Quaid I Azam University, Islamabad.

Department of administrative Sciences

Gender Discrimination at workplace

Names of group members
 Haseeb dar  Sheema Mehkar  Hussain Tariq  Hussian Bux Chandio  Muhammad umer  M. Masood Ahmad  Nawazish Ali Shah

Submitted To:
Dr. Tahir Saeed

Date: ______________________

Topic: Gender Discrimination at workplace

First of all we are highly thankful to our Allah the almighty who made us able to work on the assigned project. After that we are thankful to our parents who provided us such platform where we can easily utilize our capabilities for our personal development. We are also highly thankful to DR. Tahir Saeed whose guideline throughout helped us a lot in completing the Assigned project.

Table of Contents
Abstract__________________________________________ Introduction_______________________________________ Literature survey___________________________________ Theoretical Framework______________________________ Methodology______________________________________ Results___________________________________________ Discussion________________________________________ Conclusion_______________________________________ Recommendations__________________________________ Limitations________________________________________ References_______________________________________

Gender Discrimination at Workplace: Causes and elimination Abstract
This paper presents a theory of gender discrimination in competitive labour markets which does not rely on any inherent gender asymmetries. Women and men are organized into households with each having identical household specific human capital. When labour market characteristics (effort, wages) differ, the possibility of mutually beneficial within household trades arises. Discrimination involves occupational segregation with men obtaining high paying efficiency wage jobs and women in piece rate work. It is shown that there always exists a Nash equilibrium in which firms benefit from discrimination by allocating high paying jobs exclusively to men, provided other firms also do so, as this ensures their employees (men) enjoy the benefits of within household trade and will satisfy incentive compatibility at a lower wage. A firm attempting to hire women in efficiency wage jobs makes strictly lower expected profits, since the predominance of men in the labour market means women are less likely to enjoy the benefits of within household trade and more likely to shirk. The model thus provides an intuitive explanation for discrimination in competitive labour markets even when the sexes are completely identical. In the same context men are also being discriminated on the same grounds. That’s why in this study both kinds of discriminations have been considered. So, in this paper Gender discrimination has been tested through two variables that is female stereotype and masculinity ideology showing positive relationship with gender discrimination.

Key Words: gender discrimination, culture, feminity concept, masculinity ideology, workplace.

The research team has selected the topic of “gender discrimination at workplace” for the research project. In the recent years it is seen that not only women but also men are being discriminated on the basis of their gender. Though gender discrimination and sexism refers to beliefs and attitudes in relation to the gender of a person, such beliefs and attitudes are of a social nature and do not, normally, carry any legal consequences. Sex discrimination, on the other hand, may have legal consequences. Though what constitutes sex discrimination varies between countries, the essence is that it is an adverse action taken by one person against another person that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. Discrimination of that nature in certain enumerated circumstances is illegal in many countries. Currently, discrimination based on sex is defined as adverse action against another person, that would not have occurred had the person been of another sex. This is considered a form of prejudice and is illegal in certain enumerated circumstances in most countries. Sexual discrimination can arise in different contexts. For instance an employee may be discriminated against by being asked discriminatory questions during a job interview, or because an employer did not hire, promote or wrongfully terminated an employee based on his or her gender, or employers pay unequally based on gender. In an educational setting there could be claims that a student was excluded from an educational institution, program, opportunity, loan, student group, or scholarship due to his or her gender. In the housing setting there could be claims that a person was refused negotiations on seeking a house, contracting/leasing a house or getting a loan based on his or her gender. Another setting where there have been claims of gender discrimination is banking; for example if one is refused credit or is offered unequal loan terms based on one’s gender.

