In this issue, I bring together articles that examine gender in the professional and public domains. The ideas that emerge here have particular resonance for me for the following reason: many years ago I was found to have been subjected to Victimization in a Protected Act (this is a UK legal term for those treated detrimentally as a result of raising a challenge relating to equality). The man who led the victimization was a senior employee and despite the court ruling, he experienced no sanction by his employer. It will be no surprise to readers to learn that he now occupies an even more senior position in the UK or that during the period in which he victimized me, he was promoted. What may be slightly more surprising (though again perhaps not to those who are familiar with this field of research) are the acts of the handful of employees (men and women) around him who both bullied and fabricated stories in order to further his objectives. The second legal case, dealing with their actions, was settled in judicial mediation for an undisclosed sum. Research into the conduct of those who seek to advance themselves at the expense of someone being subject to acts of discrimination (regardless of whatever protected characteristic they possess) is still scarce.
There are two Forum articles in this issue. In A Policy Paradox, Anicha, Bilen-Green and Green consider the role that men are required to play in diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Paradoxically, it is men who must unravel the gendered systems in which unearned over-advantage has been rendered to them. Since it is men who are over-represented in the leadership positions that determine policy their critical consciousness needs to be explicitly addressed. In The relationship between gender and career choice in medicine, Campbell, McAleer, Wilkinson and Dennis challenge the assumed dominance by men of the practice of medicine in the UK. Over the last forty years, the increasing proportion of women undergraduates is expected to result in the majority of clinicians being female from around 2020. Despite these general trends, research shows clinicians of the same gender are over-represented in particular medical and surgical specialities. Some suggested reasons for this imbalance are put forward. Until the causes of gender imbalance are understood, efforts to address them will be limited.
Moving on to full research articles in this issue; In Gender inequality in the Academy, Blithe and Elliott discuss the challenges faced by women seeking full Professorships in the US. Through focus-group data, it was found that women in academia reported hostility, stressors and micro-aggressions as well as work-life conflict. The author also suggests strategies that could improve the experience of women in the academy.
In Comparison within gender and between female and male leaders in female-dominated, male-dominated and mixed-gender work environments, Larsson and Alvinius compare the self-rated leadership behaviours of men and women in contrasting work environments in Sweden. The results indicate that female leaders rate themselves more favourably than male leaders in female-dominated and mixed-gender work environments. Women in female-dominated and gender-mixed work environments report more favourable self-ratings than women in male-dominated contexts. Among male leaders, fewer differences are observed between different work environments. The implication for work, organization and gender are discussed.
In Discrimination, depression, and anxiety among college women in the Trump Era, Daftary, Devereux and Elliott examine the association between racial/ethnic discrimination and mental health among women university students. Women of colour reported more racial/ethnic discrimination, as well as more frequent symptoms of depression and anxiety than white women did. Moreover, discrimination was a predictor of worse mental health. The students describe a resurgence of racism, nativism and white supremacy as well as increased hate, conflict, and division since the 2016 United States presidential election.
In The Invisibility of Women in Legislations and National Conferences of Sport and Leisure in Brazil, Moura, Fernandes, Starepravo and Pimentel assess the efficacy of policies that seek to combat limitations in women’s access to, and participation in, sports and leisure in Brazil. The authors investigate the most relevant laws on sport and leisure, as well as the resolutions of National Sports Conferences. It is observed that in Decree-law, women have been prohibited from participating in sports considered to be masculine, but this prohibition is not mentioned in other laws. At the Conferences, women are granted greater inclusion and access to sports. The word ‘women’ in legislation is rare and the documents included in the study are circumscribed by socially constructed roles for women through the description of traditional femininity.
In Switching Selves?, Zelin and Thoman describe the early-career life of women, in the US, navigating gender roles and making decisions about their professional and personal lives. The configurations of agentic and communal behaviour found have implications for women’s job, and romantic relationship, satisfaction. The results offer insight into gender-role-related outcomes in work and life settings and provide material to inform future research as well as organizational-level and societal-level interventions. Readers’ attention is also brought to further information found at https://www.dropbox.com/s/b4w8bm55gytoboq/Table4ClusterMANOVAMeans-AddOn7.2020.pdf?dl=0
In Whether your name is Manuel or María matters, Fernández-Cornejo, De la Puente Pachecho, Pozo-García, Belope-Nguema, Rodríguez-Juárez and Escot research the potential for gender bias when providing guidance to teenagers in their career choice. Using fictional profiles of a teenager described variably as either Manuel or María participants were asked to evaluate the student’s mathematical ability and provide guidance regarding whether or not, he, or she, should study engineering in the future. The results suggest a significant degree of bias in favour of males studying engineering. The authors propose some practical implications for advisers and equality policies.
In Patriarchal pits, Lough, drawing from feminist theory, narrates the disadvantages experienced by women in concert photography. Restricted access to the music scene, as well as the embodied nature of photojournalism, combine to present unique barriers. In-depth interviews with photographers show that women still face patriarchal oppression in this field of work. This is seen through gendered language, direct sexual harassment and indirect benevolent sexism, as well as the questions put to women when they identify as a photographer.
In Is Smart Mobility Gender Smart, Singh discusses existing research into transit and, in particular, technologies that have emerged in the mobility-on-demand sector such as app-based services/smart-phones, shared cars, bikes, parking and shuttles. The author highlights the scant attention paid to how smart mobility impacts on the access to, as well as the safety and comfort of, mobility for women. Use of new technologies may be widening the gender gap in cities. Further studies are required in order to establish the reasons for gendered patterns of travel in order to create parity in urban mobility.
Blu (September 2020)