(Jeanie Ahearn Greene) Blue-Collar Women at Work W (BookFi)

Blue-Collar Women at
Work with Men:

Negotiating the Hostile
Environment
Jeanie Ahearn Greene
PRAEGER
Blue-Collar Women at
Work with Men
BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN AT
WORK WITH MEN
Negotiating the Hostile Environment
Jeanie Ahearn Greene

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Greene, Jeanie Ahearn.
Blue-collar women at work with men : negotiating the hostile environment / Jeanie
Ahearn Greene.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0–275–97736–6 (alk. paper)
1. Sex discrimination in employment—Law and legislation—United States.
2. Working class women—Legal status, laws, etc.—United States. 3. Sex role in the
work environment—United States. I. Title.
KF3467.G734 2006
344.7301'4133—dc22 2006002746
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available.
Copyright © 2006 by Jeanie Ahearn Greene
All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be
reproduced, by any process or technique, without the
express written consent of the publisher.
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2006002746
ISBN: 0–275–97736–6
First published in 2006
Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881
An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
www.praeger.com
Printed in the United States of America
∞
TM
The paper used in this book complies with the

Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National
Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984).
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
Preface vii
1. Equal Employment Opportunity for Women:

An Introduction and Overview 1
2. Seventeen Blue-Collar Women: The Collective Voice 9
3. United States Employment-Discrimination Law:
An Analysis of Social Policy 19
4. Pathways to Employment: Early Preparation for
Traditionally Male Blue-Collar Jobs 41
5. The Hiring Process: Women’s Entry into
Traditionally Male Blue-Collar Occupations 57
6. On the Job, Doing the Job: Reconsidering Job Descriptions,
Performance, and Evaluation 69
7. Walls and Doorways: Employers’ Barriers and
Supports to Job Performance 93
8. Gatekeepers to Opportunity and Protectors against
Discrimination: Management, Supervisors, and Unions 115
9. Good Guys/Bad Guys: How to Determine
What Is Reasonable 129
10. How Men Treat Women:
“Working” Relationships between the Sexes 145
vi CONTENTS
11.Negotiating the Hostile Work Environment:

Strategies for Women to Alleviate Employment
Discrimination and Sex-Based Harassment 159
12. Mitigating the Hostile Work Environment:
Conclusions and Recommendations 173
Appendix: Nontraditional Occupations for Women in 2001 191

Notes 195
Bibliography 199
Index 203
PREFACE
The purpose of this book is to “define the hostile work environment” based
on a “reasonable woman standard” in the context of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) has had an enormous
impact on all of our lives in the United States. Equal employment oppor-
tunity speaks to each of us about what jobs we can and will choose and
about how we conduct ourselves at work. No worker has been without
reminders of how Title VII has changed their options in life and the way
they do their jobs. Its impact spans across our work lives from hiring to
day-to-day work, to the termination process, and into retirement.
Title VII and the granting of equal opportunity have changed the way we
plan for our futures as adults, how we organize families, and the messages we
give as a culture. It is at once personal, political, and economic for each of us
as individuals and for us as a society and culture. Title VII has changed our
education and training, the choice of jobs we apply for, the hiring process,
employer-employee relationships, the way we do our jobs, the way we treat
each other at work, the way we leave our jobs, and even the way we raise our
children. These are the themes discussed in this book.
This book places women’s work lives directly in the context of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ancillary supporting U.S. employment
policies. The act was purposely written to be broad and vague. It is only
through decades of interpretation and case law that it has been given
definition. Understanding the act, its interpretation, and its implications
is complicated and complex, and the understanding changes with time.
viii PREFACE
We are still working to understand, clarify, and define the intent of the act,
its coverage, and provisions. Yet we are responsible for compliance, and
many of us are liable for violations. Moreover, day-to-day work is gov-
erned by the often misinformed and informal interpretations of coworkers,
friends, and family members, based on their variable understandings of the
provisions and protections of the law.
I found that on the one hand, business as usual is not necessarily legal.
And on the other hand, something can be hostile, seemingly intolerable,
or inhumane without necessarily being illegal. By placing women’s work
experiences in a policy context, we can understand what is legal and
illegal. In this book I first provide an overview of the rights afforded
women workers under Title VII and supporting employment policies.
I then provide an interpretation and understanding of Title VII based on
the experiences and insights of 17 women working in traditionally male
blue-collar jobs.
This book places women’s experiences and insights as central to under-
standing employment discrimination. I chose to interview women working
in blue-collar, traditionally male jobs because compared to women work-
ing in other jobs, these women have been found to experience the most
enduring and adverse discrimination at work. These are women who just
want to do their jobs, but doing the job goes beyond performing the skills
of the trade to include enduring harassment, hostility, and abuse. These are
women who have endured, persevered, suffered, and overcome discrimi-
nation and harassment in order to work and earn a living and perform jobs
that have been at once challenging and rewarding.
You will not find a list of “research” or “survey” questions in this book
or in this study. My interviews were open-ended and may be best thought
of as a conversation that was led by the interviewee and guided by me.
The women talked about their work lives both based on their personal
experiences and through reflective interviewing. I asked the women
about their experiences working with men in traditionally male blue-
collar jobs and then asked them to compare their experiences to the
experiences and insights of other women I interviewed, creating a con-
versational style between women who did not ever meet each other. The
result was hundreds of pages of transcriptions and months of reading,
rereading, thematically sorting, and analyzing the interviews in the
context of Title VII.
The first writing of this study was a dissertation. I am privileged to have
had artisans of practice, methods, and theory guiding and supporting me
while requiring the rigor and quality of scholarship that I trust this work
represents. Special thanks to Robert C. Bogdan, Sari Knopp Biklen, and
Diane Lyden Murphy.
PREFACE ix
It has always been a concern of mine that the audience who would be
most eager for and would benefit most from the insights and experiences
of the women interviewed are women workers, policy makers, employers,
and coworkers. I was concerned that this study would be lost and shelved
with academic writings, and this book represents my sought-after opportu-
nity to reach out to the broader audience. Special thanks to Mildred Vasan
for contacting me and making the connection with Praeger Publishers for
the publication of this book.
This book is intended for anyone who wants to understand employment
discrimination and workplace hostility from the perspective of women who
are known to endure the most constant and widespread discrimination and
hostility. This book is written for the legislature; legal counsel; judges; men-
tal health and social workers; employers, managers, and supervisors; unions;
concerned citizens who become social activists and advocates; and individ-
ual workers advocating on their own behalf or reaching out to help others.
My aim is that this book will help all of us to rethink our work lives and
how we treat our coworkers and will prompt policies that reduce discrimina-
tion and hostility at work. I hope that these women’s experiences and insights
prompt the legislature and the courts to design, implement, and direct policy
that supports workers and creates a more welcoming workplace, particularly
for women working in traditionally male blue-collar jobs.
The courts have coined the phrase “hostile environment” to describe the
pervasive and often-invisible discrimination that denies workers equal
opportunity at work. We cannot rely on the courts to protect workers from
discrimination and harassment. It is instead a personal responsibility
shared by all workers and employers. I hope that this book will reach
employers and coworkers and help them to design policies and treat women
workers as welcome, valued, and respected members of the workplace
community. Overall, each of us can contribute to a more humane and
welcoming workplace. By reading this book and taking in these women’s
stories, we can all gain personal insights and take increased personal
responsibility for both overt and covert discrimination, particularly those
well-intentioned actions or misunderstandings that limit or arrest women’s
ability to perform and succeed at work.
And thank you most of all to the women who participated in this study.
Your faces are etched in my mind, and your words are printed on these
pages. May your stories be heard and your strategies bring action for you
and other workers experiencing pain, harassment, and discrimination
at work.
Chapter 1
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN:
AN INTRODUCTION AND
OVERVIEW
Traditionally male blue-collar jobs offer the women who desire them
challenge, excitement, security, and economic rewards that often surpass
what is available in traditionally female jobs. Women who entered the
workforce prior to 1960 knew that unacceptable discrimination and
harassment existed, but solutions had to be self-devised, and women stood
to lose their jobs if they asserted themselves.
With the passing of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimina-
tion and harassment became not only unacceptable but also illegal. Title
VII expanded women’s opportunities to pursue and retain challenging jobs
that paid better than traditionally female jobs. Women were aware of their
right to equal employment opportunities; many were unaware, however, of
the extent or relationship of EEO protections in their own jobs. Often,
women viewed employment practices as simply unfair or unjust when in
fact they were illegal. The experiences of women in traditionally male blue-
collar jobs, as described through the stories in this book, clearly demon-
strate that workers, employers, legislators, feminists, researchers, friends,
and families can contribute to a more accessible, welcoming, and produc-
tive workplace.
Equal employment opportunity (EEO) policy and practices seek to end
job segregation and employment discrimination. Women in traditionally
male blue-collar jobs often have found themselves in the most constant
and pervasively hostile male-dominated workplaces. Nevertheless, they
have proved themselves as capable, eager employees and coworkers.
Their insights and experiences suggest strategies and policies to increase
2 BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN AT WORK WITH MEN
opportunity and reduce discrimination and harassment, and these changes

promise improvements in worker satisfaction, production, retention, and
safety and improvements in workplace relationships. Ending sexual
harassment and discrimination against women at work requires reform
on all levels. These same recommendations promise a more welcoming
and productive workplace for all workers.
EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AS
A POLICY ISSUE
In the United States, legislation is entrusted to elected representatives
and reflects the will of the populous. Legislation and case law set up what
is permissible and acceptable. U.S. employment policy has historically
sought to protect women from harm and exploitation at work and currently
grants equal employment opportunity for women in hiring, promotion,
training, pay, and benefits.
Equal employment opportunity legislation and case law are the political
and social-policy interventions for employment discrimination. They aim
to open doors for women in employment and seek to equalize pay and
compensation. These policies provide a common context for women
workers in the United States. Furthermore, such policies are intended to
bring about “the structural changes that would make the nontraditional
sector of the labor force more attractive to women” (Cherry, McIntyre, &
Jaggernathsingh, 1991).
The central policy for this book is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex. This act
does not stand alone in this prohibition. In addition to Title VII protec-
tions, women are protected against employment discrimination under the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, the Family Leave Act, the Violence Against Women’s Act,
E.O. 11246, and other labor and employment laws. An understanding of
women’s employment issues can be aided by an understanding of this
broader perspective of interdependent policies.
After passage of a law in the United States, the courts interpret the law.
Since the passage of Title VII, more than 100 U.S. Supreme Court cases have
interpreted the intent of the law. Subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions
have attempted to clarify and define Title VII protections and the law’s rela-
tion to the ancillary policies. At its inception, Title VII was purposely left
broad and vague, particularly with regard to sex, but whether the laws are
vague or specific, the courts decide as to the intent and fairness of the laws.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN 3
As employment discrimination against women has been litigated, the defini-

tion of discrimination has been expanded to include a continuum of behav-
iors and practices that result in what is now defined as employment
discrimination, sexual harassment, and a “pervasively hostile environment.”
This book is centered on two key court decisions regarding Title VII.
First, the courts have struggled as to whether behaviors and actions are
considered discrimination and harassment based on what “a reasonable
person” or on what “a reasonable woman” would find objectionable. The
courts have directly recognized the absence of, need for, and value of
women’s input into EEO policy and practice. In Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d
872 (9th Cir. 1991), the decision states,
We believe that in evaluating the severity and pervasiveness of sexual harassment,

we should focus on the perspective of the victim. If we only examined whether a
reasonable person would engage in allegedly harassing conduct, we would run the
risk of reinforcing the prevailing level of discrimination. Harassers could continue
to harass merely because a particular discriminatory practice was common, and
victims of harassment would have no remedy. . . . A complete understanding of
the victim’s view requires, among other things, an analysis of the different per-
spectives of men and women. Conduct that many men consider unobjectionable
may offend many women. . . . We realize that there is a broad range of viewpoints
among women as a group, but we believe that many women share common con-
cerns which men do not necessarily share. . . . We adopt the perspective of a rea-
sonable woman primarily because we believe that sex-blind reasonable person
standard tends to be male-biased and tends to systematically ignore the experi-
ences of women.1
The findings of this study are based on interviews with 17 women in a

variety of traditionally male blue-collar occupations, therefore, this book
is based on a reasonable-woman standard.
Second, the U.S. Supreme Court coined the phrase “a pervasively hostile
environment” to describe more general, persistent, and encompassing sex-
based harassment and discrimination. In 1986 (Meritor Savings Bank v.
Vinson, 477 S.Ct. 57) the Court decided that sexual harassment was in fact
employment discrimination, and sexual harassment was then defined as
either “quid pro quo” (this for that) or a “pervasively hostile environment.”
Since then, more than 100 court cases and federal guidelines have defined
the differences between a welcoming workplace and a hostile workplace
for women. According to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harris v.
Forklift (1993), the test for “whether an environment is ‘hostile’ or ‘abusive’”
is determined by: (1) looking at all the circumstances of the discriminatory
conduct and (2) by considering whether it unreasonably interferes with an
employee’s work performance. Yet, in that decision, Justice Scalia stated,
“We have yet to define what is meant by a hostile environment” (Harris v.

Forklift [1993]).
In response to standing case law regarding employment discrimination
and sexual harassment against women and regarding women’s equal
employment opportunity, I am concerned with two key questions:
1. What is a hostile environment, and what differentiates a hostile from a wel-

coming workplace?
2. Is the determination based on a reasonable-woman or a reasonable-person
standard?
In order to shed light on these two questions, I interviewed women work-

ing in traditionally male blue-collar jobs.
BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN IN TRADITIONALLY

MALE JOBS
Definitions of “equal,” “equality,” “reasonable,” “hostile,” and “usual
and customary practice” in the workplace remain vague and unclear, and
workplace definitions are often different from those described by the
women the policies are designed to protect. Particularly salient in social-
policy development and implementation is the designing of policy and
practices that are responsive to the needs, resources, and capabilities of
disenfranchised, underserved, and marginalized populations. Women
working in traditionally male blue-collar jobs are one such group, yet his-
torically they have had little input in the shaping of their workers’ rights
and the laws that govern their work lives. The perspectives and experi-
ences of women who are employed in blue-collar, traditionally male jobs
define and extend our understanding of equal employment opportunity for
women and sex-based employment discrimination. These women’s expe-
riences and insights provide a perspective that incorporates a reasonable-
woman standard toward defining a pervasively hostile work environment.
Mansfield, Koch, Henderson, Vicary, Cohn, & Young (1991) found,
Women in traditionally male occupations encountered significantly more adverse

working conditions than did their traditional counterparts, and, in addition,
reported significantly less satisfaction and more stress at work. Tradeswomen
were the most likely to experience sexual harassment and sex discrimination sug-
gesting them as an appropriate focus for policy recommendations as well as to
provide help for women working in these jobs.
By focusing on the perspective of these women, we “reconstruct knowl-

edge” from the viewpoint of those who have previously been excluded
from policy discussions. “‘Reconstructing knowledge’ requires a shift in

thinking that includes those that have previously been excluded, challeng-
ing our assumptions about those groups” (Anderson & Collins, 1998, p. 4).
The dominant group can best be understood from the viewpoint of the
marginalized, those who are on the outside or outer edges of the experi-
ence. “Marginal lives are determinate, objective locations in the social
structure. Such locations are not just accidentally outside the center of
power and prestige, but necessarily so. It is the . . . existence of such oppo-
sitional margins that keep the center in place” (Harding, 1992a, p. 581).
Analyzing narratives of blue-collar women working in traditionally male
jobs challenges us to restructure our thinking, which is grounded in the
existing political, economic, and social structures of the United States.
These structures dominate our court litigation, employment policy, and
market economy (MacKinnon, 1979, 1991; Hartsock, 1985).
The women in male-dominated blue-collar workplaces exist on the mar-
gin and are visible because they “look different.” Yet they are paradoxi-
cally invisible and silent as noted by their minority employment status and
their minimal presence in the literature, leadership roles, and positions of
authority. Through interviewing these women and then developing an
understanding of their work lives based on those interviews, I uncovered
relationships, organizational structures, and systems that guide the choices
these women make regarding work. This realization provides an opportu-
nity to restructure our knowledge and understanding not only of these
women but also of hostile work environments in general.
Each woman’s experience is different from those of men and from those
of other women. Through considering women’s varied experiences while
examining existing policy and case law, we can begin to reconstruct our
knowledge of hostility, domination, power, and empowerment. Based on
our understandings, we can develop new strategies, redirect work organi-
zations and relationships with coworkers, and ultimately effect the changes
necessary to move toward equal employment opportunity for women.
These women provide us with a reasonable-woman standard of equal
employment opportunity and employment discrimination. Through explor-
ing the experiences and insights of blue-collar women working in tradi-
tionally male jobs, we can directly address the concerns and the mandate
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, more particularly, of
Ellison v. Brady (1991) and Harris v. Forklift (1993).
SEVENTEEN BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN

In order to understand employment opportunity and employment discrim-
ination based on sex, I decided to interview the women who were known to
experience the most pervasively hostile workplace discrimination—women

in blue-collar, traditionally male jobs. Interviews with 17 women in a variety
of such occupations revealed well-trained, well-paid employees who just
wanted to do their jobs.
Among the women I interviewed were two police officers, a longshore
worker, a truck driver, a meter reader, a security officer, an electrician, an
auto assembly-line worker, a painter, a postal worker, and a carpentry
laborer. Beyond the skills of their trade, their “work” has included degrad-
ing cartoons, shared bathroom facilities, propositions for sex, lack of rec-
ognition for a job well done, discrimination in hiring, inaccessible training,
denied promotions, social and physical isolation, and sexual assault.
The women reported that pervasive and defined sex-based employment
discrimination and harassment disrupted their work experiences, work sat-
isfaction, and career decisions. Day-to-day work lives were difficult,
adversarial, and hostile for these women who looked different and often
did the job differently than the men they worked with. Yet they wanted to
do the jobs and felt they would be able and capable, if just given the chance
and support that the men they worked with were given.
OCCUPATIONAL DESCRIPTIONS OF WOMEN INTERVIEWED

Pseudonym Occupation
Peg Police Officer
Chris State Highway-Maintenance Crew
Cassey Nuclear Firewatch
Sandy Community Police Officer
Nancy Industrial Hygienist
Joyce Security Guard
Sonja Meter Reader
Sally Truck Driver
Angela Construction-Union President
Beth Electric Planner
Cathy Public Utility Customer-Service Representative
Iris Longshore Worker/Commercial Fisher
Carol Postal Worker
Valerie Electrician
Mary Automotive Assembly-Line Worker
Claire Commercial Painter
Gretchen Laborer/Carpenter
These interviews began in the mid-1990s with continuous contact through

the final writing of this book. The women I met differed in their family
lifestyles and sexual orientation. They varied by age, race, and ethnicity.2
Their birth years ranged from 1940 to 1969. They worked at different jobs,
and some had been employed in more than one traditionally male job dur-
ing their career. The women worked in companies across the nation in var-
ious states, including Washington, Alaska, California, Maryland, Kansas,
and New York. They had different education levels and family backgrounds.
They received different pay, benefits, and compensation. There was no one
“typical” blue-collar woman. The differences among the women and the
comparative similarities gave meaning to their work, thus contributing to
the findings of this book.
I learned of these women by word of mouth and personal referral. Find-
ing them was the result of “a referral chain through which the interviewer
locates some respondents who in turn locate others” (Harkness & Warren,
1993, p. 335). My goal was to talk to as many women as necessary to pro-
vide enough insights, experiences, and questions to define and understand
the sex-based hostile work environment.
I began to interview women in many workplaces, seeking women with
different experiences and backgrounds, including training, family, and
education. The women were selected because they held various blue-collar
or skilled-trade jobs that are traditionally performed by men. Because I was
focused on these women’s understanding of blue-collar work, I depended
on them to label their jobs as “blue-collar” and “traditionally male.” I found
that what is traditionally male or blue-collar in one company or at one
point in time may be otherwise elsewhere. I did not have predetermined
“eligibility criteria,” but the women were keenly aware of how and why
they qualified to contribute to this topic. I was looking for difference and
was concerned with “experience” (Scott, 1991).
After months of interviews, extensive conversations, and detailed analy-
sis, I was impressed by the dedication, commitment, excitement, and pain
that characterized these women’s work experiences. Overall, this excite-
ment about work and the pain that work brought to them was the unifying
thread or commonality among the women I interviewed. Unjust acts and
personal assaults did not deter them. In some cases it arrested them tempo-
rarily or caused them to shift directions, but most of all, it made them
stronger, more determined, and better leaders and team players—better
workers.
Although it is a natural tendency and interest to get to know the women
interviewed, I have purposely not provided a comparative table of demo-
graphic information regarding the women interviewed. As explained ear-
lier, I purposely sought women with a range of experiences from varied
backgrounds, but in this study their family backgrounds, physical attri-

butes, and sexualities were only important as they related to the data. By
omitting detailed comparative information on the women, this study
focuses on the collective situation and experience of these women’s work
lives. This is a study of 17 women’s work experiences. What this study
offers to women, policy makers, and employers is the collective voice of
these women in a confidential format not available in the courtroom or
public-policy arena.3
The personal stories and perspectives of these 17 women offer explana-
tions and strategies for entry into traditionally male blue-collar jobs, for
remaining on the job, and for choosing to leave the jobs. These women’s
experiences and insights go further by offering suggestions for all workers
on how to make the workplace more welcoming, particularly to women.
Finally, these stories provide evidence and suggestions for policies and
practices that would move us further toward achieving the legislative intent
of equal opportunities in employment for women.
Chapter 2
SEVENTEEN BLUE-COLLAR
WOMEN: THE COLLECTIVE VOICE
Seventeen women working in traditionally male blue-collar jobs sat down

with me, individually, and described what work was like with men when
they were employed in traditionally male blue-collar jobs. In listening to
their stories, I was struck by the common thread of strength, determination,
compassion, and wisdom about dealing with and overcoming adversity.
Through them I came to know and understand what work was like for
women working with men in blue-collar jobs. I introduce you to the
women here so that in the subsequent chapters you can better understand
and be part of their “conversations” about the hostility, harassment, and
discrimination they experienced at work. They never met as a group dur-
ing these interviews, but as individuals they each contributed to the
collective voice of this study.
BETH (ELECTRIC PLANNER)

When I met Beth, she was looking for relief from the way she was being
treated at work by the men with whom she worked. Her head was low, and
she was tearful. An Irish woman with long, curly auburn hair, bright eyes,
and a round face and freckles, she was in her mid-thirties, single, and living
with an elderly relative.
Beth had been with the company for years, working her way up from an
entry-level position as a security guard to what she described as the best
job in the company, electric planner. Although she loved her job, she found
the behavior of her coworkers hurtful and intolerable early in her career.
Beth was determined to resolve the problems with her coworkers and stay
on the job, which she did. Beth was one of many women I met whose treat-
ment by coworkers was making work difficult or even impossible to per-
form on a daily basis. I was struck by the personal pain and fear that many
women, like Beth, were experiencing and enduring because they either
didn’t want to leave or depended on their jobs. Beth’s experiences, deter-
mination, and candor contributed to this book as a checkpoint for me not
only in the interviewing but also in the writing and rewriting of this collec-
tive story.
JOYCE (SECURITY GUARD)

Joyce was a security guard posted at the building entrance of a public-
utility office, and when I met her, she was clad in her blue uniform and
black leather shoes with a shining silver badge at her breast. A woman
short in stature (about 5’2”), Joyce’s body and expression were firm and
stern, and I noticed her bright, lively eyes. She had short blonde hair, and
heavy mascara accentuated a perceptive and intense stare—always observ-
ing, always on alert. I knew that the security department of the company
was all men except for two women. Joyce was one of those two.
Although I had passed Joyce on many occasions with a nod and hello,
I knew nothing about her family or her job before meeting her for the
interview. She was another of the many visible women in a man’s job with
an invisible life. Ironically, her job was to observe me, and she was
intrigued with this project and eager to be interviewed. However, during
the interview she was as full of questions about what other women were
experiencing as she was with insights about her own work life. Of all the
women I interviewed, she was the most guarded and cautious.
SONJA (METER READER)

I met Sonja at her place of work. She worked with about 30 men and two
women in a “barn”—slang for a garage where utility workers reported
daily to be dispatched to the field. Sonja was around 30 years old and 5’5”
tall and had thick, dark short hair and a soft body. She wore khaki work
pants and a cotton shirt. Like most of the women I interviewed, she wore
no makeup or nail polish and only understated jewelry. Perhaps her appear-
ance would best be described as practical.
When I called her, I described the focus of what I was writing and
explained that I was interviewing women in nontraditional jobs. She quickly
agreed to a meeting, and we decided on the location and time. I met her in
the “gang room” where the workers congregated before and after shifts or
SEVENTEEN BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN 11
on rainy days. The walls of the room were plastered with pictures of scantily
dressed women advertising beer. This, ironically, was her choice of a safe
place to talk with me about working with men in a man’s workplace.
CATHY (PUBLIC UTILITY CUSTOMER-SERVICE

REPRESENTATIVE/UNION EXECUTIVE BOARD)
Toward the end of Beth’s interview, as we talked about the impact of the
union on her work, she volunteered that if I wanted to know more about
the union and how women were treated in the union, I should talk to Cathy.
Like Beth, Cathy had been stressed and distressed because of the way male
coworkers treated her, which was obstructing her ability to do her job.
These men were affecting her personal esteem and mental health (in other
words, her happiness). Although both Beth and Cathy found such treat-
ment intolerable, Cathy’s reaction contained more indignation, outrage,
and anger than did Beth’s. Cathy did not see the problem as something that
she should have to fix or her coworkers as people she should have to
accommodate. She felt they needed to be held accountable.
Cathy worked as a customer-service representative, meaning she repre-
sented the company in dealings with contractors and field crews installing
utilities. More important for my study, she was the only woman on the
executive board of the “brotherhood” (the union).
This interview was conducted at my home at Cathy’s choosing; she did
not want to be seen coming to my office. She was eager to help me with
my research but wanted to keep the interaction separate and private from
her coworkers and supervisors. Cathy was strong and imposing in stature
and affect. In her mid-40s, she was about 5’7” with red hair. She pre-
sented as loud, as at-times imposing and even intimidating, as full of
quick wit, and above all as compassionate and friendly. She was a woman’s
woman and an advocate for social justice.
PEG (POLICE OFFICER)

In the community where I practiced as a mental-health therapist, I was
asked to voluntarily join a new team for critical-incident–stress debriefing.
This meant a three-day intensive training seminar with other mental-health
counselors and emergency personnel in the community (fire, police, and
emergency medical technicians). Among the professionals was Peg, a city
police officer. Peg was vibrant, assertive, compassionate, and strong-
willed. She was tall, slim, and of Italian background with long, thick,
shoulder-length curly brown hair. Her prominent eyes were intense as she
scanned the room or focused on individuals with whom she was conversing.
She often referred to herself by her Italian last name, particularly when
speaking as a police officer at work.
Part of joining a team is getting to know the team members. Peg
learned of my research project and was quick to assure me that harass-
ment and discrimination were rampant in the police force. She cited
examples and stories. My interactions with many of these interviewed
women began with their showing me how they “qualified” for my
research. They told me what they did for work, explained that they knew
what I was talking about, and indicated that they saw this as important
work. The preliminary tales they told me to explain how they could
relate affirmed the validity of my project.
Peg was in her late 30s and had recently married a fellow officer. On the
force she had positioned herself as a leader and feminist among her peers
by befriending other women, confronting men, and keeping gender central
to her work identity. She wanted to know about my study and was eager to
schedule an interview.
SANDY (COMMUNITY POLICE OFFICER)