Another setting where there is usually gender discrimination is when one is refused to extend his or her credit, refused approval of credit/loan process, and if there is a burden of unequal loan terms based on one’s gender. Socially, sexual differences have been used to justify different roles for men and women, in some cases giving rise to claims of primary and secondary roles. While there are non-physical differences between men and women, there is little agreement as to what those differences are. This all leads to lower job involvement of the males and females which in turn affects the job performance of the employees. This is a cause of concern and it is happening because women and men feel that they are not being treated equally. We know that individuals are born with a given endowment of entrepreneurial talent and decide how much human capital to acquire, and whether to become managers or workers. There are several international conventions like Seedaw, Beijing platform of actions and millennium development goals which are working to eliminate all kinds of discriminations faced by the men and women. All of them are ratified by the Govt. of Pakistan but no implementation has been seen till now in Pakistan. Not only these Conventions but also media is having a great concern for men and women equality. We selected this topic because our society is also highly superficial in this area.* Previously a lot of researches have been made on this topic like The Many Faces of Darlene Jespersen by (Michael Selmi George Washington University Law School) and The Rights of Remedies: Collective Accountings for and Insuring Against the Harms of Sexual Harassment by (Judith Resnik Yale University - Law School) etc.. but all these researches have not clearly explained masculinity and fiminity ideologies that are causing Gender Discrimination. We have selected these two variables for research work because according to us these are the two main variables which are directly causing gender discrimination at every level. So, it is important to eliminate such discrimination in order to avoid negative effects of it and to give equal rights to both men and women. This study is an effort to not only identify the factors responsible for it but also to give solutions to overcome this problem.

Literature survey:

Gender discrimination is a social phenomenon that affects social behavior in many areas (e.g., Appleton & Gurwitz, 1976; Berndt & Heller, 1986; Tilby & Kalin 1980). It has been shown that individuals may discriminate on the basis of target gender (i.e., whether the targets are males or females) or on the basis of individuating information (i.e., whether the targets behave stereotypically or counter stereotypically). Individuals behaving counter stereotypically are often assigned negative evaluations or penalties (Appleton & Gurwitz, 1976; Berndt & Heller, 1986; Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, & Pascale, 1975; Tilby & Kalin 1980). Most studies done on gender discrimination have been conducted on adults and in Western societies. Cultures, however, play an important role in setting social norms and many researchers are now aware that cross-cultural study provides an opportunity to investigate certain phenomena more thoroughly (e.g., Bukowski & Sippola, 1998; Schneider, 1998). The present study's contribution is that it examined gender discrimination from a cross-cultural perspective and focused on early adolescents. More specifically, the present study focused on the gender discrimination toward male targets behaving stereotypically and counter stereotypically and investigated gender discrimination of early adolescents from two different cultures: Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. It has been suggested that cultures vary along the dimension of individualism and collectivism and along the dimension of traditionality (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Shweder, 1990; Triandis, 1989). Collectivitic and more traditional cultures emphasize interdependence among individuals as well as the importance of social roles and fitting in with the social context and conforming to societal norms. Individualistically oriented cultures and less traditional cultures, on the other hand, emphasize independence, self-expression, and the pursuit of personal goals and interests. It is therefore reasonable to assume that collectivistic/traditional cultures are less tolerant than individualistic cultures of any transgression from norms, including gender transgressions. We investigated adolescents from two subcultures in Israel, Israeli Arab adolescents and Israeli Jewish adolescents. Our study focused on the more traditional Arab population, i.e., those who live in villages and towns populated exclusively by Arabs and w here education is in the Arabic language. Studies have shown that the Arab culture, including the subculture of Arabs living in Israel, is a traditional and a collectivistic culture (Bierenbauer, 1992; Mikulincer, Weller & Florian, 1993), which emphasizes the importance of community and family more than the pursuit of self-

