Women in the workforce

Attendees at a computer business networking event for potential entrepreneurs, United States

A woman press photographer covers a music fest, Poland, 2008

Women and men often participate in economic sectors in sharply different proportions, a result of gender clustering in occupations. Reasons for this may include a traditional association of certain types of work with a particular gender. There is a wide range of other possible economic, social and cultural variables that impact the gender distribution in different occupations, including within a region or country. An averaging of statistics gathered by the United Nations for 2004 through 2007 reflects these differences (totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding):

Sectoral distribution of employed persons, by sector and sex (2004 through 2007)[19]

More detailed statistics show large differences even within these regions. For example, 11% of employed women in East Asia are employed in agriculture, a number that rises to 55% in South Asia; 70% of women in Southern Africa are employed in the service sector, while in Eastern, Middle, and Western Africa this number is 26%.[19]

According to the International Labour Organization, women's involvement in the labor force declines by 16.5% in developing nations as a result of unsafe public transportation.[20][21]

Choice of occupation is considered to be one of the key factors contributing to the male-female wage differential. In other words, careers with a majority of female employees tend to pay less than careers that employ a majority of males. This is different from direct wage discrimination within occupations, as males in the female-dominated professions will also make lower than average wages and the women in the ]r for the wage differential to disappear. In 1960, the similarity index for the United State Women's Trade Union League (WTUL) is established to advocate for improved wages and working conditions for women. In 1920 The Women's Bureau of the Department of Labor was formed to create equal rights and a safe workplace for women.[22] In 1956 a group called Financial Women's Association (FWA), was formed. It is an organisation with special emphasis on the role and development of women, to attain greater recognition for women's achievements in business, and to encourage women to seek career opportunities in finance and business.[23] In 1966 the National Organization for Women (NOW) was founded by a group of feminists including Betty Friedan. The largest women's rights group in the U.S., NOW seeks to end sexual discrimination, especially in the workplace, by means of legislative lobbying, litigation, and public demonstrations. NOW has 500,000 contributing members and 550 chapters in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[24] Founded in 1972, the National Association of Female Executives (NAFE) provides education, networking and public advocacy to empower its members to achieve career success and financial security. Members are women executives, business owners, entrepreneurs and others who are committed to NAFE's mission: the advancement of women in the workplace.[23] Many of these organizations led to legal action and protecting women's rights as workers and empowered women in the workplace.

Maasai women at USAID literacy event

A number of occupations became "professionalized" through the 19th and 20th centuries, gaining regulatory bodies, and passing laws or regulations requiring particular higher educational requirements. As women's access to higher education was often limited, this effectively restricted women's participation in these professionalizing occupations. For instance, women were completely forbidden access to Cambridge University until 1868, and were encumbered with a variety of restrictions until 1987 when the university adopted an equal opportunity policy.[37] Numerous other institutions in the United States and Western Europe began opening their doors to women over the same period of time, but access to higher education remains a significant barrier to women's full participation in the workforce in developing countries. Even where access to higher education is formally available, women's access to the full range of occupational choices is significantly limited where access to primary education is limited through social custom.[38]

In low- and middle-income countries, vocational and business training program interventions are carried out with the aim of increasing employment, self-employment and income. A systematic review on vocational and business training for women in these regions summarized the evidence from thirty-five studies regarding the impacts of such training programs. The authors found that these types of programs have small positive effects on employment and income with variability across studies. They found that the effects of training may increase with a stronger gender focus of the program.[39]

According to FAO, in Africa, without adequate training and education in business, entrepreneurial skills, and awareness of trade issues and regulations and fluency in languages of trading partners, women will struggle to gain access to formalized economies and larger scale businesses.[40] Low literacy levels is often what keeps women limited to informal economic activity.[40]

Governor of Bahia, Brazil, attending the first state women's business conference

Women operating a cabinet manufacturing business, India

Women's access to occupations requiring capital outlays is also hindered by their unequal access (statistically) to capital; this affects occupations such as entrepreneur and small business owner, farm ownership, and investor.[41] Numerous microloan programs attempt to redress this imbalance, targeting women for loans or grants to establish start-up businesses or farms, having determined that aid targeted to women can disproportionately benefit a nation's economy.[42] While research has shown that women cultivate more than half the world's food—in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean, women are responsible for up to 80% of food production—most such work is family subsistence labor, and often the family property is legally owned by the men in the family.[42]

In Africa, women have limited access to financial services and formalized assets such as titles and deeds; this results in low levels of investment in productive capacity, hampering the growth of women-led micro, small, or medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs).[40] Alleviating financial collateral constraints can allow more women producers and traders to participate in formal markets and expand their businesses.[40] According to a study conducted on women and informal cross-border trade (ICBT) in Southern Africa, women are consistently found to rely on their own personal savings and women "savings clubs" (technically, rotating savings and credit associations) to source capital for trade as opposed to commercial banks and government programmes.[43][40]

Unemployment rate in women in 2017[44]

The idea that men and women are naturally suited for different occupations is known as horizontal segregation.[45]

Statistical discrimination in the workplace is unintentional discrimination based on the presumed probability that a worker will or will not remain with the company for a long period of time. Specific to women, employers believe that women are more likely to drop out of the labor force to have kids, or work part-time while raising kids; this tends to hurt chances for job advancement. Women are passed up for promotions because of the possibility that they may leave, and are in some cases placed in positions with little opportunity for upward mobility due to these stereotypes.[46]

Women typically earn less money on average than men (not accounting other variables), despite establishing equal pay laws.[38][47] According to a 2022 survey of 2499 adults on the state of women in the workplace, only 12% of women receive perks from their employer that could help with their finances such as student loan repayment assistance or financial counseling. Women account for two-thirds of America's trillion-dollar student debt, holding an average of $31,000 before they start their careers. [48]

According to the textbook Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology, women are at a higher risk of financial disadvantage in modern-day society than men. Statistical findings suggest that women are under paid for similar jobs men complete despite having the same qualifications. The statistical data collected by the U.S. Department of Labor suggests that women are discriminated against in the workforce based on gender. The textbook reads, "Women's wages are also more volatile than men's wages, and women face a much higher risk of seeing large drops in income than do men" (Kennedy 2008). Anderson clearly demonstrates a significant difference between men and women in the workforce in regards to pay. Women are left more exposed to financial devastation and unemployment. The textbook also mentions that women are often given public positions versus private or leadership positions despite having appropriate work experience, higher education, or necessary skills to qualify. According to the Joint Economic Committee, "Among women heading families, the unemployment rate has grown and is higher than the national unemployment rate and twice as high as that for either married men or married women" (Joint Economic Committee, 2009). In other words, unmarried women who are the head of household are more vulnerable to financial disadvantage than married men or women. The unemployment rate of women compared to men suggests that single women are discriminated against based on gender. Anderson writes, "All women are disproportionately at risk in the current foreclosure crisis, since women are 32% more likely than men to have subprime mortgages (One-third of women, compared to one-fourth of men, have subprime mortgages; and, the disparity between women and men increases in higher income brackets)" (Anderson 265). The statistical information illustrates the dramatic difference between men and women in regards to finances. It can be inferred that men are favored in the workforce over women. Women are discriminated against based on their gender and thus are more likely to struggle financially because of discriminatory employers.

Sex differentiation focuses on separating men and women in the workplace from different settings and duties, and it leads to the idea of sex segregation.[49] Explanations for sex segregation fall under two main categories of cultural beliefs and men's efforts to preserve their advantages in the workplace. Cultural beliefs about gender and work emphasize sex stereotypes. Certain cultures value these sex stereotypes, assumptions about individuals based on sex, which leads to stereotype thinking about the genders. Jobs become labeled male or female when these sex stereotypes relate to the sexes. Cultural beliefs for sexes lays out the inequality at work women face. In Western and Eastern cultures, men are believed to be superior to women, leading to sex inequality in job duties, authority, and pay. Women are seen as requiring protection and care, and it takes away their opportunities at many jobs.[49]

Another explanation of sex inequality is that the dominant group will preserve their position, such as men's efforts to preserve their advantages in the workplace. If women are capable of taking on the duties of male dominated jobs, especially "macho" jobs, then men's masculinity will no longer be a requirement. Women gaining equality in the workforce threatens undermining men's privileges in any other realm they wish, such as authority, family, or political life.[50] Sometimes the solution men choose is to try to drive the women out of the job.[49]

Through a process known as "employee clustering", employees tend to be grouped throughout the workplace both spatially and socially with those of a similar status job. Women are no exception and tend to be grouped with other women making comparable amounts of money. They compare wages with the women around them and believe their salaries are fair because they are average. Some women are content with their lack of wage equality with men in the same positions because they are unaware of just how vast the inequality is.

Furthermore, women as a whole tend to be less assertive and confrontational. One of the factors contributing to the higher proportion of raises going to men is the simple fact that men tend to ask for raises more often than women, and are more aggressive when doing so.[51] Women, and men, are socialized at young ages into these roles. School-age boys and girls have been noted as enacting the same aggressive and passive characteristics, respectively, in educational settings that we see in adults in the workplace. Boys are more likely to be pushed competitively in school, and sports, to be dominant. The idea that "winning is everything" is not emphasized to the same extent for girls and therefore they are less likely to seek recognition for their work.[52]

An additional issue that contributes to income inequality by gender is that women are much more likely than men to take "breaks" in their careers to have children, often remaining out of the workforce for extended periods of time, while men in the same role or occupation (or other women who do not leave the workforce) most likely are continuing to earn promotions and/or merit-based salary increases. When a woman in this scenario re-enters the workforce, she may be offered a smaller salary or a lower position than she might have merited had she remained in the workforce alongside her colleagues (both male and female) who have not interrupted their careers.

An Egyptian Muslim woman who works in a men's hairdresser. She described to be "confront the customs and traditions of her society and conquer their criticism."

A form of discrimination in the workplace is sex segregation. Men and women are separated to do different tasks, same tasks in different settings or at different times. Historically, most men did agricultural work while women managed the household, however within time women eased their way into employment, but the segregation they experience remained. Males identify with the masculine identity and their authority are considered appropriate. Male dominated industries do not leave a chance for women to prove possible history in the role, leaving the job identified as a male way of working.[53] Males masculine behavior undermine females in the workforce, and they are forced to endure it. Women's segregation in the workforce takes form of normative masculine cultural dominance. Men put on the image of macho physical toughness, limiting women in their careers. Women find themselves experiencing the concept of "doing gender", especially in a traditional masculine occupation. Women's standpoint of men's behavior sheds light on mobilizing masculinity. With the feminist standpoint view of gender in the workplace, men's gender is an advantage, whereas women's is a handicap.[54][55] However, sex segregation can happen by women's and men's own choices of different occupations.[49]

Descriptive gender stereotypes emphasize the characteristics a woman possesses. The prescriptive component focuses on the beliefs about characteristics a woman should possess. The descriptive component is expected to lead to workplace discrimination, while the prescriptive component is expected to lead to discrimination against women.[56] If women violate these prescriptions, they are more susceptible to disparate treatment. In other words, if a woman is able to perform a job that generally requires stereotypical male masculinity they receive the discrimination that punishes women for violating the prescriptions of feminine characteristics.

The addition of women into the workforce was one of the key factors that has increased social mobility over the last 50 years, although this has stalled in recent decades for both genders. Female children of the middle and upper classes had increased access to higher education, and thanks to job equality, were able to attain higher-paying and higher-prestige jobs than ever before. Due to the dramatic increase in availability of birth control, these high status women were able to delay marriage and child-bearing until they had completed their education and advanced their careers to their desired positions. In 2001, the survey on sexual harassment at workplace conducted by women's non-profit organisation Sakshi among 2,410 respondents in government and non-government sectors, in five states recorded 53 percent saying that both sexes don't get equal opportunities, 50 percent of women are treated unfairly by employers and co-workers, 59 per cent have heard sexist remarks or jokes, and 32 percent have been exposed to pornography or literature degrading women.

In comparison with other sectors, IT organisations may be offering equal salaries to women, and the density of women in technology companies may be relatively high, but this does not necessarily ensure a level playing field. For example, Microsoft (US) was sued because of the conduct of one of its supervisors over e-mail. The supervisor allegedly made sexually offensive comments via e-mail, such as referring to himself as "president of the amateur gynecology club". He also allegedly referred to the plaintiff as the "Spandex Queen". E-harassment is not the sole form of harassment. In 1999, Juno Online faced two separate suits from former employees who alleged that they were told that they would be fired if they broke off their ongoing relationships with senior executives. Pseudo Programs, a Manhattan-based Internet TV network, was sued in January 2000 after male employees referred to female employees as "bimbos" and forced them to look at sexually explicit material on the Internet. In India, HR managers admit that women are discriminated against for senior Board positions and pregnant women are rarely given jobs but only in private. In addition to this, it has been suggested that there are fewer women in the IT sector due to existing stereotypes that depict the sector as male-orientated. In a recent book, Own It: Leadership Lessons From Women Who Do, author Aparna Jain interviewed 200 women in senior management and leadership positions in India about the problems they face at the workplace and noted that 86% of the women she spoke to experienced harassment in one form or the other.[57] Among the issues she notes are bias, bullying, sexual harassment and the impact of motherhood on women's career.[58] Recently a sexual harassment suit against a senior member shocked the Indian IT sector, as was the sexual harassment case against the Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces' (Taj Group) CEO, Rakesh Sarna .[59] A startling example of institutional mechanisms that allow for an unfettered environment for sexual harassment to fester is the Rajendra K. Pachauri scandal at The Energy and Resources Institute in India.[60] Improvements in the education system could be the key to encouraging women to take up roles in this sector.

Recognizing the invisible nature of power structures that marginalize women at the workplace, the Supreme Court in the landmark case Vaishaka versus High Court of Rajasthan (1997) identified sexual harassment as violative of the women's right to equality in the workplace and enlarged the ambit of its definition. The judgment equates a hostile work environment on the same plane as a direct request for sexual favors. To quote: "Sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as: physical contact and advances; a demand or request for sexual favours; sexually coloured remarks; showing pornography; any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature". The judgement mandates appropriate work conditions should be provided for work, leisure, health, and hygiene to further ensure that there is no hostile environment towards women at the workplace and no woman employee should have reasonable grounds to believe that she is disadvantaged in connection with her employment.

This law thus squarely shifts the onus onto the employer to ensure employee safety but most mid-sized Indian service technology companies are yet to enact sexual harassment policies. Admits K Chandan, an advocate from Chandan Associates, "I have a few IT clients. When I point to the need for a sexual harassment policy, most tend to overlook or ignore it. It's not high on the agenda." An HR Manager of India's premier technology companies rues: "I am going to use the recent case to push the policy through. Earlier the draft proposal was rejected by the company." Yet another HR manager from a flagship company of India's leading business house, oblivious to the irony of her statement, admitted that the company had a grievance redressal mechanism but no sexual harassment policy in place. The lax attitudes transgress the Supreme Court judgment wherein the Court not only defined sexual harassment, but also laid down a code of conduct for workplaces to prevent and punish it, "Employers or other responsible authorities in public or private sectors must comply with the following guidelines: Express prohibition of sexual harassment should be notified and circulated; private employers should include prohibition of sexual harassment in the standing orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946." As for the complaint procedure, not less than half of its members should be women. The complaint committee should include an NGO or other organization that is familiar with the issue of sexual harassment. When the offense amounts to misconduct under service rules, appropriate disciplinary action should be initiated. When such conduct amounts to an offense under the Indian Penal Code, the employer shall initiate action by making a complaint with the appropriate authority. However, the survey by Sakshi revealed 58 per cent of women were not aware of the Supreme Court guidelines on the subject. A random survey by AssureConsulting.com among hundred employees working in the IT industry revealed startling results: Less than 10 per cent were familiar with the law or the company's sexual harassment policy. Surprisingly, certain HR managers were also ignorant of the Supreme Court guidelines or the Draft Bill by the National Commission of Women against sexual harassment at the workplace.

Not surprisingly many cases go unreported. However, given the complexities involved, company policy is the first step and cannot wish away the problem. Says Savita HR Manager at Icelerate Technologies, "We have a sexual harassment policy that is circulated among employees. Also the company will not tolerate any case that comes to its notice. But the man at home is no different from the person at the office", thus implying the social mindset that discriminates against women is responsible for the problem. Considering sexual censorship and conservative social attitudes emphasizing "woman's purity", the victim dare not draw attention for fear of being branded a woman with "loose morals". Women would rather brush away the problem or leave jobs quietly rather than speak up, even in organizations that have a zero tolerance policy. Says Chandan, "I do not have exact statistics but from my experience as an advocate one in 1,500 cases are reported." The problem cannot be resolved till more women speak up but the social set-up browbeats women into silence. The social stigma against the victim and the prolonged litigation process for justice thwarts most women from raising their voice. Purports K Chandan "It may take between three and five years to settle a case, and in a situation where the harassment is covert, evidence is hard to gather and there is no guarantee that the ruling would be in favour of the victim. In one of the rare cases I handled a Country Manager was accused and the plaintiff opted for an out of court settlement."

Women in lower wage jobs are more likely to be subject to wage discrimination. They are more likely to bring home far less than their male counterparts with equal job status, and get far less help with housework from their husbands than the high-earning women. Women with low educational attainment entering the workforce in mass quantity lowered earnings for some men, as the women brought about a lot more job competition. The lowered relative earnings of the men and increase in birth control made marriage prospects harder for lower income women.[61]

For the first time in the history of this country, there were distinctive socioeconomic stratification among women as there has been among men for centuries. This deepened the inequality between the upper/middle and lower/working classes. Prior to the feminist movement, the socioeconomic status of a family was based almost solely on the husband/father's occupation. Women who were now attaining high status jobs were attractive partners to men with high status jobs, so the high earners married the high earners and the low earners married the low earners. In other words, the rich got richer and the poor stayed the same, and have had increased difficulty competing in the economy.[45]

Women have for a long time been unable to actively participate in the labor force. One main reason is the lack of freedom as to when to have kids. With the advancement of the contraceptive pill in the US and nonstop women activists like Katherine Mccormick,[64] women gained access to the pill in the 1960s, and with time wild access has been made available for women all over the world. Now women have the option to control when they want to have kids and have more power over their life plans. This might seem like women were the most affected by this change. However, the pill also changed the game for men. In his article about the pill, Rob Norton[65] mentioned the impact it had on couples as a whole. We have two effects related to the universality of the pill. The Direct effect is how it affected the educational and career path of most women. For instance, women were able to postpone when they wanted to have kids and focus on their education and career advancement. We also have the indirect effect which shows how it impacted both men and women as to when they wanted to get married or start a family. Both partners now had the ability to focus on theirs careers and personal advancement without being worried of not finding any eligible bachelor later on.

Since the 2000s, there has been a decrease in the female labor participation rate in the US partly because the lack of family-friendly workplace. For example, The U.S does not have any paid maternity leave although other countries over the world have been making tremendous progress in this area. In Ireland, paid maternity leave is 26 weeks, and in China, it is 14 weeks. Women in the US are more likely to access higher positions in companies than in those other countries because they spend less time on maternity leave, which offers them a competitive advantage. However,the lack of family-friendly policiesgreatly harms the mother's mental health and sometimes the baby, which explains the decrease in female labor participation. Lastly, men also get affected by this lack of family-friendly policies.[66]

Increased participation of women in the workforce is associated with decreased fertility. A cross-country panel study found this fertility factor effect to be strongest among women aged 20–39, but with a less strong but persistent effect among older women as well.[67] International United Nations data suggests that women who work because of economic necessity have higher fertility than those who work because they want to do so.[68]

The impact of women's employment is more negatively associated with the birth of a second child, as opposed to the first[69]

However, for countries in the OECD area, increased female labor participation has been associated with an increased fertility.[70]

Causality analyses indicate that fertility rate influences female labor participation and not as much the other way around.[71]

Regarding types of jobs, women who work in nurturing professions such as teaching and health generally have children at an earlier age.[71] It is theorized that women often self-select themselves into jobs with a favorable work–life balance in order to combine motherhood and employment.[71]

Women have worked at agricultural tasks since ancient times, and continue to do so around the world. The Industrial Revolution of the late 18th and early 19th centuries changed the nature of work in Europe and other countries of the Western world. Working for a wage, and eventually a salary, became part of urban life. Initially, women were to be found doing even the hardest physical labor, including working as "hurriers" hauling heavy coal carts through mine shafts in Great Britain, a job that also employed many children. This ended after government intervention and the passing of the Mines and Collieries Act 1842, an early attempt at regulating the workplace.

During the 19th century, an increasing number of women in Western countries took jobs in factories, such as textile mills, or on assembly lines for machinery or other goods. Women also worked as "hawkers" of produce, flowers, and other market goods, and bred small animals in the working-class areas of London. Piecework, which involved needlework (weaving, embroidery, winding wool or silk) that paid by the piece completed, was the most common employment for women in 19th century Great Britain. It was poorly paid, and involved long hours, up to 14 hours per day to earn enough wages to survive.[72] Working-class women were usually involved in some form of paid employment, as it provided some insurance against the possibility that their husband might become too ill or injured to support the family. During the era before workers' compensation for disability or illness, the loss of a husband's wages could result in the entire family being sent to a Victorian workhouse to pay debts.

Inequality in wages was to be expected for women. In 1906, the government found that the average weekly factory wage for a woman ranged from 11s 3d to 18s 8d, whereas a man's average weekly wage was around 25s 9d. Employers stated they preferred to hire women, because they could be "more easily induced to undergo severe bodily fatigue than men".[73] Childminding was another necessary expense for many women working in factories. Pregnant women worked up until the day they gave birth and returned to work as soon as they were physically able. In 1891, a law was passed requiring women to take four weeks away from factory work after giving birth, but many women could not afford this unpaid leave, and the law was unenforceable.[74]

The 1870 US Census was the first United States Census to count "females engaged in each occupation" and provides an intriguing snapshot of women's history. It reveals that, contrary to popular belief, not all American women of the 19th century were either idle in their middle-class homes or working in sweatshops. Women were 15% of the total work force (1.8 million out of 12.5). They made up one-third of factory "operatives", but teaching and the occupations of dressmaking, millinery, and tailoring played a larger role. Two-thirds of teachers were women. Women could also be found in such unexpected places as iron and steel works (495), mines (46), sawmills (35), oil wells and refineries (40), gas works (4), and charcoal kilns (5) and held such surprising jobs as ship rigger (16), teamster (196), turpentine laborer (185), brass founder/worker (102), shingle and lathe maker (84), stock-herder (45), gun and locksmith (33), and hunter and trapper (2). Formal classification may grossly under-estimate female labor force participation via self-employment or family employment with studies suggesting participation may have always been high.[75]

In the United States, the "Rosie the Riveter" image, as it has become known, is an iconic representation of the US government's efforts to exhort women to work during World War II, and has been adapted numerous times to represent working women or, more broadly, women overcoming adversity and other proto-feminist messages.

In the beginning of the 20th century, women were regarded as society's guardians of morality; they were seen as possessing a finer nature than men and were expected to act as such.[76] Their role was not defined as workers or money makers. Women were expected to hold on to their innocence until the right man came along so that they can start a family and inculcate that morality they were in charge of preserving. The role of men was to support the family financially.[77] Yet at the turn of the 20th century, social attitudes towards educating young women were changing. Women in North America and Western Europe were now becoming more and more educated, in no small part because of the efforts of pioneering women to further their own education, defying opposition by male educators. By 1900, four out of five colleges accepted women and a whole coed concept was becoming more and more accepted.[78]

Working at the Woolwich Arsenal, London, United Kingdom, 1918

In the United States, World War I made space for women in the workforce, among other economical and social influences. Due to the rise in demand for production from Europe during the raging war, more women found themselves working outside the home.

In the first quarter of the century, women mostly occupied jobs in factory work or as domestic servants, but as the war came to an end they were able to move on to such jobs as: salespeople in department stores as well as clerical, secretarial and other, what were called, "lace-collar" jobs.[79] In July 1920, The New York Times ran a head line that read: "the American Woman ... has lifted her skirts far beyond any modest limitation"[76] which could apply to more than just fashion; women were now rolling up their sleeves and skirts and making their way into the workforce.

World War II created millions of jobs for women. Thousands of American women actually joined the military: 140,000 in the Women's Army Corps (United States Army) WAC; 100,000 in the Navy (WAVE); 23,000 in the Marines; 14,000 in the Navy Nurse Corps and, 13,000 in the Coast Guard. Although almost none saw combat, they replaced men in noncombat positions and got the same pay as the men would have on the same job. At the same time over 16 million men left their jobs to join the war in Europe and elsewhere, opening even more opportunities and places for women to take over in the job force.[79] Although two million women lost their jobs after the war ended, female participation in the workforce was still higher than it had ever been.[80] In post-war America, women were expected to return to private life as homemakers and child-rearers. Newspapers and magazines directed at women encouraged them to keep a tidy home while their husbands were away at work. These articles presented the home as a woman's proper domain, which she was expected to run.[81][82] Nevertheless, jobs were still available to women. However, they were mostly what are known as "pink-collar" jobs such as retail clerks and secretaries.[83] The propaganda to encourage women to return to the home is depicted in the film The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter.

Customer account operators working for a large photography firm, United States, 1945

A woman working as wait staff at a diner, United States, 1981

The increase of women in the labor force of Western countries gained momentum in the late 19th century. At this point women married early on and were defined by their marriages. If they entered the workforce, it was only out of necessity.

The first phase encompasses the time between the late 19th century to the 1930s. This era gave birth to the "independent female worker". From 1890 to 1930, women in the workforce were typically young and unmarried. They had little or no learning on the job and typically held clerical and teaching positions. Many women also worked in textile manufacturing or as domestics. Women promptly exited the work force when they were married, unless the family needed two incomes. Towards the end of the 1920s, as we enter into the second phase, married women begin to exit the work force less and less. Labor force productivity for married women 35–44 years of age increase by 15.5 percentage points from 10% to 25%. There was a greater demand for clerical positions and as the number of women graduating high school increased they began to hold more "respectable", steady jobs. This phase has been appropriately labeled as the Transition Era referring to the time period between 1930 and 1950. During this time the discriminatory institution of marriage bars, which forced women out of the work force after marriage, were eliminated, allowing more participation in the work force of single and married women. Additionally, women's labor force participation increased because there was an increase in demand for office workers and women participated in the high school movement. However, still women's work was contingent upon their husband's income. Women did not normally work to fulfill a personal need to define ones career and social worth; they worked out of necessity.

In the third phase, labeled the "roots of the revolution" encompassing the time from 1950– mid-to-late 1970s, the movement began to approach the warning signs of a revolution. Women's expectations of future employment changed. Women began to see themselves going on to college and working through their marriages and even attending graduate school. Many however still had brief and intermittent work force participation, without necessarily having expectations for a "career". To illustrate, most women were secondary earners, and worked in "pink-collar jobs" as secretaries, teachers, nurses, and librarians. The sexual harassment experienced by these pink collar workers is depicted in the film 9 to 5. Although more women attended college, it was often expected that they attended to find a spouse—the so-called "M.R.S. degree". Nevertheless, Labor force participation by women still grew significantly.

The fourth phase, known as the "Quiet Revolution", began in the late 1970s and continues on today. Beginning in the 1970s women began to flood colleges and grad schools. They began to enter profession like medicine, law, dental and business. More women were going to college and expected to be employed at the age of 35, as opposed to past generations that only worked intermittently due to marriage and childbirth. They were able to define themselves prior to a serious relationship. Research indicates that from 1965 to 2002, the increase in women's labor force participation more than offset the decline for men.[84]

The reasons for this big jump in the 1970s has been attributed by some scholars to widespread access to the birth control pill.[85] While "the pill" was medically available in the 1960s, numerous laws restricted access to it. See, e.g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (overturning a Connecticut statute barring access to contraceptives) and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) (establishing the right of unmarried people to access contraception). By the 1970s, the age of majority had been lowered from 21 to 18 in the United States, largely as a consequence of the Vietnam War; this also affected women's right to effect their own medical decisions. Since it had now become socially acceptable to postpone pregnancy even while married, women had the luxury of thinking about other things, like education and work. Also, due to electrification women's work around the house became easier leaving them with more time to be able to dedicate to school or work. Due to the multiplier effect, even if some women were not blessed with access to the pill or electrification, many followed by the example of the other women entering the work force for those reasons. The Quiet Revolution is called such because it was not a "big bang" revolution; rather, it happened and is continuing to happen gradually.[86]

A news anchor going live on TV in Poland

Below is a sample of encyclopedia articles that detail women's historical involvement in various occupations.

• Women in science
  • Women in computing
  • Women in engineering
  • Women in geology
• Women in medicine

• Arts, writing, media, sports and entertainment
  • Women artists (visual arts)
  • Writing
    • Women's writing (literary category)
    • Women in journalism
  • Film
    • Women's cinema (discusses women screenwriters & directors)
  • Sports
    • Women's professional sports
• Women in government
• Women in the military

Teaching, librarianship, and university professions

• Maenette K. P. Benham and Joanne Cooper, Let My Spirit Soar!: Narratives of Diverse Women in School Leadership (1-Off)
• Roger Blanpain and Ann Numhauser-Henning, Women in Academia and Equality Law: Aiming High, Falling Short? Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom (Bulletin of Comparative Labour Relations)
• S. A. L. Cavanagh, The Gender of Professionalism and Occupational Closure: the management of tenure-related disputes by the 'Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario' 1918–1949, Gender and Education, 15.1, March 2003, pp. 39–57. See Routledge.
• Regina Cortina and Sonsoles San Roman, Women and Teaching: Global Perspectives on the Feminization of a Profession
• Nancy Hoffman, Woman's "True" Profession, 2nd ed. (1982, 2nd ed.) ("classic history of women and the teaching profession in the United States")
• Julia Kwong, Ma Wanhua, and Wanhua Ma, Chinese Women and the Teaching Profession

Social sciences

• Kathleen Bowman and Larry Soule, New Women in Social Sciences (1980)
• Lynn McDonald, The Women Founders of the Social Sciences (1994)

Social sciences – anthropology

• Barbara A. Babcock and Nancy J. Parezo, Daughters of the Desert: Women Anthropologists and the Native American Southwest, 1880–1980 (1988)
• Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon, Women Writing Culture (1996)
• Maria G. Cattell and Marjorie M. Schweitzer, Women in Anthropology: Autobiographical Narratives and Social History (2006)
• Ute D. Gacs, Aisha Khan, Jerrie McIntyre, and Ruth Weinberg, Women Anthropologists: Selected Biographies (1989);Women Anthropologists: A Biographical Dictionary (1988)
• Nancy Parezo, Hidden Scholars: Women Anthropologists and the Native American (1993)

Social sciences – archaeology

• Cheryl Claassen, Women in Archaeology (1994)
• Margarita Diaz-Andreu and Marie Louise Stig Sorensen, Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology (1998;2007)
• Getzel M. Cohen and Martha Sharp Joukowsky, editors, Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists (2004)
• Nancy Marie White, Lynne P. Sullivan, and Rochelle A. Marrinan, Grit-Tempered: Early Women Archaeologists in Southeastern United States (2001)

Social sciences – history

• Eileen Boris and Nupur Chaudhuri, Voices of Women Historians: The Personal, the Political, the Professional (1999)
• Jennifer Scanlon and Shaaron Cosner, American Women Historians, 1700s–1990s: A Biographical Dictionary (1996)
• Nadia Smith, A "Manly Study"?: Irish Women Historians, 1868–1949 (2007)
• Deborah Gray White, Telling Histories: Black Women Historians in the Ivory Tower (forthcoming 2008)
• Southern Association for Women Historians

Social sciences – linguistics

• Davison, The Cornell Lectures: Women in the Linguistics Profession

"STEM" fields (science, technology, engineering, and maths)

• Violet B. Haas and Carolyn C. Perrucci, Women in Scientific and Engineering Professions (Women and Culture Series)
• Patricia Clark Kenschaft, Change Is Possible: Stories of Women and Minorities in Mathematics
• Jacquelyn A. Mattfeld and Carol E. Van Aken, Women and the Scientific Professions: The MIT Symposium on American Women in Science and Engineering (1964 symposium;1976 publication)
• Karen Mahony & Brett Van Toen, Mathematical Formalism as a Means of Occupational Closure in Computing—Why "Hard" Computing Tends to Exclude Women, Gender and Education, 2.3, 1990, pp. 319–31. See ERIC record.
• Peggy A. Pritchard, Success Strategies for Women in Science: A Portable Mentor (Continuing Professional Development Series)
• Margaret W. Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Women Scientists in America)
• Otha Richard Sullivan and Jim Haskins, Black Stars: African American Women Scientists and Inventors

Legal professions

• Joan Brockman and Dorothy E. Chunn, "'A new order of things': women's entry into the legal profession in British Columbia", The Advocate
• The Commission on Women in the Profession, Visible Invisibility: Women of Color in Law Firms
• The Commission on Women in the Profession, Sex-Based Harassment, 2nd Edition: Workplace Policies for the Legal Profession
• Hedda Garza, Barred from the Bar: A History of Women in the Legal Profession (Women Then—Women Now)
• Jean Mckenzie Leiper, Bar Codes: Women in the Legal Profession
• Sheila McIntyre and Elizabeth Sheehy, Calling for Change: Women, Law, and the Legal Profession
• Mary Jane Mossman, The First Women Lawyers: A Comparative Study of Gender, Law And the Legal Professions
• Rebecca Mae Salokar and Mary L. Volcansek, Women in Law: A Bio-Bibliographical Sourcebook
• Ulrike Schultz and Gisela Shaw, Women in the World's Legal Professions (Onati International Series in Law and Society)
• Lisa Sherman, Jill Schecter, and Deborah Turchiano, Sisters-In-Law: an Uncensored Guide for Women Practicing Law in the real world

Religious professions

• Stanley J. Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry
• Lenore Friedman, Meetings with Remarkable Women: Buddhist Teachers in America

Helping professions (social work, childcare, eldercare, etc.)

• Ski Hunter, Sandra Stone Sundel, and Martin Sundel, Women at Midlife: Life Experiences and Implications for the Helping Professions
• Linda Reeser, Linda Cherrey, and Irwin Epstein, Professionalization and Activism in Social Work (1990) (covers gender as part of history of professionalization), Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-06788-7
• Sarah Stage and Virginia B. Vincenti, editors, Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession

Architecture and design

• Designing for Diversity: Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in the Architectural Profession by Kathryn H. Anthony
• The First American Women Architects by Sarah Allaback (forthcoming 2008)

Arts and literature

• Margaret Barlow, Women Artists
• Whitney Chadwick, Women Artists and the Surrealist Movement
• Liz Rideal, Whitney Chadwick, and Frances Borzello, Mirror Mirror: Self-Portraits by Women Artists
• Jo Franceschina, Women and the Profession of Theater, 1810–1860
• National Geographic Society, Women Photographers at National Geographic
• Laura R. Prieto, At Home in the Studio: The Professionalization of Women Artists in America

Entertainment and modeling

• Ann Cvetkovich, "Fierce Pussies and Lesbian Avengers: Dyke Activism Meets Celebrity Culture" (images of female models merging infiltrating other cultures)
• Michael Gross, Model: The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women (2003) (history of female modeling);
• Ian Halperin, Shut Up and Smile: Supermodels, the Dark Side (1999)
• Nancy Hellmich, "Do thin models warp girls' body image?", USA Today, September 26, 2006
• Jennifer Melocco, "Ban on Stick-Thin Models Illegal", Daily Telegraph, February 16, 2007
• Barbara Summers, Black and Beautiful: How Women of Color Changed the Fashion Industry (racism within modeling)
• Barbara Summers, Skin Deep: Inside the World of Black Fashion Models (1999)
• Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women (1991)

Explorers, navigators, travelers, settlers

• Joanna Stratton, Pioneer Women
• David Cordingly, Seafaring Women: Adventures of Pirate Queens, Female Stowaways, and Sailors' Wives

Sports and athletics

• Karra Porter, Mad Seasons: The Story of the First Women's Professional Basketball League, 1978–1981

Business and leadership

• Roger E. Axtell, Tami Briggs, Margaret Corcoran, and Mary Beth Lamb, Do's and Taboos Around the World for Women in Business
• Douglas Branson, No Seat at the Table: How Corporate Governance and Law Keep Women Out of the Boardroom
• Lin Coughlin, Ellen Wingard, and Keith Hollihan, Enlightened Power: How Women are Transforming the Practice of Leadership
• Harvard Business School Press, editors, Harvard Business Review on Women in Business
• S. N. Kim, "Racialized gendering of the accountancy profession: toward an understanding of Chinese women's experiences in accountancy in New Zealand" in Critical Perspectives on Accounting
• Deborah Rhode, The Difference ""Difference"" Makes: Women and Leadership (2002)
• Judy B. Rosener, America's Competitive Secret: Women Managers
• Robert E. Seiler, Women in the Accounting Profession (1986)

European Union initiatives and information

• Report "Women and men in decision-making 2007 – analysis of the situation and trends"
• Database on women in decision-making
• Commission's Roadmap for Equality between women and men (2006–2010)