18 Page Sociology Paper Topic: Gender Discrimination Against Women In The Workplace
Mrs.Shaw
source3.pdf
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 1/12
Full Text | Scholarly Journals
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING
Hale, Lori.
Race, Gender & Class; New Orleans Vol. 20, Iss. 1/2, (2013): 281-
293.
Save as PDF
Cite Email Print All Options
k 9
Full Text
Abstract
This research is a critical analysis of women working within the manufacturing sector. Women 's work
within factories has been ignored and the main focus of analysis with regards to the manufacturing sector
has been on men. This critical analysis strives to correct for the lack of research within this area. With Marx
as a theoretical framework, this researcher strives to understand the particular conditions effecting women
within this employment sector. This paper examines women 's manufacturing within a historical context and
the continuation of bias within the workforce , such as the influence of World War II on women 's jobs and
the legislation in place to minimize women 's employment opportunities. Finally, this research examines the
continued issues women face labor in modern day society. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Turn on search term navigation
Headnote
Abstract: This research is a critical analysis of women working within the manufacturing sector. Women 's
work within factories has been ignored and the main focus of analysis with regards to the manufacturing
sector has been on men. This critical analysis strives to correct for the lack of research within this area.
With Marx as a theoretical framework, this researcher strives to understand the particular conditions
effecting women within this employment sector. This paper examines women 's manufacturing within a
historical context and the continuation of bias within the workforce , such as the influence of World War II
on women 's jobs and the legislation in place to minimize women 's employment opportunities. Finally, this
research examines the continued issues women face labor in modern day society.
Sociological Abstracts
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 2/12
Keywords: women ; manufacturing; Marxism
Women are not typically considered employees of the manufacturing sector. Women are considered in the
pink collar professions while men are considered in the blue collar professions (Liben, Bigler, & Krogh,
2001). Women are stereotyped as nurses and teachers, while men are considered machine builders and
construction workers. Female workers are afforded less-prestige, while male workers are afforded higher
status, even if the task is identical (Libem, Bigler, & Krogh, 2001). This places women at a disadvantage,
which is significant considering the rise of women dominated households and the increased likelihood of
female headed households living in poverty (Synder, McLaughlin, & Findeis, 2006).
With the rise of unemployment, these discrepancies are more evident. According to the United States Labor
Statistics, in 2005, 9.6% of women worked in the manufacturing sector, while 18.1% of men worked in the
same sector. Of this 9.6%, 10.3% of women fall into the lowest earning category and 9.0% fall into the
highest earning category. Of this 18.1% of men, however, 15.0% fall into the lowest earning category and
18.9% fall into the highest earning category (United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2006). In
construction, these discrepancies are more evident with 1.5% of women being employed in this field, while
12.3% of men. However, in terms of job creation, these newly created jobs are primarily occurring within
male dominated fields. In terms of the manufacturing sector, since June of 2009, 1.3 million jobs have been
created (United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2011). Despite this increase, in 2011, according to
the United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 30,000 women manufacturing jobs were lost.
Manufacturing, in general, is considered a goods-producing industry in the same lines as mining and
construction (Zweig, 2000). The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) considers manufacturing
the use of machines for the transformation of a substance into a sellable product. As a result,
manufacturing jobs provide a necessary function within society. However, only about 21% "nonsupervisory"
employees work in the non-farm goods-producing private sector industries (Zweig, 2000). Regardless,
factory work affects the social structure of American culture. Karl Marx states, "Industry is the real historical
relation of Nature, and thus of the natural sciences to man. Consequently, if industry is conceived as an
exoteric form of the realization of the essential human facilities, one is able to grasp also the human
essence of Nature or the natural essence of man" (Marx, 1964:73). Since the 1800's, women have worked
in factories or manufacturing plants assisting in the production of goods (Foner, 1982).
Even though, factory work influences many different sectors within the United States, it is noteworthy
industrial sociology has progressed away from the study of industrial behaviors to the study of
organizations, in general, such as hospitals, trade unions, and political parties (Burawoy, 1979). Although,
some researchers do contest this progression (Thompson & Smith, 2009). In general, however, researchers
maintain the Labour Process Theory and industrial sociology is a source of innovation and resilience with
regards to its analysis of work. Women , however, are disregarded in terms of this sector as a whole.
Abbot (1993) divides the sociology of work into two sections: (1) the Everett Hughes perspective and his
students and (2) industrial sociology. According to Abbot (1993), industrial sociology consists of work from
the human relations school of management. The impact of women in factory work has not been
researched in great depth within industrial sociology. Abbott (1993) suggests this ignorance of women
within this field is longstanding. Abbott suggests this ignorance can be traced to researchers viewing
gender as a variable or a trait of the individual rather than as a result of the systemic sociocultural.
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 3/12
In order to analyze manufacturing work, however, it is first necessary to focus on the origins of this
workforce . Feudalism is the precursor to manufacturing and is considered a form of non-capitalist labor
(Burawoy, 1979). Feudalism consisted of serf's working on the lord's land during the week with the
remainder of their time being spent on their land to assist with their own survival (Burawoy, 1979). The serfs
rented land, money, and labor services from the lord, however, feudalism allowed for co-operation, a
continued relationship to her/his community, and shared ownership of production (Marx, 1964). For
feudalism, the workers did not experience a separation between herself/himself and her/his work. This,
instead, allowed for self-autonomy. During this time period, there was also a connection between the land
and the laborer, which was not based on solely on wealth. Instead, nationality, family history, political
alliance, and customs tied the lord to the serf (Marx, 1964).
Burawoy (1979) identifies five key features of pure feudalism. The first feature of feudalism was the serfs
work for the lord in exchange for the ability to cultivate land. Secondly, the serfs consumed the crops they
grow. Thirdly, the serfs were able to determine the instruments of production without the direct supervision
of the lord. Fourth, even though the serfs organized labor production on their land, the production on the
demesne was supervised by agents of the lord. The final feature is the lord had the right to exclude serf from
the cultivation of land for their own use (Burawoy, 1979:22).
With feudalism described, it is necessary to describe how feudalism differs from capitalism. The first key
difference is the entire production is owned by the capitalist and the workers cannot live offwhat they
produce (Burawoy, 1979:22). Workers are paid for what they produce; however, this money must be
exchanged for necessary goods, such as food and clothing (Burawoy, 1979). The workers in capitalist
society also do not own the means of production and cannot direct the production of labor without the
capitalist and the management in capitalism exists to both coordinate and control the workers, while the
serfs' management existed for coordination. Finally, it is noteworthy; the capitalist relationship is based on
each other's economic interdependence, while the relationship between the lord and the serf is protected in
political institutions (Burawoy, 1979).
It is noteworthy; however, both the capitalist society and the feudal divided labor based on sex. However,
Marx differentiates this division of labor based on arbitrary vs. natural requirements within the family. Marx
states, "The distribution of the work within the family, and the regulation of the labour-time of the several
members, depend upon differences of age and sex and upon natural conditions varying with the seasons"
(Marx, 1964:107). For Marx, this was considered a natural division of labor, however, for modern capitalist
society, these divisions can be consisted largely arbitrary (Caraway, 2007). Caraway states the creation of
skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled labor is not objective, has its' own bias, and reinforces a hierarchical
structure. For example, women are disadvantaged in society, which places women 's jobs at a lower skill
level than male jobs. This follows the assumption if a female can fulfill the job requirements, it must be an
easier task than if a male is required. This furthers the notion that women are not as valuable within the
workforce and justifies the continued pay discrepancies, lack of promotions, and the glass ceiling within
the United States (Skinew, Anderson, & Arnold, 2000).
With the dissolution of feudal society, capitalist society became the main economic ideology. Capitalism
bought industry, manufacturing, and factories. Yet, factory jobs have been performed by females since the
nineteenth century. In 1824, women notably participated in their first factory strike alongside men (Foner,
1982). In 1825, women alone participated in the strike for higher wages of "the Tailoresses of New York,"
(Foner, 1982). At this time, however, women were encouraged to be fluent in domestic tasks, be
submissive, patient, and virtuous, while men were encouraged to be competitive and aggressive, especially
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 4/12
in the world of business (Foner, 1982). Plummer (2000) theorizes this ignorance is perhaps a result of
researchers placing emphasis on different groups during this time period. For example, socialist historians
researched the livid experience of the working class, educationists valued the development of the education
system, and feminists analyzed domestic ideology that was rampant during this time period.
Working women were considered an anomaly, even though, for working-class women , domesticity was not
an option. Working-class women needed to enter the workforce in order to provide for themselves and
their families. As a result of this necessity, it is not surprising, female factory operatives became active in
improving the working conditions of the factories. Foner states, "Once the female factory operative became
the primary wage earners in the family, they became fully committed to improving the conditions
systematically rather than through brief 'turnouts'," (Foner, 1982). However, they were not treated in the
same manner as their male co-workers. For example, working-class women in the nineteenth century were
kept unskilled by their employers to prevent them from seeking higher wages (Foner, 1982).
Caraway identifies two dynamics for the devaluation of women 's work (Caraway, 2007). The first dynamic is
women are assumed to have innate qualities including dexterity and greater tolerance for monotony work.
Due to the assumption these tasks are considered innate and natural and thus not worthy financial
retribution (Caraway, 2007). The second dynamic is men are assumed to be "skilled" and defend their level of
skill in the face of "deskilling" (Caraway, 2007). This reiterates the argument skill categories should not be
assumed and analyzed with skepticism due to potential arbitrary requirements and bias within the
hierarchical system.
During the 1930's, however, there were movements against women working (Gluck, 1988). At this time,
women were expected to follow their alleged natural feminine instincts which consisted of rising and caring
for children, allocating male's a position of dominance, and serving as a sexual companion for their spouse
(Gluck, 1988). There was also proposed legislation to limit women 's ability to enter the workforce , which
was proposed partially to limit the high unemployment rate of males (Gluck, 1988). In 1936, 82 percent of
the population of the population believed husbands should work outside the home, while their wives
remained within the household. Even though, these laws were not enacted, the federal government did
prohibit a couple from both working within the federal government (Gluck, 1988). In 1939, twenty-six state
legislatures were still considering laws that placed limits on married women 's work. The majority of women
did not work at this time, because of a lack of availability of jobs, the expectations of women within the
home, and the resistance to work not fulfilling women 's proper place within society (Gluck, 1988), however,
for working-class women and African American women , working was required for survival.
During World War II, however, women 's work place status changed drastically. World War II bought large
numbers of women within the workforce and women worked extensively in manufacturing plants (Gluck,
1988). This was result of the draftin place during World War II. This drafttook men outside of the
manufacturing sector for military service. As a result, these jobs were leftvacant in large numbers for the
first time allowing women the opportunity to fulfill these jobs. During this time, women worked in these
manufacturing jobs and built military devices, including airplanes and tanks, for the war effort (Gluck, 1988).
A woman who worked in an airplane plant during World War II states, " In fact, sometimes I think most of
the housewives did better than a lot of the men who were there, 'cause they'd goof off'" (Gluck, 1988).
However, resistance still occurred with regards to women 's employment in manufacturing. For example, in
early 1943, less than a third of married men gave approval for their wives to work in the manufacturing
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 5/12
sector (Gluck, 1988). Even though, there was a battle to enter these jobs, women who did had a significant
breakthrough with regards to women 's employment opportunities. For example, many women sought
employment in male dominated fields, despite the social stigma these jobs previously elicited.
Following the end of World War II, women were asked to relinquish these jobs and opt instead to a life of
traditional women 's work (Chester & Grossman,1990). For example, the majority of aircraftworkers leftthe
factories with the end of World War II (Gluck ,1988). Despite women proving themselves as valuable
laborers and as skilled workers, the arbitrary hierarchies prevented women from continuing within this field
and the social stigma ensured women to be removed thusly. Women 's removal was also guaranteed due to
the lack of organizations in place to protect women 's manufacturing jobs. The noted exception of the
workers unions, although the support women received from the unions varied drastically (Chester &
Grossman,1990). For example, during the nineteenth century, and early twentieth century, women were not
generally welcome in the unions (Crain, 2007). This was a result of male union workers viewing women as
a competitive threat to wages, job security, and by supporting women ; male workers feared this would be
undermining patriarchy. For example, if a woman could sustain herself without a male counterpoint, male
workers felt this threatening to their position in society and the arbitrary hierarchy in place.
As a result, union membership is highly segregated. In the 1920's, women accounted for only 8% of union
membership and were not embraced as equals by male members (Chester & Grossman, 1990). Women also
received a lack of protection from the union (Chester & Grossman, 1990). Male union workers in male-
dominated fields even went on strike to prevent the increase of female labor and prevent protective
legislation for hiring women (Caraway, 2007). This legislation made it more difficult and expensive to hire
women and have women enter these male-dominated fields (Caraway, 2007). Women were more
successful through legislative reforms relating to their status as mothers, rather than as their status as
workers (Chester & Grossman, 1990).
Women union members are a concentrated in more particular sectors, industries, and occupations in
comparison to their unionized males (Milkman, 2007). Unionized women are more likely to be employed in
the public sector than unionized men. For example, the majority of unionized women work in the
educational sector 42.9 percent while only 6 percent of unionized women worked in manufacturing. Men's
union membership is more diverse, however, with manufacturing consisting of the largest percentage with
18.6 percent of unionized men working within this field (Milkman, 2007). Women , who did enter male-
dominated fields often, experienced greater hostility and resentment from unions rather than support, like
their male counterparts (Schroedel, 1990). Caraway (2007) suggests this resentment is the result of fear of
a decrease in wages, threatened ideals of masculinity, fear of a decrease of the prestige of the occupation,
and women corrupting the job.
In the 1960's and 1970's, however, the unions changed their position on women workers significantly and
became more open to women workers (Crain, 2007). This is often attributed to the development to feminist
movement and its' influence on the unions. During this time, the unions' altered their policies to minimize
wage competition, remove provisions to limit married women 's' options, and remove union policies which
blatantly prevented women from joining. As a result, it is not surprising in the post-WWII period; there was
an increase in the desire of women to blend a home life and with employment outside the household
(Chester & Grossman, 1990). The late twentieth century, brought an increase in the numbers of women
working within the manufacturing sector. However, it is still noteworthy; the unskilled working class women
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 6/12
within the manufacturing sector were still often not recognized for their participation (Arnold, 2008). This
makes their contribution go unnoticed and continue reinforcing stereotypes about male and female job
skills, occupations, and opportunities.
As a result, there is still an underrepresentation in women in skills trade, even though; women have strong
incentives to enter these male dominated fields (England, 2010). These incentives include the continued
devaluation of traditional female dominated careers, such as teaching, and higher income in these male-
dominated manufacturing careers. Working-class women who lack a college-degree, a blue-collar
profession, such as blue-collar unionized skilled manufacturing position, can be considered a naturally
progression (England 2010). For example, in 1996, 24% of working class women held jobs as operators,
fabricators, and laborers, however, only 9% held jobs among precision production, craft, and repair workers
(Zweig, 2000). These jobs differ in terms of financial retribution.
Despite the more openness of the unions for women , women still had to get hired, which is determined by
the management. Schroedal (1990) describes women 's relationships with their supervisors and states;
women have more difficult relationships with supervisors. For example, only 50% of women consider
having acceptable work relationships with supervisors, with 76% of women reporting some form of sexism,
and 20% reporting sexually harassment at the hands of their supervisors (Schroedal, 1990). Some women ,
who do enter the field of manufacturing, attribute their access to factory work through the assistance of
Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action's quota system encourages employers to have minimal number of
women within the workplace and also opened jobs for women , which have been traditionally off-limits to
women (Schroedal, 1990). However, this does not mean, women have been full accepted within these fields
as evidenced above. Schroedal (1990) suggests one caveat is women are expected to fulfill specific gender
roles within the workplace, including mother figure, wife figure, or daughter figure, to order to minimize
animosity and create a stable working dynamic.
However, internationally women are treated similar on the shop floor, which has seen a drastic increase
internationally for women working within the field of manufacturing. Caraway states,
"During the last decades of the twentieth century, industrialization generated millions of new factory jobs in
developing countries. Although men historically outnumbered women in formal-sector work in
manufacturing, women reached near parity or beyond in many countries in the short space of just one to
two decades" (Caraway, 2007:1)
Caraway (2007) includes several explanations for why women 's employment in factories in Indonesia has
increased. They include the following: (1) laborintensive to capital-intensive sectors create a need for
women workers, (2) increase in education of women globally, (3) increase in family planning, and (4)
economic crisis which forces women within the workforce (Caraway, 2007). However, despite better
treatment of women within the workforce , internationally women are still selected or geared towards
certain sectors within manufacturing. Caraway (2007) states work in the highest paying sectors of
manufacturing continues to go to men and continue to be out of reach for women .
In order to better understand women entering factory work, it is useful to analyze this field in terms of
Marxism. First, it is necessary to analyze Marx's theory on capitalism and worker's alienation. For Marx,
capitalism is an economic system in which the proletariat outnumbers the bourgeoisie (Marx, 1964).
However, the bourgeoisie owns all the commodities, the means of production, and the labor of the workers
(Marx, 1964). Through capitalism, the economic structure is viewed as a natural force in which workers are
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 7/12
laid off, wages are reduced, and factories are closed as a natural consequence of capitalism. A key
component of capitalism, for Marx, is alienation. Marx states, "His work is not voluntary but imposed, forced
labor. It is not the satisfaction of a need, but only a means for satisfying other needs. Its alien character is
clearly shown by the fact that as soon as there is no physical or other compulsion it is avoided like the
plague" (Marx 1964:170). In this system, people are valued by their production of goods rather than as a
separate entity. Women , in factories, are not immune to this concept and are greatly valued in terms of
their product, rather than in terms of an individual.
Marx identifies four key components of alienation within capitalism. The first component is that the worker
experiences disconnect between her/his role and the finished product (Marx, 196). This is exhibited in the
assembly line worker, who has a minimal impact on the final product and does not exhibit creativity in
her/his work. For women within the factory, they are limited within their creativity and have their creativity
determined by the bourgeoisie. The second component of alienation is the worker not owning the product of
her/his labor (Marx, 1964 ). The third component is the alienation between the workers. For women workers,
this occurs to a varying degree. As evident above, women sometimes are not welcome in factory work or
in general, male-dominated fields. This results in the capitalist pitting the workers against one another to
ignore their continued exploitation (Marx, 1964). The fourth component occurs from the worker's human
potential. Workers become machines, preprogrammed by the capitalist to complete a task and do not feel
like a human being (Marx, 1964). Workers become less human and lose part themselves within the work.
This become so significant even the workers' smiles and greetings become programmed and scripted.
Women in factories experience this as well by becoming programmed to be a female figure and fulfill a
gender role at all times. Instead of being treated as an individual, they are treated as this artificial female
machine.
The feminist perspective analyzes society through a variety of theorists including: Marx, Engles, and Freud
(Farganis,1993). The feminist theory specific analyzes gender differences, inequality, and oppression. This
perspective maintains the following assumption: inequality is the result of social organization, not biological
differences. This perspective argues gender inequality is examined through economic inequalities, social
inequalities, and institutional barriers (Farganis, 1993). With regards to women within the workforce ,
economic inequalities are a significant area of interest.
Marxist feminist is the most significant in terms of economic inequalities. Marxist feminists argue
women 's status is the result of the economic structure (Farganis, 1993). For example, bourgeois women
are considered possessions for men and reinforce class interests. Bourgeois women are valued because
they provide emotional support, family support, and sexual pleasure for men (Farganis, 1993). Proletariat
women are often viewed as a labor, particularly cheaper labor force relative to proletariat men (Farganis,
1993). As a result, proletariat women are exploited to continue the capitalist system. The Marxist feminists
argue the only way to end this exploitation is through a reorganization of the economic conditions within
society to provide women the opportunity to be viewed as equals. Caraway (2007) argues gender based
inequalities in manufacturing occurs in two forms. The first is the unequal payment for women and men
performing the same work. The second is the rejection of women to the more highly compensated
positions through job segregation or through capital-intensive sectors. Caraway (2007) theorizes Marx
would anticipate greater gender equality with increase of women in the field and less arbitrary gendered
divisions of labor.
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 8/12
Lovell, Hartmann, and Werschkul (2007) describe the gender discrepancies in pay earnings in more detail.
They state when occupation is divided into three categories determined by training, education, and sex of
the majority jobholders, male workers earn substantially more in their jobs. It is interesting; however, when
women enter male dominated occupations, such as factory work, women still earn less but benefit in
comparison to women who are employed in a primarily female dominated career (Lovell, Hartmann, &
Werschkul, 2007). As a result, women gain more in male-dominated than female-dominated fields due a
problem with comparable worth (Lovell, Hartmann, & Werschkul, 2007). However, there are still
discrepancies.
Osberg and Smeeding (2006) suggest part of this inequality structure is a result of a lack of governmental
interventions. For example, there is more economic inequality in the United States than other developed
counties; however, there are less governmental interventions in the United States than other developed
nations (Osberg & Smeeding, 2006). In addition, they report more polarization in attitudes for Americans
and less concern for reducing wage differentials to minimize the economic inequalities. For Marx, this can
be considered a tool by the capitalist to create alienation among the workers. By creating division within the
workers, they lack power and a unified front. As a result, they become more manageable individually and are
more susceptible to exploitation by the capitalist. In addition, by lacking government involvement, the
government is systematically supporting the bourgeoisie and the capitalist. The government is siding with
the powerful and most likely consists of people from the bourgeoisie. As a result, the government is
supporting the status quo, supporting the self-interests of the bourgeoisie, and supporting the exploitation
of the workers. In this instance, the government is supporting the exploitation of women by the status quo
through the hierarchy of patriarchy.
Sakamoto and Kim's (2010) research suggests there is significant exploitation among women , Hispanics,
African Americans, and blue-collar workers. This exploitation is related to the underpayment of workers in
the lowest quintiles for the earnings distribution. Women , Hispanics, African Americans, and blue-collar
workers are also underpaid with regards to their contribution to industrial productivity (Sakamoto & Kim's,
2010). This exploitation is evident within the treatment of women within the home and its' impact on
women in manufacturing. Plummer (2000) analyzes domestic ideology into three major assumptions. The
first assumption is the sexes should have separate areas. The second assumption suggests women should
be placed within the home as wives and children and thereby, women need to be defined in terms of their
relationship to men. The third assumption is women are inferior to men (Plummer, 2000). By encouraging
women to be submissive to males, this is further creating divisions between the female and male factory
workers. As a result, once the bourgeoisie is creating more manageable workers and the workers are
distracted from the capitalist's exploitation. In addition, by encouraging this domestic ideology, women
pose less of a threat to the capitalist, less of threat to patriarchy, and easily exploited within the workforce .
Even though, women have worked in factories since the nineteenth century, women remain subjugated,
alienated, undervalued, and ignored. Women experience unique hardships within manufacturing, such as
lack of recognition by supervisors, increased alienation, are afforded less prestige and less in terms of
monetary exchange. Feudalism can be considered the precursor to capitalism but with a more symbiotic
relationship in place. Capitalism creates the exploitation and alienation of the worker from the product. In
addition, despite women having a significant role in manufacturing during World War II, they have not been
consistently welcome within this field. At times, legislation was even a possibility to limit women 's
influence within the workforce and women 's relationships with unions are shaky at best. With regards to
Marxist theory, the divisions of females and male workers benefited the bourgeoisie and allowed the
continued exploitation of workers. Women 's contribution to factory work is, however, often over looked or
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 9/12
ignored by researchers. Employment within this field continues to be associated with men and women
remain on the outskirts of this field. In addition, increase jobs in this sector have overwhelmingly impacted
men, despite the increase of women headed households and the natural progression for women to work
within this field.
References
REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (1993). The sociology of work and occupations." Annual Review Sociology 19:187-209.
Arnold, K. (2008). America's new working class: Race, gender, and ethnicity in a biopolitical age. University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Becker, P.E. & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling Back: Dual-earner couples' workfamily strategies. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 61(4):995-1007.
Brines, J. (1994). Economic dependency, gender, and the division of labor at home." The American Journal of
Sociology, 100(3):652-688.
Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing consent: Changes in the labor process under monopoly capitalism.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Caraway, T. (2007). Assembling women : The feminization of global manufacturing. Ithaca: Ilr Press.
Crain, M. (2007). Sex discrimination as collective harm. In D. Cobble (Ed.), The sex of class: Women
transforming American labor. Ithaca: ILR Press.
England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender and society, 24(2):149-166.
_______. (2011). Reassessing the uneven gender revolution and its slowdown. Gender and Society, 25(1):113-
123.
Farganis, J. (1993). Readings in social theory: The classic tradition to postmodernism, Fourth Edition. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Gallie, D. & Russel, H. (2009). Work-family conflict and working conditions in Western Europe. Social
Indicators Research, 93(3):445-467.
Gluck, S.B. (1988). Rosie the riveter revisited: Women , the aar, and social change. New York: Meridian.
Gorman, T.J. Reconsidering worlds of pain: Life in the working class(es). Sociological Forum, 19(4):693-718.
Grossman, H. & Chester, N. (1990). Introduction: Learning about women and their work through their own
accounts. In H. Grossman & N. Chester (Eds.), The experience and meaning of work in women 's lives.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Güngör, G. a& Biernat, M. (2008). Gender bias or motherhood disadvantage? Judgments of blue collar
mothers and fathers in the workplace. Sex Roles, 60:232-246.
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 10/12
Johnson, M.K. (2005). Family roles and work values: Processes of selection and change. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 67(2):352-369.
Kalleberg, A.L. (1977). Work values and job rewards: A theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological
Review, 42(1):124-143.
Kaufman, G. & Uhlenberg, P. 2000. The influence of parenthood on the work effort of married men and
women . Social Forces, 78(3):931-947.
Kwan, M-P. (1999). Gender, the home-work link, and space-time patterns of nonemployment activities.
Economic Geography, 75(4):370-394.
Liben, L., Bigler, R. & Krogh, H. (2001). Pink and blue collar jobs: Children's judgments of job status and job
aspirations in relation to sex of the worker. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79:346-363.
Lovell, V., Hartmann, H., & Werschkul, M. (2007). More than raising the floor: The persistence of gender
inequalities in the low-wage labor market. In D. Cobble (Ed.), The sex of class: Women transforming
American labor. Ithaca: ILR Press.
MacBurnie, I. (1995). The periphery and the American dream. Journal of Architectural Education, 48(3):134-
143.
Marx, K. (1964). Selected writings in sociology and social philosophy. Translated by T.B. Bottomore. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Mennino, S.F., Rubin, B., & Brayfield, A. (2005). Home-to-job and job-tohome spillover: The impact of
company policies and workplace. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(1):107-135.
Meteyer, K. & Perry-Jenkins. (2010). Father involvement among workingclass, dual-earner couples.
Fathering, 8(3):379-403.
Milkman, Ruth. 2007. "Two Worlds of Unionism: Women and the New Labor Movement." In The Sex of
Class: Women Transforming American Labor. Edited by Dorothy Cobble. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Osberg, L. & Smeeding, T. (2006). 'Fair' inequality? Attitudes toward pay differentials: The United States in
comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 71(3):450-473.
Plummer, G. (2000). Failing working-class girls. Staffordshire: Trentham Books.
Ritzer, G. (2011). Classical sociological theory, Sixth Edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
Rubin, Breslow, L. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family. New York: Basic Books.
_______. (1994). Families on the Faultline: America's working class speaks about the family, the economy,
race, and ethnicity. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Sakamot, A. & Changhwan, K. (2010). Is rising earnings inequality associated with increased exploitation?
Evidence for U.S. Manufacturing Industries, 1971-1996. Sociological Perspectives, 53(1):19-44.
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 11/12
Schroedal, J. (1990). Blue-collar women : Paying the price at home on the job. In H. Grossman & N. Chester
(Eds.), The experience and meaning of work in women 's lives. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Schieman, S. (2002). Socioeconomic status, job conditions, and well-being: Self concept explanations for
gender contingent effects. Sociological Quarterly, 43(4):627-646.
Starks, B. (2003). The new economy and the American dream: Examining the effect of work conditions on
beliefs about economic opportunity. The Sociological Quarterly, 44(2):205-225.
Synder, A., McLaughlin, D. & Findeis, J. (2006). Household composition and poverty among female-headed
households with children: Differences by race and residence. Rural Sociology, 71(4):597-624.
Thompson, P. & Smith, C. (2009). Labour power and labour process: Contesting the marginality of the
sociology of work. Sociology, 43(5):913-930.
Torlina, J. (2006). Alternative working class definitions of class, occupational prestige, and mobility.
Presented at the American Sociological Association 2006 Annual Meeting, Montreal. Retrieved from
(http://ezproxy.uakron.edu:2055/ehost/detail?hid=8&sid=c00495a1- 4738-4230-a9f7-
e3adcf58197b%40sessiomgr12&vid=10&bdata=JnNp
pdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=sih&AN=26644077).
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). Women still underrepresented among highest
earners. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils55.pdf
_______. (2012a). Manufacturing: NAICS 31-33. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag31-33.htm
_______. (2012b). News release: Job openings and job turnover for March 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf
_______. (2012c). PPI Detailed Report for January 2012: Volume 16, Number 1 Mining, Manufacturing,
Services, Agriculture, Utilities Construction Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ppi/ppidr201201.pdf
Zuboff, S. (1984). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic Books.
AuthorAffiliation
Lori Hale
Michigan State University
Lori Hale is presently a Doctoral Student at Michigan State University. She has a Master's of Science degree
from Eastern Michigan University in clinical psychology and a Master's of Arts degree in Sociology from
University of Akron. She is presently an Adjunct Professor at SchoolcraftCollege and Lansing Community
College. She researches white privilege, stereotyping, discrimination, and prejudice.
Address: 316 Berkey Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1111. Ph.: (734) 788-6906,
Email: [email protected]
Copyright Race, Gender and Class 2013
4/20/2021 A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF WOMEN IN MANUFACTURING - Sociological Abstracts - ProQuest
https://search.proquest.com/socabs/docview/1464752055/D18EFD858E6348B1PQ/4?accountid=14275 12/12
Tennessee Electronic Library
Copyright © 2021 ProQuest LLC.