fulfillment (Barakat, 1985; Segall, Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1990). Conversely, Israeli Jews belong to a more individualistic and less traditional society emphasizing the individual and his/her own need above those of the community (Ben-Ari & Azaiza, 1998). Mikulincer et al. (1993), for example, showed that Israeli Arab adolescents reported closer ties to their family characterized by a restrictive and stringent nature. Nisan (1987) found differences in moral judgments of traditional Israeli Arabs and secular Israeli Jewish children, such that the former judged transgressions from norms, even if these behaviors were permitted, more harshly. Finally, Moore (1998) found that the meaning of gender identity differed for Jewish and A rab women, such that Arab women's gender identity was a much more traditional one. The most compelling explanations of gender inequality are materialist theories that use crosscultural data on the status of women and men. Materialist theories explain gender inequality as an outcome of how women and men are tied to the economic structure of society. Such theories stress control and distribution of valued resources as crucial facts in producing stratification. They point out that women's roles of mother and wife, although vital to the well-being of society, are devalued and also deny women access to highly valued public resources. They point out that gender stratification is greater where women's work is directed inward to the family and men's work is directed outward to trade and the marketplace When women do enter the labor markets, they often are concentrated in lower-paying jobs. Women also enter the labor market later than men and often have to leave periodically because of child care responsibilities. Historically, women have had lower levels of education than men, but recently this trend seems to have begun to reverse. (Eitzen, 2000:251). The gender role approach focuses on learning behaviors that are defined as masculine or feminine. The gender role approach emphasizes characteristics that individuals acquire during the course of socialization, such as independence or dependent behaviors and ways men and women relate to each other (Eitzen, 2000:252). The gender structure approach emphasizes factors that are external to individuals, such as the organization of social institutions, including the concentration of power, the legal system, and organizational barriers that promote sexual inequality. These approaches tend to differ in how they view the sexes, in how they explain the causes and effects of sexism, and in the solutions

they suggest for elimination of inequality. Both individual and structural approaches are necessary to a complete understanding of sexism. This chapter places primary emphasis on social structure as the cause of inequality (Eitzen, 2000:252). Gender related attributes also play their role. An appropriate theoretical foundation for explaining differences between male and female service providers originates in the sociology literature and is referred to as feminist theory. This theory proffers two perspectives regarding gender-related differences in performance. One argues that there are a wide variety of issues that are impacted by society’s attitudes towards women (Hooks, 2000). These attitudes are based in the history and institutional structure of society. As a result, women are treated differently than men, so that the performance of businesses owned by women suffers. Another stream of literature argues that there are innate differences between male and female approaches to issues. These differences lead women to take different actions than males in similar situations (Buttner, 2001; Fletcher, 1998). According to rational bias theory, there are instances in which engaging in discrimination seems justified to an employee, even though he or she may be aware of regulations prohibiting bias and may personally prefer to treat others equally (Larwood & Gattiker, 1985; Larwood et al., 1984). Employees in decision-making positions understand that they have to take into account the attitudes and preferences of other people, such as superiors and clients, in order to enhance and develop their own careers. It follows that decision makers may choose to discriminate if they believe their superiors or others having power over their careers expect or prefer it. Thus, an employee's display of "rational bias," in which discrimination may be viewed as both instrumental and intentional, is the result of perceiving external pressures from superiors or clients to discriminate.The perceptions that business norms favor discrimination and that compliance with the norms is important to business success are two basic tenets of rational bias theory. If these components are not accepted by decision makers, then the decision makers are less likely to feel external pressures to discriminate (Larwood et al., 1988a, 1988b). This suggests preconditions for rational bias to be operative in producing gender discrimination in the workplace: (1) business people are viewed as generally more accepting of one gender than the other - at least in the organizational functions being examined; and (2) those making personnel decisions feel pressure toward deferring to the norms of business (Dexter, 1985; Larwood et al.,

1988a; Szwajkowski et al., 1991).The first precondition, referred to as the "preference norm," does not need to accurately represent the beliefs of those in business - rather, the perception that the preference norm may exist could be sufficient to make it of concern. The second precondition, referred to as "compliance instrumentality," suggests that managers anticipate consequences to their careers if they do not adhere to perceived business norms. Previous research has demonstrated both the actual existence of the perceived business norms and that they take priority over employees' own beliefs (Gealy, Larwood, & Elliot, 1979; Larwood & Gattiker, 1985). There is an alternative theoretical perspective that would not accept the arguments advanced by feminist theory. The foundation for most of this research is the rational economic model (Ferber & Nelson, 1993). This theory argues that individuals make rational economic choices and seek to maximize economic benefit to themselves or the firm. Most of these models assume that customers are economically rational and will make their choices based on the benefits gained from the transaction, and not the gender of the service provider. Prior research on whether gender as an impact on the financial performance of professional service providers has not provided clear insights on whether feminist theory or the rational economic model is more valid. Some researchers find that women achieve lower financial performance than men (Hisrich & Brush, 1984; Loscocco, Robinson, Hall, & Allen, 1991; Lustgarten, 1995; Chaganti & Prasuraman, 1997; Fasci & Valdez, 1998), while others argue that there is no performance difference between male & female owned enterprises (Fischer, Reuber & Dyke, 1993; Kalleberg & Leicht, 1991).

Davidson & Cooper (1983) found that managerial women experience greater strain and feel more isolated at work than males which in turn affect their performance. There is gender difference in leadership because of negative perception and evaluation of women in leadership (Stelter 2002). Some employers discriminate against men or women out of deference to the prejudice of their customers or workers. Until the early 1970’s for example airlines refused to hire male flight attendants because they claimed their passengers preferred females. Then the supreme court let stand a lower court ruling that customers discriminatory preferences do not justify gender

discrimination (Diaz v. pan American 1971), opening the occupation of flight attendant to men (and eventually to older people). Nonetheless, many employers still defer to customers discriminatory preferences (Trentham and Larwood 1998). A study of females security workers found that most security firms clients don not care, but the few who expressed a preferences wanted men (Ericksone, Albanese, and Drakulic 2000:314). Client or customer preferences can combine gender and race/ethnicity, as was the case among employers who told a temporary agency to send any “Maria’s” or “Kim’s”__by which they meant Latinas or Asian women (Rogers 2000). This study of temporary agencies found a widespread desire for workers from certain sex and racial/ethnicity groups, although clients expressed it through the use of code words, as when they requested “articulate “or “front office” applicants by which they meant “white”. Although some temporary agencies refused such requests, many honored even the most egregious ones, particularly if they came from a major client.

Research Question:
What are the factors causing gender discrimination at work place?

Theoretical Framework:
There are three variables which are under study. Gender discrimination is dependent variable and it is the variable of primary interest and changes or variations in the Gender discrimination will be explained by two independent variables (1) Female Stereotype (2) Masculinity Ideology. Female Stereotype and Gender discrimination have positive relationship between them. Masculinity Ideology has Positive relationship with Gender discrimination, i.e. greater the Masculinity ideology greater will be the Gender discrimination and vice versa.

Review of past researches shows that if there is Female stereotyping then males and females will not get equal rights and in this way gender discrimination at workplace will be enhanced. That’s why there is a positive relationship between them. Past researches also show that concept of Masculinity has positive relationship with gender discrimination because social norms of our society like concept of masculinity, concentration of power in the hands of one gender etc... causes the discrimination to increase.

Independent Variables
Masculinity Ideology

Dependent Variable

Gender Discrimination at workplace Female Stereotype

 Female Stereotype and Gender discrimination have positive relationship between them.

 Concept of Masculinity has positive relationship with gender discrimination.

Study design
In this cross-sectional co-relational field study data on two independent variables (Female stereotype, masculinity ideology) and dependent variable (Gender Discrimination at workplace) were collected from both males and females working in the Quaid I Azam University, Islamabad.

