires were personally administered and researchers clarify
research topic, doubts and assist some of the respondents in understanding some questions. The
units of analysis were individuals who responded to the survey. During data filtration patterns
were observed in 5 out of 30 questionnaires of which 2 were filled by males and 3 by females,
such questionnaires were set aside and remaining 30 were used for analysis.

Variables and Measures

Questionnaires include two demographic variables (gender & Age), they were tapped by direct
single questions.

Instruments:

Gender Discrimination At workplace: Adaptive version of Staff Gender Equality (SGE)

questionnaire was used for measuring the Discrimination faced by the staff members. It
contained 11 statements measuring it. (e.g. your organization has gender inclusive culture).
Each item was cast on a 5- point Likert scale. The higher the score, the lower will be the gender
discrimination faced by the employee and vice versa. Reliability of these items checked via
SPSS SOFTWARE gave alpha=.916

Concept of Feminity: Attitudes towards Women Scale (ATW) (Spence, Helm

rich & Stapp, 1978) – Short version, which contained 25 statements to
measure. For example under modern economic conditions with women being
active outside the home, men should share in household tasks such as
washing dishes and doing the laundry Etc. Reliability of these items checked via
SPSS SOFTWARE gave alpha= .656

Masculinity Ideology: Masculinity ideology Scale ( ) purchased from NIP

has been used for measuring it which contained 44 statements e.g. a man
should take risk in harmful conditions. Reliability of these items checked via SPSS
SOFTWARE gave alpha= .885

Data collection method

Data was collected through personally administered questionnaires because the survey was
confined to local area i.e. QAU. Moreover, this method was deemed fit in Pakistan as compared
to mailed and electronic questionnaires. Method of personally administered questionnaires was
adopted to introduce research topic, clarify doubts of respondents and collect all the completed
responses within a short span of time. All questionnaires were received back within 3 days.

Results:
In order to test the formulated hypotheses, statistical analysis of the responses of the
questionnaires was done.

The reliability of the three scales is given below:

Reliability of Gender discrimination at workplace scale

Table 1
Alpha Reliability Coefficient of SGE for the Main Study (N=30)

Scale No. of items Alpha coefficient

SGE 11 .916

Table 1 shows the alpha reliability (r=0.916) for the SGE scale. The results in table 1
show that scale has satisfactory reliability.

Reliability of Female Stereotype (ATW) scale

Table 2
Alpha Reliability Coefficient of for the Main Study (N=30)
 Scale No. of items Alpha coefficient

ATW 25 .656

Table 2 shows the alpha reliability (r=0.656) for the ATW scale. The results in table 2
show that scale has satisfactory reliability.

Reliability of masculinity ideology (MI) scale

Table 3
Alpha Reliability Coefficient of MI for the Main Study (N=30)

Scale No. of items Alpha coefficient

MI 43 .885

Table 3 shows the alpha reliability (r=0.885) for the MI scale. The results in table 3 show
that scale has satisfactory reliability.

Frequencies:

Statistics:
 Gender discrimination Feminity Masculinity
gender at workplace stereotype ideology
N Valid 35 30 30 30
Missing 0 5 5 5

Gender:

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 5 14.3 14.3 14.3
male 14 40.0 40.0 54.3
female 16 45.7 45.7 100.0
Total 35 100.0 100.0

Gender discrimination at workplace:

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 13.00 1 2.9 3.3 3.3
15.00 7 20.0 23.3 26.7
21.00 2 5.7 6.7 33.3
28.00 5 14.3 16.7 50.0
30.00 1 2.9 3.3 53.3
35.00 1 2.9 3.3 56.7
39.00 5 14.3 16.7 73.3
43.00 4 11.4 13.3 86.7
47.00 1 2.9 3.3 90.0
48.00 3 8.6 10.0 100.0
Total 30 85.7 100.0
Missing System 5 14.3
Total 35 100.0

Feminity stereotype:

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 55.00 3 8.6 10.0 10.0
57.00 3 8.6 10.0 20.0
61.00 5 14.3 16.7 36.7
63.00 1 2.9 3.3 40.0
65.00 2 5.7 6.7 46.7
67.00 4 11.4 13.3 60.0
68.00 1 2.9 3.3 63.3
72.00 1 2.9 3.3 66.7
76.00 6 17.1 20.0 86.7
77.00 4 11.4 13.3 100.0
Total 30 85.7 100.0
Missing System 5 14.3
Total 35 100.0

Masculinity ideology:

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 119.00 3 8.6 10.0 10.0
126.00 1 2.9 3.3 13.3
130.00 1 2.9 3.3 16.7
159.00 4 11.4 13.3 30.0
160.00 1 2.9 3.3 33.3
167.00 4 11.4 13.3 46.7
183.00 5 14.3 16.7 63.3
186.00 1 2.9 3.3 66.7
208.00 3 8.6 10.0 76.7
222.00 4 11.4 13.3 90.0
225.00 1 2.9 3.3 93.3
262.00 2 5.7 6.7 100.0
Total 30 85.7 100.0
Missing System 5 14.3
Total 35 100.0

Descriptive Statistics:
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Gender discrimination at
workplace 30 13.00 48.00 30.7667 12.31115
Feminity stereotype 30 55.00 77.00 66.8667 7.98159
Masculinity ideology 30 119.00 262.00 181.3000 39.09771
Valid N (list wise) 30
Interpretation: After evaluation from SPSS software we conclude that Gender Discrimination
at workplace and Feminity ideology has positive relationship between them so our hypothesis is
accepted but its value i.e. 0.111 no doubt showing positive relationship but it is not much strong
So, we can say that there still remains other factors which are causing gender discrimination. The
same is the case with masculinity ideology and gender discrimination relationship but it is
stronger as compared to feminity ideology.

Regression:
 Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .359(a) .129 .064 11.90803

Predictors: (Constant), Masculinity ideology, Feminity stereotype

Discussion:
Conclusion:
This study was aimed at finding the factors creating gender discrimination at workplace. We
identified two variables feminity and masculinity ideology for our study. After this research
work and evaluations we have come to this conclusion that both feminity and masculinity
ideology have positive relationship with gender discrimination i.e. causing gender discrimination
to increase but his relationship is not that much stronger. So there will be other factors which are
highly correlated with it.

Recommendations:
If you find you're being discriminated against because of your gender, there are steps you can
take to remedy the problem.
Confronting Sex Discrimination on the Job

1. Identify the problem: Determine exactly how you're being discriminated against, and make
sure you have all the facts to show it by keeping a log of each occurrence and written documents
or voicemails that can be used as evidence.

2. Get a Second Opinion: Find another woman in your work environment that you can confide in
and get her input. It's possible that there could be other reasons besides your sex for the
discrimination you believe is occurring.

3. Confront the offender: Talk to the person you have a problem with. Calmly state your case and
ask/demand that the discrimination end. This works best if a co-worker is doing the
discriminating or an immediate supervisor. When discriminating against women seems to be a
part of the company's culture you have a bigger problem on your hands.

4. File a complaint with the company: If the problem isn't resolved or it's clear that sex
discrimination is a problem throughout the company, you should file a formal complaint with the
company and talk to the owner or manager about the problems you see. Remember that they
have a legal responsibility to end the existing sex discrimination.

5. File a complaint with outside agencies: If the problem isn't resolved or the situation worsens,
report the business and file a complaint with the EEOC.

Also there is need for equality based rules and policies in the organization from recruitment to
fire off, from pay to job assignment in all areas there is need for equality in order to avoid these
discriminations.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The generalizability of the results of this study is low since a non-probability sampling technique
was used due to lack of time and resources. The sample size is also very small (n=30) which is
not suitable for such kind of research.

For future research, work which look more directly at these issues taking a larger sample size
will be encouraged. Also there are many other factors which are causing gender discrimination
like concentration of power in the hands of one gender, men dominating society etc..there is need
to research on these variables in future.

REFERENCES

Abu-Ghaida, D., S. Klasen. "The Costs of Missing the Millennium Development Goal on Gender
Equity." World Development,
2004, 32 (7), 1075-1107.
Agarwal, B. A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. South Asian Studies.
Cambridge; New York and
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Alderman, H., E. M. King. "Gender Differences in Parental Investment in Education." Structural
Change and Economic Dynamics,
1998, 9 (4), 453-468.
Anderson, S. "Why Dowry Payments Declined with Modernization in Europe but Are Rising in
India." Journal of Political
Economy, 2003, 111 (2), 269-310.
Arabsheibani, G. R., F. G. Carneiro, and A. Henley. "Gender Wage Differentials in Brazil: Trends
over a Turbulent Era", 2003,The
World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper Series: 3148.
Azmat, G., M. Guell, and A. Manning. "Gender Gaps in Unemployment Rates in OECD
Countries", 2004,C.E.P.R. Discussion
Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers: 4307.
Badgett, M. V. L., N. Folbre. "Job Gendering: Occupational Choice and the Marriage Market."
Industrial Relations, 2003, 42 (2),
270-298.
Becker, G. S. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
Berik, G., Y. v. d. M. Rodgers, J. E. J. Zveglich. "International Trade and Gender Wage
Discrimination: Evidence from East Asia."
Review of Development Economics, 2004, 8 (2), 237-254.
Black, S. E., E. Brainerd. "Importing Equality? The Impact of Globalization on Gender
Discrimination." Industrial and Labor
Relations Review, 2004, 57 (4), 540-559.
Blau, F. D., L. M. Kahn. "Gender Differences in Pay." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2000,
14 (4), 75-99.

ALBRECHT, J. W. and VORMAN, S. B. (1992). Dual labor markets, efficiency wages, and
search.
Journal of Labor Markets, 10, 438–61.
ANDERSON, K. H., BURTON, J. S. and SLOAN, F. A. (1987). Labor market segmentation: a
cluster of analysis of job groupings and barriers to entry. Southern Economic Journal, 53,
3, 571–90.
ARAI, K. (1997). Cooperation, job security, and wages in a dual labor market equilibrium.
Journal of Social Economics, 26, 1, 39–57.
BERGER, S. and PIORE, M. (1980). Dualism and Discontinuity in Industrial Societies. New
York:
Cambridge University Press.
BLACKABY, D., CLARK, K. and LESLIE, D. (1995). Dual labor markets and the potential
earnings of the unemployed. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 42, 1, 37–52.
BOSTON, T. (1990). Segmented labor markets: new evidence from a study of four race-gender
groups. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44, 1, 99–115.
BOWLES, S., GINTIS, H. and OSBORNE, M. (2001). Incentive – enhancing preferences:
personality, behavior, and earnings. American Economic Review, 91, 2, 155–8.

Gus Okanlawon (1994).Women as Strategic Decision Makers: A Reflection on

Organizational Barriers. Women in Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 25-32

Fletcher, J. 1998. Relational practice: A feminist Reconstruction of work. Journal of

Management Inquiry, 7(2): 163-186.

Buttner, E. H. 2001. Examining female entrepreneurs’ management style: An application of a

relational frame, Journal of Business Ethics, 29: 253-269.

Dunson, Bruce H. and W. Robert Reed. 1991. “Age Discrimination in Consumer Finance
Markets.” Southern Economic Journal. 58(1):225-239.

Myers, S. 1982. “Age Discrimination in Credit Markets.” Working Paper. Bureau of

Economics, Federal Trade Commission. Washington DC.

Peterson, Richard L. 1981. “An Investigation of Sex Discrimination in

Commercial Banks’ Direct Consumer Lending.” Bell Journal of Economics.
Autumn. 547-61.

Eitzen, D. Stanley and Maxine Baca-Zinn

2000 Social Problems. (8th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

2003 Social Problems. (9th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

2006 Social Problems. (10th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kendall, Diana

1998 Social Problems in a Diverse Society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon