The Effect of Male Dominance on Women in the Workforce in ... · When the Neolithic Revolution began, introducing the domestication of crops and animals, equality between men and

Running head: MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE

The Effect of Male Dominance on Women in the Workforce in the Executive Environment

An Honors Thesis Presented to

The Distinguished Scholars Program

Houston Christian High School

Lauren A. McGrath

Scholar Class 2017

MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE 2

Abstract

In the Review of Related Literature, the Scholar researched the question: what effects does male

dominance have on the executive working woman today, specifically, the psychological and

economic effects found in creating a work/life balance for the executive woman? After studying

the rise of the patriarchy since the Neolithic Revolution, the Researcher analyzed how

stereotypes and misconceptions concerning female executives resulted from male dominance in

the workforce and its continuous effects on the female’s psyche and life. The Researcher

conducted an online survey in order to test the reality of gender stereotypes and the resulting

effects and performed a case study on the accommodations of women in multiple U.S.

companies. The Researcher concluded society’s gender stereotypes unconsciously influence

people to a high degree and companies with more accommodations for women had a high net

income and net worth. The Review of Related Literature led the Scholar to examine the

psychology behind domestic abuse, specifically focusing on verbal abuse, gas-lighting, and

reason women stay in abusive relationships, and the harmful effects produced in women. The

Researcher found many victims of psychological abuse suffer from depression, social anxiety,

and Stockholm syndrome.


According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women earn as little as 77 cents to every dollar a

man earns, and women hold 14% of seats on corporate boards across America, even though

women have a higher rate of university attendance, make up 60% of the workforce and serve in

combat roles in the U.S. military (Weigel, 2013). While omnipresent in today’s society, this

phenomenon of male dominance is not new to history. Male dominance is one of the oldest and

most steadfast components of human civilization, though it did not begin this way.

During the Paleothic age, which began around 2,500,00 B.C.E. and lasted up until 10,000

B.C.E., humans were hunter-gatherers with men and women being relatively equal. Both

worked to find food: men hunted animals, and women gathered edible plants (Duiker &

Spielvogel, 2013). When the Neolithic Revolution began, introducing the domestication of crops

and animals, equality between men and women was maintained. Women participated in

agricultural labor, and in addition, performed household tasks, such as spinning, weaving, and

making pottery (Strayer, 2010; Duiker & Spielvogel, 2013). The Neolithic Revolution also

ushered in the new age of civilized societies. As new civilizations formed, so did the patriarchal

society for multiple reasons. One reason was the shifts in agricultural production: the

development of agriculture further away from the home and the use of heavier tools which made

men more suitable for the job than women. Another reason for the patriarchal society was the

reduced time men spent in the home allowing them to fulfill specialized roles in society, such as

chiefs and religious leaders (Strayer, 2010). One last reason was warfare; with military service

restricted to men, women often became the first prisoners of war and then slaves. Warfare and

female prisoners of war led to the eventual buying and selling of women (Strayer, 2010).

By Medieval times, women were restricted by men in almost all aspects of life, including

labor, marriage, and social equality. While most women throughout the world, save for the few


elite, still worked in the fields along side males, women’s labor was not valued the same as men

(Strayer, 2010; Duiker & Spielvogel, 2013; Trueman, 2015). A woman’s labor in the fields was

her duty to her family working under a dominant male, a father, brother, husband, etc.,

contributing to the family’s source of income (Wunder, H., & Whittle, J., 2010). While some

women contributed to the family income through agricultural labor, other women contributed

through independent work, domestic servitude, or by assisting the husband’s occupation.

Women were barred from entering many trades, or skilled jobs, leaving no chance for additional

wages (Trueman, 2015). A woman was, however, expected by marital law to assist the

husband’s occupation whether it was a craft or trade. Should a married woman wish to work in

an occupation independent from the husband—for example, a domestic servant— the husband’s

permission was then needed (Wunder, H., & Whittle, J., 2010). The development of the concept

of unequal wages, however, resulted in women, especially female servants, earning less than

men. In Medieval Europe, female servants earned half of the male counterparts’ overall wages

and only about 64% of what the male counterpart received for the same agricultural task

(Wunder, H., & Whittle, J., 2010; Trueman, 2015).

History

The Research in this paper will reflect how even though technology, science, and society

progressed monumentally since Medieval times, male dominance over women, specifically in

the workforce, has remained prevalent through history.

The Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution began in Britain around the mid 18th century, spreading to the

rest of Europe and finally reaching the United States in the early 19th century lasting to early 20th

century (Strayer, 2010). The textile and garment industries grew, and became the primary


industry bringing women into the workforce to fill factory jobs children could not physically

carry out (Dublin, 2015). Factories readily employed women because women could be paid less

than men. Factories assumed a man’s earnings were a family’s primary source of income, while

a woman’s earnings were used for trivial matters, such as a marriage dowry (A History of

Women, 2007). Notwithstanding the lower wages, younger women felt a sense of freedom in

working due to the opportunity to live away from home in factory dormitories, earning money to

spend as desired (A History of Women, 2007).

In the late 19th century, as men left to fight in the U.S. Civil War, a vacancy in white

collar jobs emerged. Women moved to fill these vacancies becoming teachers and office clerks

(A History of Women, 2007). In the early 20th century, after a long period of suffrage, women

finally achieved the right to vote. Even with these positive steps forward, and with awareness of

male dominance in everyday life, only a few women sought to change the unfair disparity in the

work force (The 1960s-70s American, 2015).

The Great Depression

During the Great Depression women took on more responsibility, maintaining household

affairs while also managing the family’s money. While a man’s idealized role as the family

breadwinner was lost, a woman’s idealized role in the family as a housewife grew in importance.

The difficult task of stretching money over food, clothing, and household utilities fell to women

(Ware, 2015; Mathis, 1994). Furthermore, during the Great Depression women did not have the

same difficulty as men in finding jobs because female occupations were not impacted to the

same extent as male occupations. Consequently, many women resorted to taking jobs outside of

the home to provide a source of income as men looked for jobs with little success (A History of

Women, 2007; Mathis, 1994; Ware, 2015). The public frowned upon women entering the


workforce during the Great Depression because it was thought women were taking jobs from

more deserving men. As previously stated, however, this was a flawed perception (A History of

Women, 2007). Due to gender stereotypes in occupations, men would only take women’s jobs in

light factory work, as office clerks, sales people, and domestic workers as a last resort (Ware,

2015). Therefore, the bias against women’s presence in the workforce was irrational and only

succeeded in shaming women who were desperately trying to support families.

World War II

During World War II, American women entered the workforce in record numbers.

Women worked in factories to build much needed supplies and weapons for the armed forces,

and worked to support the Red Cross in sending medical aid. These factories offered higher

wages on average than traditional female jobs, leading many women to transfer to heavy factory

work (Partners in Winning, 2007; Mathis, 1994). At the beginning of the War, military leaders

only allowed women to serve via auxiliary forces, but by the end of the war, women were

serving in all military branches, though in limited roles and mainly for the purpose of freeing

men for combat. While women’s military roles were limited to office work and nursing, this

service raised women’s collective awareness of their competency (Mathis, 1994).

World War II transformed the idea of a working woman from unpopular to popular. This

period helped to change society’s belief of a woman working only in the home to women

working in many different areas and in many different capacities. As women were now such an

important part of the war effort, the image of the working woman went from shameful to

honorable. Propaganda portrayed the working woman as strong, capable, and beautiful with one

well-known example being Rosie the Riveter (Cushing, L., & Drescher, T., 2009). During the

war, there were many recruitment posters and pictures encouraging women to support and


contribute to the war effort (Partners in Winning, 2007). These posters portrayed women in

uniform as competent and confident, contributing a great service to society by helping to win the

war. The women on the posters were usually quite attractive, which made the job all the more

appealing to women (Partners in Winning, 2007; Mathis, 1994).

Post World War II

Once the War ended and men began to return to the workforce, the positive image of

working women began to diminish (Partners in Winning, 2007). Propaganda began depicting the

ideal woman as a housewife in a suburban home with a large, happy family. With the goal of

pushing women back to the home and kitchen. Society needed to be rebuilt, and women were

expected to return to the traditional role of housewife (Partners in Winning, 2007; Mathis, 1994).

While some women were happy to return to the home, many women wanted to continue working

after the war because they enjoyed the freedom and opportunity of earning a salary. Women,

however, were asked to leave or were fired so the returning men could take the respective

positions in the workforce (May, 2013). Now with a taste of freedom, women continued to enter

the workforce, albeit now relegated to part time or female stereotyped jobs (May, 2013). The

1950s’ image of the working woman was a housewife working part time merely to help support

the family for necessities (Mathis, 1994). Women’s salaries were considered to be secondary to

the husband’s, even though the average middle-class wife’s salary was the reason a family could

afford some of the new amenities offered in the post war period, such as new kitchen appliances,

more efficient vacuums, washing machines, and dishwashers along with color TVs (The 1960s-

70s American, 2015). Part-time careers in the home, such as selling Tupperware, allowed for a

flexible schedule, which in turn allowed women to fulfill the duties of homemaker (May, 2013).


Feminist Movement

Many women enjoyed working and contributing to the family’s income as well as the

benefits received from an additional salary. Women become increasingly aware of society’s

limited view of a woman’s work and of the injustice of unequal wages as it became evident

during World War II women could excel at the same jobs as men (Mathis, 1994). Women began

to realize the fight for the right to stay in the workforce was very important. Consequently, the

movement of women entering the workforce and demanding equal pay was born. The 1960’s

instituted a new feminist movement: women pushed for equality in the workplace, equal job

opportunities, and higher salaries (The 1960s-70s American, 2015). Feminists demanded laws

be enacted to ensure equal access to the work place and to eliminate gender discrimination (The

1960s-70s American, 2015). Women were successful in attaining equal wages with the Equal

Pay Act, which ensured men and women doing same job would be paid the same.

Notwithstanding the progress, however, women today are still paid less than men (Wood, 2010).

Though great progress has been made in women’s rights in and outside of the workforce,

male dominance in the workforce continues to affect women today. Given male dominance in

the business world and the impact this dominance has on preventing women from achieving

equal treatment, the Researcher must ask, what effects does male dominance have on the

executive working woman today, specifically, the psychological and economic effects found in

creating a work/life balance for the executive woman?

Review of Related Literature

While male dominance over women in history is evident through records and first hand

accounts, one can see the effects of male dominance today by looking at the female psyche and

women’s work-life balance. By first recognizing male dominance in the executive environment,


one can then see to what extent male dominance has on women internally and externally and the

role it has on a day to day basis.

The Glass Ceiling

It is a fact more women than men are graduating from college; in addition, more than half

of students enrolling in graduate school are female (Mantell, R., 2011). A White House report

revealed more women than men received a bachelor’s or graduate degree in 2013. Specifically

women aged 23 to 34 were more likely than men to be college graduates and 48% more likely to

have completed graduate school (“Women’s Participation”, 2014; Taylor, P., et al. 2008). If

women today are so driven in academics and make up 61% of the labor force, then one can look

at the percentage of women in executive leadership positions and realize there must be an

obstacle causing women to step back from pursuing executive positions (Mantell, R., 2011). A

Pew Center Social and Demographics Trends report found only 2% of CEO’s of Fortune 500

companies, the top 500 companies in the U.S., are female, and a Catalyst 2008 survey of Fortune

500 companies revealed only 15.3% of the Fortune 500 companies’ Board of Directors were

female in 2008 (Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. 2011; Eisenberg, T. D., 2010; Taylor, P.

et al., 2008). The same report also revealed as of 2008, women comprise roughly 19% of the

Congress, 12% of governors, and 24% of state legislators supporting the conclusion while

women are capable of reaching high executive positions, there is actually only a small

percentage of women achieving this level of success. The discrepancy must be due to obstacles

placed in women’s ways (Taylor, P. et al., 2008). This obstacle for women entering the

workforce is known as the “glass ceiling” an abstract, invisible barrier keeping women from

climbing the corporate ladder and achieving high success in the business world.


Balance

Few women are capable of balancing work and family matters perfectly as one seems to

be neglected more so than the other. The best chance at a harmonious work/life balance requires

a supportive partner for both work and home and flexibility in the work schedule. Without these

two basic ingredients, a woman’s employment opportunities and ability to achieve professional

success will be limited.

Support

There are multiple factors compelling women to leave the workforce. A study conducted

by Harris Interactive of highly qualified women with a high degree of education, found 17% of

those surveyed left the workforce because they did not find their job “satisfying or meaningful”;

32% of the women explained exit from the workforce was due to a spouse’s income being

sufficient for the household (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). Many of the women stated a

job was unsatisfying because of the lack of opportunity due to the glass ceiling. A lack of

opportunity in the workplace can lead a woman to seek recognition in the home causing the exit

from the workforce. On the other hand, some women simply feel the pull of family and decide

home responsibilities dealing with children and household tasks are more fulfilling than a career

(Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005).

Many women, however, do not have a spouse who is able to provide for all the

household’s needs. In addition, women enjoy working for various reasons, such as increased

income, opportunity for self-challenge, and overall enjoyment of the job (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce,

C. B., 2005). Given women want to be identified by not only family but also career, women feel

the strong pull of both and attempt the difficult work and life balance (Tajlili, M. H., 2014).

While perfect 50/50 balance between work and home life is nearly impossible, this does not stop


women from attempting to succeed in both. One of the main obstacles to achieving work/life

balance is a spouse who does not provide the needed support, and the negative effects caused by

this lack of support.

Even without children, for a married working woman to be successful, a partner who is

supportive both at work and home is necessary. Without a supportive partner encouraging a

woman in a career and putting forth effort to help in the home, a woman is less likely to succeed

and more likely to quit the workforce (Hewlett, S. A., 2002). A study by Hunter College

Sociology department and the Graduate Center of City University of New York, found 60% of

women who quit professional jobs to stay at home, stated a spouse was the reason for leaving. In

this study, the absence of a helpful husband at home caused the women to quit in order to

address domestic chores, such as cleaning, doing chores and paying bills (Stone P., 2007). With

the lack of this support, a woman will take on all neglected household tasks, believing the

husband’s career is more important (Stone P., 2007). A woman is more likely to forgo

promotion and take part-time jobs lower in skill in order to better balance work and home,

especially to compensate for an absent spouse (Tajlili, M. H., 2014). Husbands are likely to

receive more support from wives due to a wife’s willingness to be the primary caretaker of

children, tolerating long hours at work and home, even relocating for the man’s career

(Groysberg, B., & Abrahams, R., 2014). A woman’s need for spousal support becomes even

more critical when children come into play if both parents continue to work full-time and each

continue to pursue high ambitions and goals.

Schedules

A lack of a flexible work schedule is a difficult problem women face once they return to

work after maternity leave. Most job schedules align with a man whose wife stays home to


manage the household and take care of the children, rather than for a dual career family. So for a

working mother who cannot necessarily keep the expected hours, the job becomes difficult to

manage and retain. An inflexible work schedule reduces a woman’s availability in the home and

to her children (Fels A., 2004). For some dual career families hiring a nanny or housekeeper will

address this challenge, but for others this solution may not be affordable. Even when affordable,

lack of work flexibility may prevent a woman from meaningful participation in the children’s

lives and activities (Sandberg, 2013).

In the same survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 93% of the women who were “off-

ramped”, meaning they had exited the workforce, wished to return to work to be more

independent, to have a separate salary, and to give back to the community, etc. (Hewlett, S. A.,

& Luce, C. B., 2005). Note the fact of wanting to give back being a very feminine trait, yet it is

part of the reason why women wish to return to the workforce, giving credence to not a woman’s

femininity, but society’s idea of femininity which gets in the way. Society sees an ideal woman

as one dimensional, taking care of her family, while in real life, a woman is multi-dimensional

seeking to benefit society by contributing to the workforce, working to positively impact the

community, as well as taking care of the family (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005; Fels, A.,

2004). The women in the study by Harris Interactive explained how work gives “structure to

their lives, boosts self-esteem, and confers status…in their communities”. Reasons for wanting

to return to the workforce are multi-dimensional, linking a woman’s desire for work/life balance

to the positive effects work has on the female psyche (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005).


Psychological Effects

Society’s culturally ingrained concept of femininity hinders women’s ability to succeed

in a male-dominated workplace. In addition, the backlash from not conforming to society’s

concept of femininity results in the loss of female self-confidence and, in turn, ambition.

Societal Stereotypes

Stereotypes are created by society’s values to set suitable expectations for each gender

and are held up as an example of how one should act. When people do not follow society’s

behavior standards, society voices its disapproval (Heilman, E. M., et al. 2004). The executive

environment values and admires traditionally male traits such as assertiveness, determination,

and confidence particularly in men. While the executive environment values traditionally female

traits such as honesty, trustworthy, and great social skills, other traditionally female traits such as

being fragile, emotional, and manipulative are highly discouraged. The heavy emphasis on

excluding these seemingly detrimental female traits from the executive environment helped to

foster society’s preference for males in executive leadership positions. (Carnes, W. J., &

Radojevich-Kelley, N. 2011). When a woman achieves success in a traditionally male position

using male traits, society views this as violating gender norms, and thus a great misdeed to

society has occurred. A study by Columbia University and New York University shows how

society only criticizes and negatively portrays women who have defied gender stereotypes by

taking traditional male occupations. A woman’s success in an occupation deemed feminine by

society is perfectly acceptable. The study further demonstrated how successful women in female

or gender-neutral jobs did not provoke the same criticism as successful women in male oriented

jobs (Heilman, E. M., et al. 2004). In conclusion, traditional male traits, such assertiveness and

ambition, are valued in male leadership but not in female leadership (Heilman, E. M., et al.


2004). The negative view of females who imitate male traits, such as assertiveness and ambition,

stems from society raising both girls and boys to value submissive qualities in girls and latter in

women (Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V. 2000).

Feminine Stereotype

One of the main psychological barriers hindering women in the workforce is society’s

concept of femininity. When women go against society’s preordained concept of femininity in

order to achieve success or recognition, they hit the glass ceiling. The effects society’s standard

of femininity has on women carry over into the workplace in two ways: behaviorally and

professionally (Fels, A., 2004).

The easiest way to see how society ingrains a standard for feminine behavior is through

the Bem-Sex-Role Inventory test which is devised to psychologically analyze what gender

people identify with through the choice of adjectives society commonly deems as masculine,

feminine, or neutral (Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V., 2000). In this test, feminine adjectives

include shy, affectionate, yielding, cooperative, sensitive and demure (Tolman, D. L., & Porche,

M. V. 2000; Fels, A., 2004). Ingrained traits from childhood explain why most women are not

overly assertive and feel the need to divert attention or recognition away from themselves and

onto others, thus conforming to society’s ideal of supporting and obeying the husband (P., S., &

Thomas, I., 1995). The list of feminine traits makes sense when one considers girls are taught

from a young age to cooperate, play nice, and be supportive, subservient and dependent, relying

on emotions. This begins at a very young age through play and education (P., S., & Thomas, I.,

1995). A study recorded at Council of Weill Medical College of Cornell University, found

teachers paid more attention to boys than girls from pre-school through college. The teachers

chose boys to answer questions more often than girls and praised boys more regularly. During


the formative pre-school years, teachers gave boys more individual direction and instruction in

addition to more physical/verbal rewards (Fels, A., 2004). Factors affecting the study’s results

have to be taken into account and should not be overlooked. It is stereotypically agreed girls are

more polite and likely to follow instruction, which why teachers in this study gave more attention

to boys who, stereotypically, are more rambunctious and distracted. The teacher would expect

girls to behave, and in turn deal with boys who, the teacher would assume, needed discipline.

Another possible reason for the results is the amount of boys in a classroom setting: if there are

more boys than girls, then there is a higher probability of a boy being chosen to answer a

question. Recognition in the classroom at an early age factors into the executive working

environment because men as boys were pressed to share opinions and ideas while girls were

pressured, or rather expected, to be polite and quiet. Society’s standard of femininity negatively

impacts women in the executive environment because ingrained feminine behavior and traits can

hinder women in various ways. One such example is when a woman’s ingrained individual traits

show up in group/team settings. A study conducted by New York University and Colby College

found society taught middle-class, white girls to be well-mannered ladies, “play nice”, and be

“good little girls”. As a result, the study found the girls lose the ability to self-advocate and

communicate “their authentic thoughts and feelings” (Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V., 2000).

These traits of communication and self-advocacy are essential to career building and working

with co-workers on projects. When women enter the workforce and apply the lessons learned as

a child, such as taking turns and listening to others, those childhood lessons are for the most part

overlooked and undervalued.

One specific individual trait ingrained in young girls that does not factor well into the

executive environment is selflessness. Women are traditionally expected to give care and


affection to family members, but in today’s society, are also expected to give, or relinquish,

recognition to co-workers. Society expects women to bypass opportunities for recognition in the

workplace to pursue recognition in the home. A woman must first place everyone else’s needs

above her own, especially before her own ambitions (Fels, A., 2004). When a woman does not

relinquish recognition, but instead strives for it by asking for promotions or climbing the

corporate ladder, the woman’s femininity is heavily criticized. Due to the societal pressure to

bypass recognition in order to be more feminine, women feel guilty about asking for recognition

in the form of promotions, money, time off, etc. Ironically, a survey by Harris Interactive

recorded 51% of the women surveyed, all of whom had earned a form of undergraduate,

graduate, or professional degree, stated recognition from employers was extremely important

(Fels A., 2004; Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). Women are faced with a choice of either

femininity or ambition. While a woman receives positive social responses for following the

feminine ideal of being demure and restrained, a woman who exemplifies male traits as a means

to be taken seriously is scorned and deprived of recognition (Fels, A., 2004). When a woman

does not receive any recognition, then no point is seen in accomplishing set goals, and the goals

become moot. A lack of recognition eventually erodes a woman’s ambition.

Ambition

Ambition can be defined as seeking to master a skill in hopes of some form of social

reward, usually positive recognition or acknowledgement (Fels A., 2004). The social rewards

women receive for mastering skills are less than those received by men. Professional women

receive less pay, more stilted and less predictable praise, and fewer opportunities than a

professional man (Fels, A., 2004). By contrast, a professional male will be paid according to the

market, receive consistent praise, and new opportunities. The media’s negative image of the


business woman being stressed, on the brink of exhaustion, and irresponsible towards family

matters reinforces negative female recognition (Fels A., 2004).

In contrast to the workplace, women receive positive recognition through praise and

compliments stemming from motherhood. As a result, women are tempted and pressured into

downsizing professional ambition for family out of guilt or society’s preference for the more

traditional role (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). Society’s constant demand for a woman to

subordinate her needs and curb ambition out of a respect to others, whether it is a co-worker, a

husband, or the family, adds to the pressure of downsizing ambition (Fels, A., 2004). In a survey

conducted by Harris Interactive, 44% of the women polled left the workforce to take care of

family matters, supporting the idea women leave the workforce in pursuit of more positive social

rewards associated with family and motherhood (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005).

To master a skill, a person must have the self-confidence in his or her ability to succeed

(Fels, A., 2004). This proves to be an issue for women because women tend to have less self-

confidence and underestimate personal abilities. Women internalize feedback more than men,

directly correlating it to skill level; if the feedback is negative, a woman will believe there is a

deficiency in skills or abilities (Fels, A. 2004). Because of a doubt in abilities, women will credit

success on other factors such as luck, supporters, or hard work, often downplaying

accomplishments onto others instead. This “female modesty” stems from society’s enforcement

of gender roles; women humble themselves or refrain from bragging or showing off in order to

protect the self-esteem of others (Beyer S., 1998). When women discredit themselves due to

feelings of guilt or embarrassment, they develop a “fear of success” because to pursue ambition

is to loose one’s femininity and in turn loose social acceptance (P., S., & Thomas, I., 1995).


Ambition is the mastery of a skill in the hope of social rewards i.e. recognition, praise,

and/or respect. It is logical to claim mastery of a skill leads to success, which in turn leads to

rewards. For women, however, while mastery of a skill leads to success, success does not

necessarily lead to reward, especially if the reward is likeability posing a problem as by nature

people wish to be liked (Fels A., 2004; Heilman, E. M., et al. 2004). When a woman achieves

success in a male-oriented occupation or position and, by consequence, is not liked, the psyche

suffers. In addition to feeling hurt and insecure, women can become stressed and confused over

why ambition and success is negatively correlated with likeability for them yet positively

correlated for men. While men who achieve high levels of success are seen as competent, a good

leader, and desirable boss or co-worker, women in the same top positions are still seen as

competent in results but “bitchy”, “pushy”, and generally disliked in personality (Heilman, E.

M., et al. 2004).

A study by the Department of Psychology of New York University in collaboration with

the Department of Organization and Leadership from Columbia University supports the position

women who adopt the male trait of ambition are disliked and viewed negatively, which in turn

affects the ability to succeed. The study found better liked employees received promotions over

disliked ones even when the competency levels were in favor of the disliked employees (Carnes,

W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N., 2011; Fels, A., 2004). Another study conducted by the

Columbia Business School supports a similar position that women who adopt the male trait of

ambition are disliked. In this study, researchers presented to college students an executive who

had a high level of competency, experience, and influential connections. Half of the college

students were told the executive was a female while the other half were told the executive was a

male. The college students were then polled about their impression of the executive. The


students thought the male and female executive were equally competent, but the male executive

seemed more appealing while the female executive seemed “pushy” and not the type of person

one would hire or want work under (McGinn, K. L., and Tempest N., 2000). The negative

correlation for women between success and likeability, in addition to feminine stereotypes,

present barriers to women trying reach executive positions. The barriers increase the disparity in

amount of male executives verses female executives, which, in turn, increases the wage gap

between the genders on average.

Economics

Wage Gap

In 1963, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to make sure workers who performed equal

tasks were paid equivalent wages. In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed with the purpose of

eliminating discriminatory employment based on race, religion, sex, etc. Though the wage gap

decreased from 40% in 1970 to 19% in 2009, women were still earning on average 80% of a

man’s full wages (Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. 2011). Though laws were passed to

ensure equal pay for equal work and the wage gap improved considerably, companies today still

find loopholes to bypass equal pay in favor of men.

In the executive environment, female CEOs earn 46% less than male counterparts after

taking into account age, education, sex, etc. By doing so, a company can pay women less

without technically violating the equal pay for equal work act (Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-

Kelley, N. 2011). Even so, a 2012 report from the American Association of University Women

found even after accounting for college majors, economic sectors, work experience, GPA, age,

and marital status, 7% of the difference of wages between male and female college graduates

“was still not explained”. In addition, 10 years after graduation, the unexplained percentage


increased to 12% (American Association of University, W., 2014). One possible explanation

could be companies assigning different occupation titles to men and women who perform similar

work. Companies try to excuse this illegal act by insisting the work is different in some form

and thus of different value to the company (Tomei, M., Olney, S., & Oelz, M., 2013).

Gender stereotyping of jobs contributes to the wage gap and adds to the disparity between

the average male and female wages. For example, more women become teachers and since

teachers’ salaries are less than other graduate salaries, the overall average of female wages is

smaller by comparison (American Association of University, W., 2014).

Economic Consequences

Between 1967 and 2010, the percentage of mothers who brought home at least a fourth of

the family’s income increased from 28% to 64% (American Association of University, W.,

2014). Women with children, however, are less likely to be hired by employers and are offered a

lower salary compared to a childless woman (American Association of University, W., 2014;

Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. 2011). There is an indirect relationship to the amount of

children a woman has and amount the salary decreases. More children means more time outside

of the workplace, so less time spent at work will result in a decrease in wages. Moreover, wages

decrease every time the woman re-enters the workplace from a maternity leave (Hewlett, S. A.,

2002). When a woman re-enters the workforce after taking time for personal matters, such as a

maternity leave, the woman’s salary upon re-entry reduces by about 28%. As a woman spends

more time away from the workplace, the salary decreases accordingly (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce,

C. B., 2005; Hewlett, S. A., 2002).

While it is easy for a woman to leave the workforce once she is ready to have a baby, the

re-entry proves to be difficult due to the repercussions faced from taking time for family


(Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). In a survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 93% of the

professional women surveyed were homemakers wishing to return to the workforce; however,

only 74% were able to do so. Of the 74% who returned, only 40% actually returned to “full-

time, professionals jobs” (Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B., 2005). The chances of a woman

returning to a full-time professional career are greatly diminished after taking an “off-ramp” to

deal with personal or family matters.

As previously stated, women’s affiliation with home life affects wages and possible

promotions especially because the workplace is traditionally male while the home is traditionally

female. Due to women’s association with the home, many employers assume a working mother’s

main priority and focus is the family resulting in the working mother being less engrossed in

work. Based on gender stereotypes, a woman’s attachment to the home can lead employers to

presume the woman’s competency decreases due to distractions from home responsibilities

(Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G., 2009).

On a whole, stereotypical female traits do not align with the characterization of an

effective leader, or what society presumes to be an effective leader. This preconceived notion

can negatively impact a woman’s ability to move up the corporate ladder. Assuming a woman,

especially a working mother, will exercise female traits and therefore not act as an effective

leader, managers will promote a man over the woman (Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon,

G., 2009). An employer assumes a woman’s commitment to the job will deteriorate should she

have to split time between work and children. All of these assumptions and stereotypes may lead

managers to bypass a woman in regards to promotion (Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon,

G., 2009).


Case Study

Male dominance affects executive working women psychologically and economically

especially when work/life balance pushes many women to try and juggle both. While spousal

support and nannies can ease the stress of work/life balance on a working women, neither will

help if the company does not support the woman’ career. A woman who wants to rise up the

corporate ladder successfully must find a company that aims not only for the success of the

company but also of the woman. For the purpose of extending research on the psychological and

economic effects found in women attempting to create a work/life balance, the Researcher

studied specific companies that succeeded in or fell short of supporting a woman’s professional

career. The Researcher then sought to determine whether there was any correlation between a

companies’ support of working women and its overall success rate. After considering many

different options, the Researcher chose to compare IBM, Johnson and Johnson, Wal-Mart,

Microsoft, and Bank of America. The Researcher focused on the amount of schedule flexibility,

the quality and degree of mentorship, the extent of “female empowerment programs”, and any

offering of continued education to determine how well the companies supported female workers.

The companies’ net income and national standing were chosen as indicators of the companies’

overall success. The Researcher also decided to include the amount of gender discrimination

complaints or lawsuits for each of the companies in an attempt to see whether the companies

fulfilled any claimed female empowering ideals. The Researcher conducted this case study with

the goal of finding which companies out of the five provide the best working environment and

support system for an executive working women and whether the companies’ support of its

female employees affected its overall success.


Conclusion

Male dominance significantly impacts women in the workplace in regard to work/life

balance, psychological effects and economic effects. Society pressures women to conform to the

image of a nurturing homemaker and men to act as the main provider for the family resulting in

an unequal representation of genders in the executive environment. Whether feeling the pull of

family life or the push of gender bias and glass ceiling in the workforce, many women leave the

workforce and downsize ambition. The societal expectations for women are cause for the wage

gap between male and female wages and results in multiple economic consequences for women.

After reviewing research conducted and analyzed by other scholars on the topic of male

dominance in the workforce, the Researcher began to conduct surveys and case studies to further

understand this topic. The Researcher focused on the extent and reality of gender stereotypes as

well as how different companies approach gender issues.

Methodology

Purpose

While gathering information, the Researcher found common forms of methodology used

were surveys and case studies. The Researcher wanted to determine what traits people valued

most in an executive leader and whether the effects of gender stereotypes could be removed from

the results. In order to carry out this research, the Scholar created a survey to see how people

would rank traits commonly seen as male or female without being explicitly coded as male or

female. The Researcher also conducted a case study to determine whether accommodations for

working women affect or, at the least, have an association with a company’s overall success.


Null hypothesis

When given a list of traits commonly valued in executive

working positions, a majority of working Texans will favor the

commonly female traits.

Case study

A comparison of how different U.S. companies accommodated

executive working women and how the accommodations or lack

of them affected the overall success rate of the company.

Participants and Sampling Procedures

The survey was sent out to Texas residents with prior experience with the workplace. In

the case study, the Researcher examined texts and artifacts available to the public to compare

Walmart, Microsoft, 21st Century Fox, Johnson and Johnson, and Bank of America. The

researcher selected 21st Century Fox because of the scandal it had recently. The Researcher

selected Walmart because of its mixed appearances; it seemed to uphold gender equality and

female empowerment programs but multiple lawsuits/complaints seemed to indicate otherwise.

The Researcher selected Johnson and Johnson, Microsoft, and Bank of America because they

were all listed by Ford as top companies for women and had varying degrees of diversity or

inclusion initiatives.

Research Design

The research gathering evidence against the null was quantitative and descriptive

collected via an electronic Google form. The case study consisted of qualitative research,

comparing multiple companies to see if employee accommodations, specifically those directed


towards women, affected the companies’ success. The researcher collected data through an

examination of texts and artifacts.

Experimental Manipulations/Interventions/Instrumentation

The Researcher assessed whether the bias for male over female traits in the business

environment would not hold true if the traits were not explicitly associated with one gender or

the other. The Researcher conducted structured interviews sent out electronically. The positive

female traits tested were:

• Good social skills

• Collaborative

• Supportive/Mentoring

• Willing to Compromise

• Honesty

The negative female traits tested were:

• Emotional

• Manipulative

• Passive

• Cold

The positive male traits tested were:

• Ambitious

• Direct

• Risk-taking

• Assertive

• Confident


The negative male traits tested were:

• Stubborn

• Aggressive

• Arrogant

• Competitive

The Researcher used the same ranking system to compare the positive traits and the

negative traits. The survey asked an individual to rank each trait numerically without repeating

ranks. After the Researcher received responses, the Researcher calculated an overall composite

score per respondent of the positive male and female traits and the negative male and female

traits. For each respondent the difference between the male and female composite score was

recorded with a positive difference indicating an overall preference for male traits and a negative

difference indicating an overall preference for female traits.

The Researcher used not only the various companies’ websites, but also other sources

containing pertinent information such as statistical records of companies’ gross income and

information about gender discrimination law suits. The Researcher also used sources from

documents in public spheres in which actual employees discussed individual companies and the

pros and cons. The Researcher used a spreadsheet to compare the different companies and their

accommodations, lack of accommodations, and any complaints or lawsuits concerning

accommodations or gender discrimination. On the spreadsheet, the Researcher indicated

whether a company had an accommodation or not. The variables measured were:

• Female empowerment programs

• Schedule flexibility

• Mentorship


• Continued education offered

• Net income

• Gender discrimination complaints

• Lawsuits concerning accommodations

With the exception of net income, the variables were qualitative. The spreadsheet was rather

simple and the researcher indicated whether a company had an indicated qualitative variable or

not and listed the quantitative variable.

Data Collections

The Researcher received survey responses through a survey created through Google

forms. On November 10th, an email was sent out as a reminder to various people and

respondents, thanking them and asking them to fill out the survey if they had not done so yet.

There were data checks for the case study on October 12th, 19th, and 25th 2016. The Researcher

collected data for the case study from September 9th to November 30th.

Data analysis

When examining the survey results, the Researcher recorded means and standard

deviations of composite scores of male and female traits and the difference between composite

scores per individual. The Researcher used two matched pairs t-tests: one for positive traits and

one for negative traits. For the case study, The Scholar measured frequency, comparing the

presence or absence of multiple variables over multiple cases.

Ethical Consideration

The Researcher did not ask for names of the people who participated and all responses

were anonymous. The introduction of the survey included a statement, which read,


“Participation in this survey is purely voluntary and all

responses will be anonymous.”

The Researcher did not approach any humans for information in the case study so no

consideration was needed.

Bias

The format of the ranking system might have confused multiple survey respondents. This

confusion could alter the overall ranking of the traits if misunderstood. The online survey also

excluded those without access to Internet and those who could not speak English. In the

population of the case study, the Researcher examined only five companies, leaving out other

U.S. companies. Including these other U.S. companies which might consist of different ideals

and accommodations might have led the Researcher to different results for the case study. Only

publicly released information was available to the Researcher so the case study excludes any

private internal files from the companies.

Assumptions

The Researcher assumed people responded honestly to the survey. When examining

online articles, the Scholar assumed the information on the companies’ websites and the

anonymous reviews from customers were true. The Researcher assumed the companies carried

out any female empowering programs, initiatives, or accommodations cited on the websites.

Limitations

Participants at a national and international level were left out of the survey population,

but the Researcher could have included respondents at a national level. The Researcher could

have created a null, which tested how participants would react to two identical candidates whose

only difference was gender. If given unlimited time and resources, the Researcher would want to


send out the survey at a national level to obtain responses from participants in multiple different

states. The Researcher could have included studies on men’s accommodations in companies and

how it compared to women’s accommodations, but chose to focus solely on women. If given

unlimited time and resources, the Researcher would have liked to research foreign companies

and the different female accommodations in comparison to American companies.

Findings

Sample

As seen in Figure 1A below, the Researcher’s sample reported the majority of

respondents had a bachelor’s or master’s degree and a sizeable number of respondents 16.7%

having some college credit but no diploma.

Figure 1A. Education Level of Respondents


Of the sample population, 70% was employed full-time; 11.7% was employed part time,

and approximately 18.3% was non-working due to various reasons as seen in figure 1B below.

Figure 1B. Employment Status of Respondents

Of the sample, 58.3% was female and 41.7% was male as seen in Figure 1C below.

Figure 1C. Gender Ratio of Respondents to Survey


For the case study, the Researcher looked at Johnson and Johnson, Walmart, 21st Century

Fox, Bank of America, and Microsoft. Johnson and Johnson was established in 1886 selling

consumer healthcare products and currently has 127,100 employees and a net worth of $71.15

billion. Walmart was established in 1962 as a retail store selling a wide range of consumer

products and currently has 2.3 million employees with a net worth of $80.55 billion. The 21st

Century Fox Corporation formally split from its parent company, News Corporation, in 2013 and

is a mass media company with 20,500 employees and a net worth of $17.22 billion. Founded in

1930, Bank of America is a financial services company of 210,516 employees with a net worth

of $256.2 billion. Microsoft, a computer software, hardware, and electronics company, was

established in 1975 and has 113,616 employees with a net worth of $71.99 billion. A summary

of this information can be found in the table below.

Companies’ Background Information

Companies Johnson and Johnson Walmart 21st Century Fox

Date Founded 1886 1962 2013

Business Types Consumer Healthcare

Products

Consumer Products/

Retail Mass Media

Employee # 127,100 2.3 million 20,500

Net Worth $71.15 billion $80.54 billion $17.22 billion

Companies Bank of America Microsoft

Date Founded 1930 1975

Business Type Banking/ Financial

Services

Computer Software/

hardware/ electronics

Employee # 210,516 113,616

Net Worth $256.2 billion $71.99 billion

Figure 1D. Companies’ Background Information


Survey Findings/Observations

As previously stated, the survey asked respondents to rank ten positive executive traits, five of

which were considered male and five of which were considered female.

The positive female traits were:

• Good social skills

• Collaborative

• Supportive/Mentoring

• Willing to Compromise

• Honesty

The positive male traits were:

• Ambitious

• Direct

• Risk-taking

• Assertive

• Confident

The survey was based on a ranking system where a ranking of one meant a trait was most

important and a ranking of ten meant a trait was least important resulting in a lower score

indicating a greater importance. The Researcher totaled each respondent’s total score for

positive female traits and total score for positive male traits. The Researcher then found the

average positive female score and the average positive male score overall as seen in Figure 2A.

Figure 2A. Averages of Composite Scores of Positive Traits of Respondents

The lower composite score for the positive female indicated people often found positive

female traits to be more important or valued. The Researcher also paired each respondent’s

0

10

20

30

40

Female Composite Score Male Composite

Score


composite positive male and female score and found the difference by subtracting the male

composite from the female. The average difference was -4.1.

The survey also asked respondents to rank eight negative executive traits, four of which

were considered male and four of which were considered female.

The negative female traits were:

• Emotional

• Manipulative

• Passive

• Cold

The negative male traits were:

• Stubborn

• Aggressive

• Arrogant

• Competitive

The survey was based on a ranking system where a ranking of one meant a trait was most

tolerable and a ranking of ten meant a trait was least tolerable resulting in a lower score

indicating a higher tolerance rate. The Researcher totaled each respondent’s total score for

negative female traits and total score for negative male traits. The Researcher then found the

average negative female score and the average negative male score overall as seen in Figure 2B.

Figure 2B. Averages of Composite Scores of Negative Traits of Respondents

0

5

10

15

20

25

Female Composite Score Male Composite Score

MALE DOMINANCE IN THE WORKFORCE

34

The Researcher also paired each respondent’s composite negative male and female score and

found the difference by subtracting the male composite score from the female composite score.

The average difference was 2.92.

The ranking system was based upon a numerical scale. For positive traits, one meant

most important and ten meant least important. For negative traits one meant most tolerable and

eight meant least tolerable. Upon observing the rankings for positive traits, the Researcher found

honesty, upon receiving 23 ones, scored the highest for being most important, and ambitious,

receiving 11 tens, scored least important executive trait. Among the negative traits, the

Researcher found manipulative scored the highest for least tolerable, with 23 eights, and

competitive scored highest for most tolerable with 38 ones. A majority of respondents put no

preference for the preferred gender of their manager.

When conducting the case study, the Researcher investigated the five companies for

multiple variables including female empowerment programs, schedule flexibility, mentorship,

continued education, gender discrimination complaints, and lawsuits concerning

accommodations and discrimination. Concerning lawsuits, the Researcher decided a realistic

indicator would be more than one lawsuit. To best indicate the different variables across the

companies and the comparison between the companies, the Researcher decided to create a chart

indicating whether had a variable or not. In the chart, “X” indicates a company has that variable

and a blank space indicates a company does not have the variable or there was no information

found on that variable for that company.


35

Companies’ Accommodations, Complaints, and Lawsuits

Companies: Johnson & Johnson Walmart Microsoft Bank of

America

21st

Century

Fox

Female Empowerment

Programs

X X X

Schedule Flexibility X

Mentorship X X X X

Continued Education X X X

Gender Discrimination

Complaints

X X

Lawsuits concerning

accommodations

X X

Figure 2C. Companies’ Accommodations, Complaints, and Lawsuits

The Researcher found Johnson and Johnson had two personal female empowerment

programs and a mentorship program for employees while also supporting outside groups pushing

for female advocacy in the workplace. Walmart, while offering mentorship programs and

continued education to its employees, had at least over twelve complaints of gender

discrimination and inflexible work schedules. It also had five lawsuits filed by employees

concerning gender discrimination. Microsoft had at least four programs centered on female

empowerment, mentorship, and continued education, and was involved in three outside programs

encouraging female leadership. Bank of America was noted to be exceedingly flexible with

work schedules and had female empowerment programs, continued education, and mentorship.

21st Century Fox was a longtime supporter of Women’s Sports Foundation and co-launched a

contest meant to encourage young women in pursuing careers in science, technology,

engineering, and math. Despite this, however, the Researcher found little to no evidence of


36

accommodations and support systems within 21st Century Fox. The Researcher did find at least

two instances of discrimination complaints and lawsuits against 21st Century Fox.

The Researcher found the net income for each company in order to indicate overall

success. Johnson and Johnson had a net income of $15.4 billion; Walmart had a net income of

$14.69 billion dollars. Microsoft had a net income of $16.79 billion. Bank of America had a net

income of $15.89 billion dollars and 21st Century Fox had a net income of $8.3 billion.

Analysis

The Researcher tested this null hypothesis: when given a list of traits commonly valued in

executive working positions, a majority of working Texans will favor the commonly female

traits. The hypothesis test used for the survey was a matched-pairs t-test. The Researcher did

this test for both the positive executive and the negative executive traits. For the positive traits,

the P-value was approximately .99 so the data were consistent with the null. Therefore, for

positive executive traits, the null was retained. For the negative traits the P-value was .0004.

Due to the low P-value the Researcher had statistically significant evidence against the null

hypothesis. Therefore, the null was rejected for negative executive traits. The null hypothesis

was retained for positive traits and rejected for negative traits, meaning the researcher found

evidence that for executive positions a majority of working Texans favor positive female traits

over positive male traits and negative male traits over negative female traits.

Based on the Researcher’s findings, Bank of America and Microsoft seemed to be the

best contenders out of the five in regards to which company would best support an executive

working women. Also despite the discrimination complaints and the possibility of inflexible

work schedules, Walmart still made sizeable efforts to support mentorship, training, and

continued education programs for women around the world. Johnson and Johnson’s female


37

empowerment programs offset the lack of evidence of schedule flexibility. All the companies,

with the exception of 21st Century Fox, had at least one of the accommodations. Based on this

Researcher’s studies alone, one could loosely rank these five companies in this order based off of

the degree of accommodations:

1. Bank of America

2. Microsoft

3. Johnson and Johnson

4. Walmart

5. 21st Century Fox

The companies implementing more accommodations had fewer lawsuits and complaints and had

a higher net income. Bank of America and Microsoft implemented multiple accommodations for

women and had the highest net incomes at $15.89 billion. The companies lacking in

accommodations had more lawsuits and gender discrimination complaints and a generally lower

net income. Walmart had four lawsuits and the second lowest net income at $14.69 billion and

21st Century Fox had two lawsuits and the lowest net income at $8.3 billion. Both Walmart and

21st Century Fox had minimal accommodations.

Discussion

After concluding the findings, the Researcher found the analysis of the survey agreed

with the Review of Related Literature. As previous research has shown, society upholds

stereotypes and expectations for how people should act according to gender and the environment,

which is, in this case, an executive environment. These stereotypes and expectations carry over

into how people perceive leaders; while people value positive traits associated with both genders,

people are much more inclined to tolerate the negative male traits, such as competitiveness, than


38

the negative female traits, such as emotionality. Society’s stereotypes of the executive

environment and executive offices are male-oriented, so it is natural people look down upon

negative female traits but excuse the negative male traits. When questioned about the negative

traits, the male score was lower indicating a higher tolerance for negative male traits than female

ones. Though all the negative traits are considered relatively undesirable, due to the male

dominated executive environment, people are much more tolerant of the negative male traits.

Over time, this tolerance became acceptable, which left people focusing only on the negative

female traits. Though people value female traits on a whole, the negative stereotype of female

traits stems from the overemphasis negative female traits.

As previously stated, the Researcher’s survey listed positive and negative traits

considered to be either male or female. Due to Researcher’s omittance of the gender associated

with each trait, respondents were able to rank the traits with considerably less influence. This

gender blind survey resulted in respondents collectively placing more value on positive female

traits, and, thus, allowed the Researcher to reject the null hypothesis. The rejection of the null

contradicts with the Review of Related Literature. Women face many obstacles and challenges,

psychological and physical, when attempting to climb the corporate ladder and succeed in the

executive environment. If positive female traits were so highly valued, the amount of hardship

women face in the corporate world would be considerably less. One could attribute this

discrepancy to the nature of the survey. The gender blind survey allowed for respondents to

view traits without a gender tied to each trait, which potentially decreased the chance of a

stereotype influencing a respondent’s answers. The Review of Related Literature discusses how,

in society, people are constantly under influence from society’s stereotypes and culture. It could

be society’s stereotype of men in leadership roles is what prevents women from achieving the


39

same rate of success, not necessarily an apparent preference for male traits overall. Society’s

greater dislike for negative female traits over male traits could also be preventing women from

achieving success.

Though the Researcher’s survey was gender blind, future scholars could investigate into

whether respondents of surveys respond differently when prompted of stereotypes. While this

would be interesting in furthering gender studies, it could also be applied in studies on the

stereotypes of minorities and whether stereotypes influence minority groups to the same extent

or in different ways. Future research worth considering is research into how the specific traits

the Researcher tested impact people in executive environment on a daily basis.

One question these findings might pose is how much stereotypes affect people and daily

life. With so many influences from so many different sources, it is no wonder people easily stop

forming individual beliefs. Often times people’s beliefs are not self-determined but simply based

off society’s stereotypes. While one can acknowledge opinions and viewpoints from multiple

sources, basing one’s personal beliefs and worldview entirely on the experience and opinion of

others is not a wise decision. Becoming aware of the society around oneself and how it can and

will influence people, whether right or wrong, is important as seen through history.

In the case study, the Researcher compared the various degrees of accommodations the

companies Johnson and Johnson, Walmart, Microsoft, Bank of America, and 21st Century Fox

provided to their employees. The Researcher generally found companies with more

accommodations had higher net income, fewer complaints, and, in some cases, a higher net

worth. Bank of America was one of the companies fitting this conclusion: it had the second

highest net income and the highest net worth. One accommodation Bank of America

emphasized was its schedule flexibility for all its employees. The Researcher found a study by


40

Harris Interactive in which many of the women interviewed who had worked at Johnson and

Johnson praised the company for its option for reduced hours (Hewlett, S.A., & Luce, C. B.,

2005). Johnson and Johnson also had a relatively high net income and few to no lawsuits or

gender discrimination or accommodation complaints. In the Review of Related Literature, the

Researcher found how inflexible work schedules is an obstacle many women, especially those

with family, faced upon re-entry. With a flexible work schedule, a woman is less likely to leave

the workforce to deal with pressure at home and will have more opportunities to move up the

corporate ladder. A better work life balance can also improve a woman’s psychological

condition because the woman will not be overstressed about balancing home life and work.

These findings could impact the companies’ policies concerning diversity and inclusion.

Consumers could change their mind about where to shop, which companies to support or buy

stock in, and which ones to seek employment from all due to a disagreement over a company’s

diversity policies. Should this happen, it could lead to companies re-evaluating themselves and

working to better diversity and improvement, if not for equality, then at least to improve the net

income or the company’s reputation again. Future research could investigate how specific

companies that improved upon diversity and inclusion changed over time and whether there were

correlations that could be seen.

Conclusion

The Researcher found though men and women began as equals in history, the rise of

patriarchy during the Neolithic era set the foundation for male dominance in human society. The

Scholar examined women’s roles in World War II and found as women were called to head the

home front, the image of the working woman transformed into a confident and beautiful role

model. After World War II, men returned to the workforce pushing the women back into the


41

home. The Researcher found during the 1950s to 1960s women were continuing working part

time or from the home and began supporting the Feminist Movement in hopes of equal job

opportunities and higher salaries.

The Researcher discussed how despite a higher academic achievement rate in comparison

to men, fewer women hold high managerial roles due to a metaphorical glass ceiling. The male

dominance in the workforce led to a lack of spousal support in the home, leading in turn to many

women bypassing higher job positions to take care of neglected home responsibilities. The

Literature stated upon entering the workforce, women fall back on the feminine behavior taught

in childhood, but find it does not help further a career. The Researcher found likeability is

negatively associated with female success and ambition. In addition to the psychological effects,

the Literature stated there are numerous economic and employment effects. In addition to the

wage gap between men and women, the stereotype of the domestic woman leads employers to

assume a working mother’s priority is the home. This assumption leads employers to be less

likely to hire and promote women, especially working mothers.

After examining other scholarly data, the Researcher gathered personal data through an

online survey in order to test a null hypothesis. The null stated when given a list of traits

commonly valued in executive working positions, a majority of working Texans will favor the

commonly female traits. The Researcher retained the null in regard to positive female traits but

rejected the null in regard to negative female traits.

The Researcher then conducted a case study reviewing multiple companies to deduce

whether a company’s accommodations of women had any correlation to the success rate of the

company and found those with more accommodations had higher net income, fewer complaints,

and, in some cases, a higher net worth.


42

Male dominance in marriage has been prevalent throughout all of history supported

especially through religion; in most religions, women are taught to be subservient to a spouse to

some degree.. Multiple times in the Bible women are called to be submissive to their husband,

one example being 1 Timothy 2:11-14 stating women are to be quiet and submissive to man’s

authority as result of Eve being made second and having sinned first. As all research leads to

further research, the Scholar wanted to further explore this concept of male superiority in more

extreme cases. Domestic male dominance is proving to be a major problem in today’s society in

the form of domestic violence. Domestic violence can be seen in abuse both verbal and physical.

After studying male dominance in the workforce, the Scholar briefly wanted to research how and

why domestic violence occurs, specifically in the form of verbal and psychological abuse, and

what psychological effects does this abuse produce in women?

Remaining questions

In the United States, more than 1 in 3 women have been physically assaulted and/or

stalked by an intimate partner; in addition, 48.4% of women in the United Sates have

experienced some form of psychological aggression inflicted by an intimate partner (“Statistics”,

2015). In an abusive relationship, the dominant partner, usually the man, attempts to control the

submissive partner, the woman, by using physical and/or verbal abuse.

Origin and Driving Factors

The man’s desire to gain or maintain control over a woman can be rooted in the

individual’s background or culture (“The National”, 2015). As stated in the Review of Related

Literature, male dominance has always been present in society encouraging men to act “manly”

and show authority; this male dominance comes from the patriarchal values and attitude towards

traditional sex roles (Berg-Cross, 2005). Physical abuse often occurs when societal pressure


43

causes a man to act upon society’s value of male dominance through physical acts (“The

National”, 2015). The man may enjoy the power and control he holds over the woman and will

threaten or use brute force or weapons in order to force a woman into submission as well as

forcibly engaging the woman in dangerous acts, such as drugs or alcohol (“The National”, 2015).

The man feels entitled to this superiority over the woman; the man has, after all, been told,

directly and indirectly, since childhood the male is stronger and more valued than females.

Mental instability factors into this superiority complex as well because a man may be too

emotionally impaired or imbalanced to maintain a healthy relationship. If the woman attempts to

leave, the woman fears the man may resort to aggressive actions such as stalking and/or assault.

By leaving, the woman takes away the man’s sense of power and superiority, which is something

the man does not want to happen (“The National”, 2015).

Verbal/Psychological Abuse

Domestic violence also manifests verbal abuse in which the man will demoralize the

woman to the point of psychologically scarring the woman. Verbal abuse goes hand in hand

with psychological abuse because the demoralizing words are directed towards the woman’s self-

esteem and sanity. A survey by the University of South Carolina, consisting of interviews with

234 psychologically and/or physically abused women, recorded 72% of the subjects admitted

emotional abuse having a more serious impact than physical abuse (Berg-Cross, 2005).

Psychological abuse through verbal abuse has multiple forms: manipulation, intimidation, and

denigration and domination are most common (Berg-Cross, 2005; Stonsy, 2008). For the

purpose of conciseness, the Researcher will focus on the psychological effects due to

denigration.


44

As stated previously, in an abusive relationship the dominant partner, the man, attempts

to control the submissive partner, the woman, through the submissive partner’s self-esteem. To

break down the woman’s self-esteem, the abusive man will constantly criticize and devalue the

woman’s ideas, words, and actions (“The National”, 2015). Through continuous insult and

humiliation, the man will reduce the woman to a state of insecurity, completely dependent on

him (“The National”, 2015: Berg-Cross, 2005). The woman reaches a point where a severe lack

of confidence prevents the woman from leaving the relationship even after acknowledging the

abuse (Berg-Cross, 2005). Because the woman is unable to leave the relationship, the woman

supplements excuses for the abusive man’s behavior, such as attributing violence to drunkenness,

or blames the abuse on herself demoralizing herself even further (“The National”, 2015).

Gas Lighting

Gas-lighting is one form of domestic abuse combining both physical and verbal abuse; it

is used to manipulate a person by instilling doubt or insecurity. Before one can look into the

psychological effects of gas-lighting, one must first look into the history of gas-lighting and then

into how it is carried out.

The term “gas-lighting” originates from a 1940s film called “Gaslight” in which a

husband deceives his wife all for his own personal gain. In order to steal valuables from the

wife, the husband tricked the woman into doubting her sanity. Whenever the husband used the

gaslights to search for valuables, the gaslights in other parts of the house would dim thereby

confusing the wife. When the wife would complain of the oddly dimming or flickering lights,

the husband would dismiss her claims on the grounds of an active imagination. The husband led

the wife to doubt her sanity and was able to easily manipulate her (Luna, 2015; Breiners, 2012).

While the film brought gas-lighting to the public’s attention for a brief period, it was soon


45

forgotten along with reality of gas-lighting as it digressed from the public’s eye. This lack of

attention resulted in gas-lighting being vastly unknown and unrecognizable to most of society.

Techniques/Symptoms

Gas-lighting can be carried out in a multitude of ways: discrediting, instilling doubt,

denying, twisting words and actions, and disorienting (Myles, 2015; Luna, 2015). The base

component of gas-lighting is discrediting, the act of convincing other people in addition to the

woman that the woman is unstable or crazy (Luna, 2015).

The first type of doubt the gas-lighter will instill is doubt of confidence; the man’s

assurance in his claims and actions will lead the woman to doubt her own thoughts and believe

the man instead (Luna, 2015). The man might do this through leaving out important details and

later claiming to have said them. Another type of doubt the gas-lighter will instill is trust where

the man will say or do things to purposely make the woman jealous or insecure, but deny it later

on (Myles, 2015). The third type of doubt the gas-lighter will create is an insecurity in abilities

or choices where the man will scoff or mock the woman’s opinions or thoughts making her feel

inferior to him (Myles, 2015).

Denial is another method of gas-lighting as the man will say or do something offensive or

abusive, such as laughing or scoffing but will blatantly deny all record of it telling the woman

she imagined it (Luna, 2015; Myles, 2015). Twisting words and actions to the gas-lighter’s favor

is another method commonly used (Myles, 2015).

Disorientation is the last method of gas-lighting: the man will secretly move an object

from its normal place then deny moving it or will claim the woman moved the object herself.

The man may claim the object she moved never moved too or has always been in the new spot

(Luna, 2015).


46

Psychological Effects

The combination of self-doubt, insecurity, and confusion in the woman experiencing gas-

lighting or any other form of psychological abuse will lead to serious psychological effects, such

as insecurity (Luna, 2015). Insecurity in surroundings and self shows through the abused

woman’s constant feeling of being on edge or threatened and stems from the constant criticism

the abuser expresses in the woman’s abilities, opinions, and memory. A psychologically abused

woman tends to be very indecisive since every choice she makes is usually scoffed or critiqued

by the abuser; the consequence of this indecisiveness is the woman’s inclination to rely on other

people’s judgment thus creating anxiety (Luna, 2015). As paranoia and unease stem from the

disorientation, the woman stops trusting her surroundings (Luna, 2015).

The abused woman develops social anxiety due to the abuser breaking down and warping

the woman’s normal form of socialization through constant and ever changing moods swings

(Myles, 2015). Social anxiety causes the woman to question whether she is being too sensitive

or over-reacting. To avoid these questions along with those concerning the relationship with the

abusive partner, the woman will avoid socialization by withdrawing from relationships with

family and friends (Myles, 2015; Luna, 2015). An abused woman can become severely

depressed, not only from social anxiety and a lack of socialization with others, but also from

constant attempts to please the abuser while receiving only criticism and mockery (Stern, 2009).

Reasons to Stay

Even while being psychologically or physically abused, a woman will stay in an abusive

relationship due to the psychological impact the abuser inflicted. A woman may stay out of fear

of judgment, the fear of a loss of financial stability, fear of further violence, or a fear of


47

independence due to a lack of confidence (“The National”, 2015). Through psychological abuse,

the abuser takes away all independence and mental stability of the victim.

The abused woman’s inability to function normally hinders the woman from leaving the

relationship. Pressured by the abuser into breaking off relationships, the victim has no real

anchor in the outside world.

Another common reason many women stay in abusive relationship is Stockholm

syndrome occurring when a victim develops and maintains empathetic feelings toward the

oppressor often in hope of receiving special treatment. In the context of a relationship,

Stockholm syndrome develops because the oppressor is kind and polite at first, and the woman

develops feelings for the nice, charming version of the abuser. Abusive tendencies emerge and

develop over time resulting in the victim realizing an abusive relationship has developed only

after developing feelings for the abuser. The abused woman loves the man but not the abuse; the

woman will do all she can to keep the man happy, viewing any acts of kindness as a sign to hope

the man will turn from abusive ways (“The National”, 2015). The woman does not realize she is

adopting a survival tactic often used by prisoners who will empathize with and try to appease a

captor in order to avoid further punishment. Like the prisoners, fear motivates the woman to

appease the abuser. The woman fears the violence but is in denial of the fear. The abuser’s

random acts of kindness encourage the denial giving false hope to the victim. The woman is also

in denial because the idea of fearing a loved one seems absurd and irrational (“The National”,

2015).

The victim forms a traumatic bond with the abuser in order to cope with the unstable

environment and the stress of the abuse. This delusion of a relationship allows the victim to


48

reduce the feeling of fear. Stockholm syndrome increases the dependence on the abuser even

more and decreases the likelihood of the victim’s ability to leave (Louis, 2016).

Often times, an abusive relationship is subtle, gradually increasing in degree until the

victim is suddenly stranded in a relationship with no idea of how the abuse developed. The

abuser’s once charming persona transforms into erratic, even malicious behavior directed at

breaking down the victim’s willpower into total subservience. Once this abusive behavior

begins, the effects on the victim also begin increase in harm. Unless the victim ends the

relationship early on, the victim risks developing anxiety, depression, insanity, and Stockholm

syndrome. These psychological disorders continue to impact abused victims long after the end

of the abusive relationship and could potentially hinder victims from cultivating healthy

relationships in the future.

Biblical

After researching male dominance in the workforce, the Researcher wanted to know the Bible’s

stance on women’s equality. In 1 Corinthians 11: 11-12, Paul writes

“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man

independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is

born of woman. But everything comes from God”.

Prior to these verses Paul alludes to the order of creation in Genesis with man coming first from

the dust and then woman from the man’s rib. Paul then acknowledges while man’s original

purpose was not to care for or be subservient to women but to bring glory to God, woman’s

original purpose was to be man’s helper. Paul, however, explains in verses 11-12 how neither

man nor woman can be without the other by the will of God. Even though the first woman came

from man, every man is born from woman; women should not be undervalued or men lauded


49

because both are dependent on each other. Man and woman depend mutually on one another as

they do on Christ. Men and woman are made in God’s image and so are seen and loved equally

in His eyes. While Genesis is a popular Biblical reference used to justify male dominance and

superiority due to man coming first, these verses by Paul proves in Christ any disparity in

judgment based on gender is nonexistent. If people are called to follow God’s example, and God

sees men and women as equal, then people should be expected to do the same.

Many times in the Bible women are called to submit to and obey their husbands, but 1

Peter 5:5 says,

“In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders.

All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,

‘God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble’”.

This verse shows how God not only calls women but also men to be submissive to one another.

Serving and humbling one’s self is a core belief of Christianity. God lifts up those who are

humble at heart and take on humility in order to serve others for this was Jesus’s mission, which

He passed on to His followers (Gender equality, 2016).


50

References

The 1960s-70s American Feminist Movement: Breaking down barriers for women. (2015).

Tavaana. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from https://tavaana.org/en/content/1960s-70s-

american-feminist-movement-breaking-down-barriers-women

American Association of University Women. (2014). The simple truth about the gender pay

gap. American Association Of University Women. Retrieved September 29, 2015 from

Ebsco (ED546780)

A history of women in industry. (2007). National Women’s History Museum. Retrieved

November 30, 2015, from https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/industry/2.htm

Berg-Cross, L. (2005). Intimate relationships, psychological abuse and mental health problems.

National Register of health Service Psychologists. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from

http://www.e-psychologist.org/index.iml?mdl=exam/show_article.mdl

Beyer, S. (1998). Gender differences in casual attributions by college students of performance on

course examinations. Current Psychology, 17, 346-358. Retrieved January 17, 2016 from

Ebsco (13922780)

Breines, J. (2012, April 16). Call me crazy: The subtle power of gaslighting. Psych your mind.

Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://psych-your-mind.blogspot.com/2012/04/call-

me-crazy-subtle-power-of.html

Carnes, W. J., & Radojevich-Kelley, N. (2011). The effects of the glass ceiling on women in the

workforce: Where are they and where are they going?. Review Of Management

Innovation & Creativity, 4(10), 70-79. Retrieved from EBSCO (66136283)


Council of Economic Advisers. (October 14, 2014). Women’s participation in education and the

workforce. White house. Retrieved January 24, 2016, from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/womens_slides_final.pdf

Cushing, L., & Drescher, T. (2009). "Rosie the Riveter" is not the same as "we can do it!". Docs

Populi. Retrieved December 7, 2015, from

http://www.docspopuli.org/articles/RosieTheRiveter.html

Dublin, T. (2015). Women and the early industrial revolution in the United States. The Gilder

Lehrman Institute of American History. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/jackson-lincoln/essays/women-and-early-

industrial-revolution-united-states

Duiker, W., & Spielvogel, J. (2013). Early humans and the first civilizations. In World

History (7th ed., pp. 4-8). Boston, Massachusetts: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Eisenberg, T. D. (2010). Shattering the equal pay act's glass ceiling. Southern Methodist

University Law Review, 63. Social Science Research Network. Retrieved December 6,

2015 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1521172

Fels, A. (2004). Do women lack ambition?. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 50. Retreived

September 29, 2015 from Ebsco (12774660)

Fernando, W. A., & Cohen, L. (2014). Respectable femininity and career agency: Exploring

paradoxical imperatives. Gender, Work & Organization, 21(2), 149-164.

doi:10.1111/gwao.12027

Gender equality. (2016). What the bible says. Retrieved February 22, 2016 from

http://whatthebiblesays.info/gender-equality/


Gleason, K. (2013, March 30). Balancing work and family after childbirth: A longitudinal

analysis. Journalist’s Resource. Retrieved September 29, 2015, from

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/jobs/balancing-work-family-childbirth-

analysis

Groysberg, B., & Abrahams, R. (March, 2014). Manage your work, manage your life. Harvard

Business Review. Retrieved February 14, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2014/03/manage-

your-work-manage-your-life&cm_sp=Article-_-Links-_-End of Page Recirculation

Heilman, E. M., Wallen, S. A., Fuchs D., & Tamkins M. M. (2004). Penalties for success:

Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89(3), 416-427. Retrieved December 9, 2015 from Ebsco (13620402)

Hewlett, S. A. (2002). Executive women and the myth of having it all. Harvard Business Review.

Retrieved January 17, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-

myth-of-having-it-all#

Hewlett, S. A., & Luce, C. B. (2005). Off ramps and on ramps: Keeping talented women on the

road to success. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved January 13, 2016, from

https://hbr.org/2005/03/off-ramps-and-on-ramps-keeping-talented-women-on-the-road-

to-success

Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses' perceptions of family-work conflict

and women's promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management

Journal, 52(5), 939-957. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.44633700

Johns, M. L. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling: Structural, cultural, and organizational barriers

preventing women from achieving senior and executive positions. Ahima. Retrieved

February 12, 2016, from http://perspectives.ahima.org/breaking-the-glass-ceiling-


structural-cultural-and-organizational-barriers-preventing-women-from-achieving-senior-

and-executive-positions/#.Vr5WaZMrKCQ

Louis, C. (2016). The effects of gaslighting in narcissistic victim syndrome. Narcissistic

Behavior. Retrieved February 5, 2017, from http://narcissisticbehavior.net/the-effects-of-

gaslighting-in-narcissistic-victim-syndrome/

Luna, A. (2015). You're not going crazy: How gaslighting erodes you sanity. Lonerwolf.