Population and Sample

Population for the study comprised men and women working as teachers or employees in Quaid I Azam University, Islamabad. Convenient sampling method was used to draw sample out of population because it was deemed fit by the researchers on the basis of cost and time considerations. Subjects were chosen in predetermined numbers. The total sample size was n=30 which comprised 14 (46.67%) males and 16 (53%) females. 35 questionnaires were given to both gender and they all were received back within a time period of 3 days, resulting in 100% response rate because questionnaires were personally administered and researchers clarify research topic, doubts and assist some of the respondents in understanding some questions. The units of analysis were individuals who responded to the survey. During data filtration patterns were observed in 5 out of 30 questionnaires of which 2 were filled by males and 3 by females, such questionnaires were set aside and remaining 30 were used for analysis.

Variables and Measures
Questionnaires include two demographic variables (gender & Age), they were tapped by direct single questions.


Gender Discrimination At workplace: Adaptive version of Staff Gender Equality (SGE)
questionnaire was used for measuring the Discrimination faced by the staff members. It contained 11 statements measuring it. (e.g. your organization has gender inclusive culture). Each item was cast on a 5- point Likert scale. The higher the score, the lower will be the gender discrimination faced by the employee and vice versa. Reliability of these items checked via SPSS SOFTWARE gave alpha=.916

Concept of Feminity: Attitudes towards Women Scale (ATW) (Spence, Helm
rich & Stapp, 1978) – Short version, which contained 25 statements to measure. For example under modern economic conditions with women being active outside the home, men should share in household tasks such as

washing dishes and doing the laundry Etc. Reliability of these items checked via SPSS SOFTWARE gave alpha= .656

Masculinity Ideology: Masculinity ideology Scale ( ) purchased from NIP
has been used for measuring it which contained 44 statements e.g. a man should take risk in harmful conditions. Reliability of these items checked via SPSS SOFTWARE gave alpha= .885

Data collection method
Data was collected through personally administered questionnaires because the survey was confined to local area i.e. QAU. Moreover, this method was deemed fit in Pakistan as compared to mailed and electronic questionnaires. Method of personally administered questionnaires was adopted to introduce research topic, clarify doubts of respondents and collect all the completed responses within a short span of time. All questionnaires were received back within 3 days.


In order to test the formulated hypotheses, statistical analysis of the responses of the questionnaires was done. The reliability of the three scales is given below: Reliability of Gender discrimination at workplace scale Table 1 Alpha Reliability Coefficient of SGE for the Main Study (N=30)


No. of items

Alpha coefficient




Table 1 shows the alpha reliability (r=0.916) for the SGE scale. The results in table 1 show that scale has satisfactory reliability.

Reliability of Female Stereotype (ATW) scale Table 2 Alpha Reliability Coefficient of for the Main Study (N=30)


No. of items

Alpha coefficient




Table 2 shows the alpha reliability (r=0.656) for the ATW scale. The results in table 2 show that scale has satisfactory reliability. Reliability of masculinity ideology (MI) scale Table 3 Alpha Reliability Coefficient of MI for the Main Study (N=30)


No. of items

Alpha coefficient




Table 3 shows the alpha reliability (r=0.885) for the MI scale. The results in table 3 show that scale has satisfactory reliability.

Frequencies: Statistics:

gender N Valid Missing 35 0

Gender discrimination at workplace 30 5

Feminity stereotype 30 5

Masculinity ideology 30 5

Frequency Valid male female Total 5 14 16 35 Percent 14.3 40.0 45.7 100.0 Valid Percent 14.3 40.0 45.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 14.3 54.3 100.0

Gender discrimination at workplace:
Frequency Valid 13.00 15.00 21.00 28.00 30.00 35.00 39.00 43.00 47.00 48.00 Total System 1 7 2 5 1 1 5 4 1 3 30 5 35 Percent 2.9 20.0 5.7 14.3 2.9 2.9 14.3 11.4 2.9 8.6 85.7 14.3 100.0 Valid Percent 3.3 23.3 6.7 16.7 3.3 3.3 16.7 13.3 3.3 10.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3.3 26.7 33.3 50.0 53.3 56.7 73.3 86.7 90.0 100.0

Missing Total

Feminity stereotype:
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent


Missing Total

55.00 57.00 61.00 63.00 65.00 67.00 68.00 72.00 76.00 77.00 Total System

3 3 5 1 2 4 1 1 6 4 30 5 35

8.6 8.6 14.3 2.9 5.7 11.4 2.9 2.9 17.1 11.4 85.7 14.3 100.0

10.0 10.0 16.7 3.3 6.7 13.3 3.3 3.3 20.0 13.3 100.0

10.0 20.0 36.7 40.0 46.7 60.0 63.3 66.7 86.7 100.0

Masculinity ideology:
Frequency Valid 119.00 126.00 130.00 159.00 160.00 167.00 183.00 186.00 208.00 222.00 225.00 262.00 Total Missing Total System 3 1 1 4 1 4 5 1 3 4 1 2 30 5 35 Percent 8.6 2.9 2.9 11.4 2.9 11.4 14.3 2.9 8.6 11.4 2.9 5.7 85.7 14.3 100.0 Valid Percent 10.0 3.3 3.3 13.3 3.3 13.3 16.7 3.3 10.0 13.3 3.3 6.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 10.0 13.3 16.7 30.0 33.3 46.7 63.3 66.7 76.7 90.0 93.3 100.0

Descriptive Statistics:
N Gender discrimination at workplace Feminity stereotype Masculinity ideology Valid N (list wise) 30 30 30 30 Minimum 13.00 55.00 119.00 Maximum 48.00 77.00 262.00 Mean 30.7667 66.8667 181.3000 Std. Deviation 12.31115 7.98159 39.09771

Interpretation: After evaluation from SPSS software we conclude that Gender Discrimination
at workplace and Feminity ideology has positive relationship between them so our hypothesis is accepted but its value i.e. 0.111 no doubt showing positive relationship but it is not much strong So, we can say that there still remains other factors which are causing gender discrimination. The same is the case with masculinity ideology and gender discrimination relationship but it is stronger as compared to feminity ideology.


Model Summary
Model 1 R .359(a) R Square .129 Adjusted R Square .064 Std. Error of the Estimate 11.90803

Predictors: (Constant), Masculinity ideology, Feminity stereotype


This study was aimed at finding the factors creating gender discrimination at workplace. We identified two variables feminity and masculinity ideology for our study. After this research work and evaluations we have come to this conclusion that both feminity and masculinity ideology have positive relationship with gender discrimination i.e. causing gender discrimination to increase but his relationship is not that much stronger. So there will be other factors which are highly correlated with it.

If you find you're being discriminated against because of your gender, there are steps you can take to remedy the problem.

Confronting Sex Discrimination on the Job 1. Identify the problem: Determine exactly how you're being discriminated against, and make sure you have all the facts to show it by keeping a log of each occurrence and written documents or voicemails that can be used as evidence. 2. Get a Second Opinion: Find another woman in your work environment that you can confide in and get her input. It's possible that there could be other reasons besides your sex for the discrimination you believe is occurring. 3. Confront the offender: Talk to the person you have a problem with. Calmly state your case and ask/demand that the discrimination end. This works best if a co-worker is doing the discriminating or an immediate supervisor. When discriminating against women seems to be a part of the company's culture you have a bigger problem on your hands. 4. File a complaint with the company: If the problem isn't resolved or it's clear that sex discrimination is a problem throughout the company, you should file a formal complaint with the company and talk to the owner or manager about the problems you see. Remember that they have a legal responsibility to end the existing sex discrimination. 5. File a complaint with outside agencies: If the problem isn't resolved or the situation worsens, report the business and file a complaint with the EEOC. Also there is need for equality based rules and policies in the organization from recruitment to fire off, from pay to job assignment in all areas there is need for equality in order to avoid these discriminations.

The generalizability of the results of this study is low since a non-probability sampling technique was used due to lack of time and resources. The sample size is also very small (n=30) which is not suitable for such kind of research. For future research, work which look more directly at these issues taking a larger sample size will be encouraged. Also there are many other factors which are causing gender discrimination

like concentration of power in the hands of one gender, men dominating society etc..there is need to research on these variables in future.


Abu-Ghaida, D., S. Klasen. "The Costs of Missing the Millennium Development Goal on Gender Equity." World Development, 2004, 32 (7), 1075-1107. Agarwal, B. A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia. South Asian Studies. Cambridge; New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Alderman, H., E. M. King. "Gender Differences in Parental Investment in Education." Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 1998, 9 (4), 453-468.

Anderson, S. "Why Dowry Payments Declined with Modernization in Europe but Are Rising in India." Journal of Political Economy, 2003, 111 (2), 269-310. Arabsheibani, G. R., F. G. Carneiro, and A. Henley. "Gender Wage Differentials in Brazil: Trends over a Turbulent Era", 2003,The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper Series: 3148. Azmat, G., M. Guell, and A. Manning. "Gender Gaps in Unemployment Rates in OECD Countries", 2004,C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers: 4307. Badgett, M. V. L., N. Folbre. "Job Gendering: Occupational Choice and the Marriage Market." Industrial Relations, 2003, 42 (2), 270-298. Becker, G. S. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Berik, G., Y. v. d. M. Rodgers, J. E. J. Zveglich. "International Trade and Gender Wage Discrimination: Evidence from East Asia." Review of Development Economics, 2004, 8 (2), 237-254. Black, S. E., E. Brainerd. "Importing Equality? The Impact of Globalization on Gender Discrimination." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 2004, 57 (4), 540-559. Blau, F. D., L. M. Kahn. "Gender Differences in Pay." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2000, 14 (4), 75-99. ALBRECHT, J. W. and VORMAN, S. B. (1992). Dual labor markets, efficiency wages, and search. Journal of Labor Markets, 10, 438–61. ANDERSON, K. H., BURTON, J. S. and SLOAN, F. A. (1987). Labor market segmentation: a cluster of analysis of job groupings and barriers to entry. Southern Economic Journal, 53, 3, 571–90. ARAI, K. (1997). Cooperation, job security, and wages in a dual labor market equilibrium. Journal of Social Economics, 26, 1, 39–57. BERGER, S. and PIORE, M. (1980). Dualism and Discontinuity in Industrial Societies. New York:

Cambridge University Press. BLACKABY, D., CLARK, K. and LESLIE, D. (1995). Dual labor markets and the potential earnings of the unemployed. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 42, 1, 37–52. BOSTON, T. (1990). Segmented labor markets: new evidence from a study of four race-gender groups. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44, 1, 99–115. BOWLES, S., GINTIS, H. and OSBORNE, M. (2001). Incentive – enhancing preferences: personality, behavior, and earnings. American Economic Review, 91, 2, 155–8. Gus Okanlawon (1994).Women as Strategic Decision Makers: A Reflection on Organizational Barriers. Women in Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 25-32

Fletcher, J. 1998. Relational practice: A feminist Reconstruction of work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(2): 163-186.

Buttner, E. H. 2001. Examining female entrepreneurs’ management style: An application of a relational frame, Journal of Business Ethics, 29: 253-269. Dunson, Bruce H. and W. Robert Reed. 1991. “Age Discrimination in Consumer Finance Markets.” Southern Economic Journal. 58(1):225-239. Myers, S. 1982. “Age Discrimination in Credit Markets.” Working Paper. Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission. Washington DC. Peterson, Richard L. 1981. “An Investigation of Sex Discrimination in Commercial Banks’ Direct Consumer Lending.” Bell Journal of Economics. Autumn. 547-61. Eitzen, D. Stanley and Maxine Baca-Zinn 2000 Social Problems. (8th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 2003 Social Problems. (9th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

2006 Social Problems. (10th Ed.) Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kendall, Diana 1998 Social Problems in a Diverse Society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon