woman work in the cjs
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Woman & Work in the CJS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

Woman & Work in the CJS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 197 Views
  • Uploaded on

Woman & Work in the CJS. How do you define (sex) discrimination? Treating people unequally because of personal characteristics that are not related to job performance Gender specification is used to disadvantage one sex. This is a gender neutral definition

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Woman & Work in the CJS' - halla-moss


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
woman work in the cjs

Woman & Work in the CJS

How do you define (sex) discrimination?

Treating people unequally because of personal characteristics that are not related to job performance

Gender specification is used to disadvantage one sex.

This is a gender neutral definition

What is the typical pattern of sex discrimination – who benefits from discrimination?

Sex discrimination has historically revolved around the private vs. public spheres of social life

woman work in the cjs1

Woman & Work in the CJS

Historical Legacy of Gender Relations

Restricting Women to the Private Sphere

Justified by three appeals:

Protection of women as a class:

Moral (♀ as purer; ♀ as children)

Physical (health hazards, esp. to justify exclusion from ♂ jobs)

Motherhood:

A woman’s place… Essentialist notions of parenting. Emotion work. Public sphere activities threatens the family.

3. Marriage:

Historical reality that single women have possessed more freedom

Disparate impact of marriage for ♀&♂’s lives

♀ role in the family has been used to successfully defeat lawsuits aimed at promotions policies that restrict ♀

woman work in the cjs2

Woman & Work in the CJS

Basis for Unlawfulness of Discrimination

1964 Civil Rights Act

Title 7 outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, and disability

Focused on Large Employers (15 plus full-time employees)

Covers a range of benefits of employment: Hiring, Job assignment, Discharge, Compensation, etc.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

woman work in the cjs3

Woman & Work in the CJS

Varieties of Sex Discrimination

Sexual Harassment

Quid pro quo

Hostile work environment

Statistical Discrimination

The idea that women will reduce profits

Less productive workers

More expensive workers

Deference to the Masses

Customers

Male workers

women work in the cjs

Women & Work in the CJS

Legal Approaches to Addressing Discrimination:

Formal Equality Laws

All persons be treated identically (gender neutral)

Assumes that “neutral settings” work the same for both sexes.

vs.

Compensating Equality Laws

Sex-specific in providing advantages to women in addressing historical exclusion

Affirmative Action

Compensation unintentionally may affirm sex-based stereotypes

Protected Classes & Military veterans

Dilemma of Difference

women work in the cjs1

Women & Work in the CJS

What is token status?

Insider vs. Outsider status

Despite the fact that a job is an Acquired status,

Ascribed characteristics tend to be used to make distinctions between insiders/outsiders.

The (deviant/outsider) Ascriptive Status becomes a Master Status (Hughes 1945)

This is significant because it is about power; it doesn’t necessarily work both ways in a dominant/subordinate status hierarchy.

Examples of this in CJS?

working in the cjs juries

Working in the CJS: Juries

History of exclusion

Hoyt v. Florida (1961)

Question is a jury of one’s peers

All male jury convicts Hoyt of killing husband

USSC affirms conviction of Hoyt

Overturned in Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)

Rape case with male defendant

Voire Dire system of jury selection

excluded women in a paternalistic way

excluded women in a sexist way

Women tend to defer to men in juries

working in the cjs attorneys

Working in the CJS: Attorneys

Cultural image of the law as a male domain:

Law is logical, rational, impartial, etc.

Contra image of women

Opportunities in law tied to Suffrage (19th Amend.): Prosecutor & Judgeships are frequently elected positions

1970 1980 1998

Law students 8.5% 33.5% ~52%

Attorneys 4.7% 12.0% 26%

Twice as likely to not practice after law school

working in the cjs judges

Working in the CJS: Judges

Gender Processes: Networking, Mentoring, Sponsorship

Women less likely to be in private practice

Sexism more evident in private practice (immune from policy)

Sex segregation in tasks, jobs & assignments

Historical roots of Western law:

Common Law tradition

Stare Decisis

Reinforces sexism, racism and classism – relations of power

working in the cjs judges1

Working in the CJS: Judges

Readings:

Ch. 29 “Overwhelming Evidence” (Schafran)

Gender & credibility of ♀ attorneys

Consequences of this credibility issue?

Ch. 30 “ Women in Black” Toobin

Are women more compassionate?

What factors explain a judge’s philosophy of jurisprudence?

Adversarial or compassionate nature of judges tied to experience (not gender)

working in the cjs police

Working in the CJS: Police

♀ have been in US Policing since 1910

Historical roots tied to social reform movement of the era: focus on saving children and women

Women have been assigned to women’s work within the PD: Support roles, Juvenile, Domestic

“Matron” coined – what purpose does this term serve?

Women officers seen as social workers:

Contrary to the traditional images of police work: crime-fighters, tough, aggressive, masculine

Police powers hinge on the legitimate use of force/coercion

Social connection b/t violence & gender limits ♀ place in policing culture and organizations

Women police face a choice: embrace stereotypes or fight them – each path has costs: seductress, mother, or lesbian. How do women negotiate gender in CJS context?

working in the cjs police1

Working in the CJS: Police

1968: First ♀ on patrol (standard police assignment)

How do women officers compare to men?

Job performance measures tend to reify the cultural image of police as “crime-fighters” (the deck is stacked). Question: what constitutes “good” policing?

♀ tend to have better citizen interactions than ♂

♀ less aggressive style

♀ less likely to use force

Recent emphasis on Community Policing: in concept less concerned with crime fighting: more interested in promoting “liveability” of communities (order maintenance tasks key)

Advancement in hiring may be tied to political process: more women in local govt. increases hiring in PDs

1998: -♀ are 10.5% of all police

- 5.6% of top command jobs

-125 police chiefs (of approx 17,000)

slide13

Figure 12.1 Women and Minority Local Police Officers, 1987, 1990, and 1993

Percent of full-time sworn personnel

slide14

Table 12.1 Gender of Full-Time Officers inLocal Police Departments, by Size of Population Served, 1993

Population All sworn employees

Served Total % Male % Female %

All Sizes 100 91.2 8.8

1,000,000 or more 100 85.4 14.6

500,000-999,999 100 87.6 12.4

250,000-499,999 100 88.1 11.9

100,000-249,000 100 91.0 9.0

50,000-99,999 100 93.0 7.0

25,000-49,999 100 94.8 5.2

10,000-24,999 100 95.0 5.0

2,500-9,999 100 95.6 4.4

under 2,500 100 97.2 2.8

slide15

Table 12.2 Race and Ethnicity of Full Time Officers in Local Departments, by Size of Population Served, 1993

Percent of full-time sworn employees who are:

White Black Hispanic Other

Population served Total Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

All Sizes 100% 80.9% 75.2% 5.7% 11.3% 9.1% 2.2% 6.2% 5.5% .7% 1.5% 1.4% .1%

1,000,000 or more 100% 69.2% 61.7% 7.5% 17.7% 12.8% 4.9% 12.0% 10.0% 2.0% 1.2% 1.0% .2%

500,000-999,999 100 66.2 60.1 6.1 21.0 16.1 5.0 7.0 6.1 .9 5.8 5.4 .4

250,000-499,999 100 71.9 64.5 7.4 17.7 14.3 3.4 9.0 8.2 .9 1.4 1.2 .4

100,000-249,999 100 80.6 74.2 6.3 12.4 10.4 2.1 5.4 4.9 .4 1.6 1.5 .1

50,000-99,999 100 86.3 80.7 5.5 7.2 6.3 .9 5.1 4.7 .5 1.4 1.3 .1

25,000-49,999 100 89.8 85.1 4.6 5.4 5.0 .5 4.3 4.1 .2 .6 .6 -

10,000-24,999 100 91.6 87.1 4.5 5.1 4.8 .3 2.6 2.5 .1 .6 .6 -

2,500-9,999 100 92.8 88.9 3.9 4.1 3.8 .3 2.6 2.4 .1 .5 .5 -

Under 2,500 100 91.7 89.3 2.3 5.3 5.0 .3 1.9 1.8 .1 1.2 1.1 -

slide16

Table 12.3 Top Five Local Police Departments With Percent of Women andMinority Officers

Department # Sworn Officers Percentage

Department # Sworn Officers Percentage

Women

Pittsburgh, PA 1,122 29

Madison, WI 327 28

Washington, DC 3,618 25

Boulder,CO 137 24

Bossier, LA 176 23

Black

Washington, DC 3,618 69

East Orange, NJ 285 66

Gary, IN 243 63

Jackson, MS 417 62

Atlanta, GA 1,612 58

Hispanic

Laredo, TX 269 100

McAllen, TX 195 90

Brownsville, TX 180 82

El Paso, TX 1,013 66

Santa Fe, NM 117 56

Asian/Pacific Islander

Honolulu, HI 1,619 76

San Francisco, CA 2006 14

Berkeley, CA 199 12

Vallejo, CA 141 11

Culver City, CA 119 10

Oakland, CA 617 10

San Jose, CA 1,336 10

American Indian

Modesto, CA 248 10

Tulsa, OK 800 6

Long Beach, CA 838 5

Duluth, MN 141 4

Lawrence, KS 110 4

slide17
Figure 12.2 Percent of Female Officers in Representative Large Police Departments and Percent in Supervision, 1992

% of All Officers % of Supervisors

working in the cjs police2

Working in the CJS: Police

Police-related Readings:

Ch. 31 “Invisible No More: A Social History of ♀in US Policing” (Schulz)

Ch. 32 “Current Barriers & Future Promise for ♀ in Policing” (Harrington & Lonsway)

Ch. 34 “Interactive Effects of Race & Sex on ♀ Police Officers” (Martin)

comparing cops prison staff

Comparing Cops & Prison Staff

Institutionalized Sexism & Heterosexism

A historical objection frequently cited as cause for limiting ♀ has been physical characteristics

Ignores that the vast majority of the job does not require physical force

Height & weight requirements for employment

Struck down in early 1970s for police

Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977) for penal staff

But held that in some circumstances the BFOQ exception was legal: women staff in men’s prisons

Physical Agility Tests replaced physical requirements

Implemented in a way that was unrealistic

Preference for military veterans (reproduces a heterosexist work environment)

Women less likely to be assaulted or injured by prisoners

working in the cjs prison staff

Working in the CJS: Prison Staff

Similar History as ♀ Cops: Social Reformers focused on saving wayward women.

♀ uniquely suited to addressing ♀ problems

Opportunities for ♀ staff in men’s prisons only become real in 1970s (after Title VII)

Women staff face problems of discrimination in men’s prisons for many of the same reasons as ♀ cops

Men’s prisons provide opportunities for career advancement

Security level of prisons is best predictor of ♀ staff experiences.

Ch. 35 “♀ in Conflict” (Belknap)

challenges that hinder opportunity

Challenges that Hinder Opportunity

Paternalism that is justified as “Preferential Treatment” for women in the CJS

Prestige and rewards are reserved for those who get the chance to perform. Paternalism works against women.

Higher Expectations for women workers

Tokens often forced to represent their entire class

Women have to be better qualified and perform better in order to measure up

Networking Dilemmas

Informal relationships & Socializing are often pivotal to career success. Sexuality important.

Sex stereotyping in Job Assignment (Sex segregation)

ad