Retrieved February 26, 2016, from http://lonerwolf.com/gaslighting/

Mantell, R. (2011, March 1). More women go to college, but wage gap remains. Marketwatch.

Retrieved January 24, 2016, from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-women-go-

to-college-but-wage-gap-remains-2011-03-01

Mathis, S. (1994). Propaganda to mobilize women for World War II. Social Studies. Retrieved

November 29, 2015, from

http://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/se/5802/580210.html

May, E. (2013). Women and work. PBS. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/interview/tupperware-may/

McGinn, K. L., and Tempest, N. (Januaray 18, 2000). Heidi Roizen. Harvard Business School

Case 800228. Clubhost. Retrieved January 17, 2016, from

http://clubhost.hbssanantonio.com/documents/Kathleen_L_McGinn_Bio.pdf

Myles, A. (2015, August 17). Gaslighting: The mind game everyone should know about.

Elephant Journal. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/08/gaslighting-the-mind-game-everyone-should-

know-about/


The national domestic violence hotline. (2015). The Hotline. Retrieved January 28, 2016, from

http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

P., S., & Thomas, I. (1995). Fear of success in relation to sex role identity and self-esteem in

women. Psychological Studies, 40. Academia. Retrieved Januarary 13, 2016, from

http://www.academia.edu/6232008/Fear_of_success_in_relation_to_sex_role_identity_an

d_self-esteem_in_women

Partners in winning the war: American women in World War II. (2007). National Women’s

History Museum. Retrieved November 8, 2015, from https://www.nwhm.org/online-

exhibits/partners/1.htm

Sacket, L. A., & Saunders, D. G. (1999). The impact of different forms of psychological abuse

on battered women. Violence and Victims, 14(1), 1-13. Deep blue. Retrieved January 26,

2016, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/51466/The Impact of

Different Forms of Psych AbuseSackettSaunders.pdf?sequence=1

Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York: Random House,

Inc.

Stern, R. (2009, May 19). Are you being gaslighted? Psychology Today. Retrieved February 26,

2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/power-in-relationships/200905/are-

you-being-gaslighted

Stone, P. (2007). Opting out? Why women really quit careers and head home. Berkley:

University of California Press.

Stosny, S. (2008, August 26). Effects of emotional abuse: It hurts when I love. Psychology

Today. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anger-

in-the-age-entitlement/200808/effects-emotional-abuse-it-hurts-when-i-love


Strayer, R. (2010). First civilizations. In Ways of the World: A brief global history with

sources (pp. 62-97). Boston, Massachusetts: Bedford/St Martin's.

Tajlili, M. H. (2014). A framework for promoting women's career intentionality and work-life

integration. Career Development Quarterly, 62(3), 254-267. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-

0045.2014.00083.x.

Taylor, P., Morin, R., Cohn, D., Clark, A., & Wang, W. (2008). A paradox in public attitudes:

Men or women: Who’s the better leader? Pew research center social and demographic

trends report. Pew Research Center. Retrieved December 6, 2015 from:

http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/genderleadership.pdf.

Tolman, D. L., & Porche, M. V. (2000). The adolescent femininity ideology scale. Psychology

Of Women Quarterly, 24(4), 365. Retrieved January 17, 2016, from Ebsco (4071385)

Tomei, M., Olney, S., & Oelz, M. (2013). Equal pay: An introductory guide. Switzerland:

International Labour Office. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from

http://arabtradeunion.org/sites/default/files/Equal%20Pay%20-

%20An%20introductory%20guide.compressed.pdf

Trueman, C. (2015, March 5). Medieval women. The History Learning Site. Retrieved

November 18, 2015, from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval-

england/medieval-women/

Ware, S. (2015). Women and the Great Depression. The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American

History. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-

era/great-depression/essays/women-and-great-depression

Weigel, M. (2013, October 20). Women, work and work/life balance: Research roundup.

Journalist’s Resource. Retrieved September 30, 2015, from


http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/women-work-research-

roundup

Wood, M. (2010). 6.6 The women's movement. Learn NC. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-postwar/6055

Wunder, H., & Whittle, J. (2010, September 23). Women's work in early modern europe. Jesus

College. Retrieved December 6, 2015, from

http://www2.statsvet.uu.se/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7/NqIk2/iNk=&tabid=3724&langu

age=en-US


Appendix I: Survey Questions

1. Age

a. 18-24

b. 25-34

c. 35-44

d. 45-54

e. 55-64

f. 65+

2. Race/Ethnicity

a. American Indian or Alaskan

Native

b. Asian or Pacific Islander

c. Black or African American

d. Hispanic or Latino

e. White/ Caucasian

f. other

3. Gender

a. Male

b. Female

4. Highest Level of Education

a. Some High School, no

diploma

b. High School Diploma or

Equivalent (e.g. GED)

c. Some college credit, no

diploma

d. Associate’s degree

e. Bachelor’s degree

f. Master’s degree

g. Professional

degree/Doctorate degree

5. Employment

a. Employed full-time

b. Employed part-time

c. Not currently employed

d. Homemaker


e. Retired f. Student

6. On a scale of 1-10, rank the traits below according to how important/valuable they are to

you in executive leadership positions (1 being the most important & 10 being least).

Please do not repeat a ranking.

a. Good social skills

b. Ambitious

c. Collaborative

d. Direct

e. Supportive/Mentoring

f. Risk-taking

g. Willing to Compromise

h. Assertive

i. Honesty

j. Confident

7. On a scale of 1-8, rank the traits below according to how tolerable/acceptable you find

them in positions of executive leadership (1 being most tolerable & 8 being the least

tolerable). Please do not repeat a ranking.

a. Emotional

b. Stubborn

c. Manipulative

d. Aggressive

e. Passive

f. Arrogant

g. Cold

h. Competitive

8. Which Gender would you prefer for a boss?

a. Male

b. Female

c. No Preference


Appendix II: Survey Results

1. Age:

18-24 (14)

25-34 (11)

35-44 (13)

45-44 (12)

45-54 (7)

55-64 (7)

65+ (3)

2. Race/Ethnicity

American Indian or Alaskan Native (0)

Asian or Pacific Islander (1)

Black or African American (1)

Hispanic or Latino (2)

White/ Caucasian (54)

Other (2)

3. Gender

Female (35)

Male (25)

4. Highest Level of Education

Some High School, no diploma (3)

High School Diploma or Equivalent (e.g. GED) (4)

Some college credit, no diploma (10)

Associate’s degree (1)

Bachelor’s degree (19)

Master’s degree (20)


Professional degree/Doctorate degree (3)

5. Employment

Employed full-time (42)

Employed part-time (7)

Not currently employed (2)

Homemaker (1)

Retired (3)

Student (5)

6. Positive trait rankings (rank, frequency of rank):

Good social skills: (1:5, 2:7, 3:8, 4:10, 5:7, 6:6, 7:2, 8:9, 9:4, 10:2)

Ambitious: (1:3, 2:4, 3:2, 4:11, 5:4, 6:3, 7:9, 8:5, 9:8, 10:11)

Collaborative: (1:5, 2:9, 3:12, 4:3, 5:5, 6:6, 7:5, 8:4, 9:5, 10:6)

Direct: (1:3, 2:5, 3:2, 4:10, 5:6, 6:4, 7:11, 8:4, 9:9, 10:4)

Supportive/Mentoring: (1:5, 2:7, 3:4, 4:5, 5:12, 6:7, 7:4, 8:5, 9:6, 10:4)

Risk-taking: (1:4, 2:4, 3:6, 4:3, 5:5, 6:10, 7:6, 8:6, 9:5, 10:8)

Willing to Compromise: (1:2, 2:1, 3:7, 4:5, 5:12, 6:13, 7:8, 8:4, 9:3, 10:4)

Assertive: (1:3, 2:5, 3:7, 4:6, 5:3, 6:3, 7:6, 8:12, 9:8, 10:5)

Honesty: (1:23, 2:7, 3:6, 4:1, 5:2, 6:5, 7:3, 8:3, 9:4, 10:6)

Confident: (1:6, 2:11, 3:5, 4:6, 5:4, 6:2, 7:6, 8:7, 9:8, 10:5)

7. Negative trait rankings (rank, frequency of rank)

Emotional: (1:12, 2:11, 3:7, 4:6, 5:4, 6:6, 7:4, 8:10)

Stubborn: (1:2, 2:11, 3:6, 4:9, 5:9, 6:11, 7:9, 8:3)

Manipulative: (1:3, 2:1, 3:8, 4:1, 5:6, 6:6, 7:10, 8:24)

Aggressive: (1:0, 2:9, 3:14, 4:15, 5:2, 6:10, 7:9, 8:2)

Passive: (1:1, 2:7, 3:8, 4:10, 5:13, 6:7, 7:10, 8:9)

Arrogant: (1:1, 2:5, 3:7, 4:7, 5:12, 6:13, 7:8, 8:7)


Cold: (1:3, 2:9, 3:7, 4:10, 5:13, 6:7, 7:9, 8:2)

Competitive: (1:38, 2:7, 3:3, 4:4, 5:1, 6:0, 7:0, 8:7)

8. Preferred Boss Gender

Male (17)

Female (7)

Not Preferred (36)


Appendix III: Companies Accommodations, Complaints, and Lawsuits

Companies’ Accommodations, Complaints, and Lawsuits

Companies: Johnson & Johnson Wal-mart Microsoft Bank of

America

21st

Century

Fox

Female Empowerment

Programs

X X X

Schedule Flexibility X

Mentorship X X X X

Continued Education X X X

Gender Discrimination

Complaints

X X

Lawsuits concerning

accommodations

X X

Documents

The Effect of Male Dominance on Women in the Workforce in ... · When the Neolithic Revolution began, introducing the domestication of crops and animals, equality between men and