I met Sandy when I stopped by the office of a psychiatrist I worked
with as a colleague. Sandy, a police officer, was dressed in her uniform.
Sandy and I had been enlisted as a team to escort a couple, in separate
vehicles, along with the doctor to the hospital for an emergency psychiat-
ric commitment. While we were waiting at the hospital, Sandy said she
had gone into police work because she liked the law and wanted to help
people. I told her about what I was studying, and she quickly agreed to be
interviewed.
She then spent the rest of our day together talking about work. She talked
for a while about how “it’s who you know” in the police force that deter-
mines where you go. She also talked about how she was going through a
divorce and indicated that “they” treated women officers very differently
than men by accommodating the men and feeling sorry for them. As with
most of the other women, her eagerness to talk about work and relation-
ships with men at work, about how she felt about her work, and about why
she chose that job was striking to me.
Particularly important about this interview was that Sandy is African
American, and was offering insights into working not only as a woman
but also as an African American woman in a white male workforce. She
was physically fit, and though she did not seem aggressive, she displayed
an air and look of assertiveness, self-assurance, and confidence. She was
direct yet relaxed in her speech, glance, and stance. Later she would
describe this stance as learned and as part of police work: “You stand
flat-footed, cross your arms, and then [you have] the uniform. You don’t
smile and it shows you mean business.”
ANGELA (CONSTRUCTION-UNION PRESIDENT)

Angela was a new union president who was dedicated to improving ser-
vices and working conditions for her members. At the time of the inter-
view, she was already facing challenges as the only woman local president
for the predominant construction union in the United States. Angela was a
pioneering woman working to improve union relations among all the
members. She came into her job because her predecessor had been corrupt
and had sold out the workers for his own gain. Angela was there because
she was honest, committed, and caring. She wanted “things to be set
right.”
When I contacted Angela, I was struck by her eagerness and commit-
ment to my project. Angela cleared her calendar for a two-hour interview
at my convenience, displaying a concern I was finding in all the women I
interviewed. This universal concern was for women workers as a group
and, for each woman, her personal identification as a member of that
group. Angela was in her mid- to late forties, and when we met, she was
wearing a very feminine, stylish blouse, tailored black slacks, and low
heels. Her hair was long and full. She stood tall with a look that was at
once soft, strong, and assured.
SALLY (TRUCK DRIVER)

Angela was excited about the interview, the research, and my work.
An hour into the interview, she paused and said, “You need to talk to
Sally. She loves to talk. She is a truck driver for the union and has just
filed a discrimination suit with the National Labor Relations Board and
EEOC.”
Sally was quick to set an appointment with me. She said that she was
laid off from work and available anytime. She was married with two adult
children, neither of whom would be home. When we set a morning inter-
view, she said she would not make any plans for the rest of the day, rein-
forcing for me the importance of this project for her and her excitement
about participation in this project.
Sally was a petite, slender woman with short blonde hair and a bronze
skin tone that indicated years of basking in the sun. The interview lasted
almost three hours and included her telling of her experiences in multiple
nontraditional jobs for women, including accounting, school-bus driving,
welding, and truck driving.
VALERIE (ELECTRICIAN)
Valerie was a licensed electrician and seasoned feminist. Nationally known,
she was an activist for women in the trades in her community. I was interested
in the local tradeswomen group she was a member of. When I contacted her,
she invited me without hesitation to their monthly board and membership
meeting.
I rode to the meeting with Valerie and Laura, all the way learning of the
two women’s work as electricians, but moreover, of their commitment to
fighting for equal opportunity for women and minorities in the trades.
They were advocates for women and girls. They understood the issues not
only from their own work experiences, but also from the experiences of
the collective of women that surrounded them in this group. They were
also going further and taking up the additional obstacles faced by racial
and ethnic minorities entering blue-collar trades. They both saw them-
selves as activists, and both were involved in research projects, at the
master’s and doctoral levels, that specifically addressed employment dis-
crimination in the trades. They worked in the trades by day and for the
trades by night.
MARY (AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLY-LINE WORKER)

Mary was about 5’4” tall and of medium weight and build with a healthy,
athletic look. Her mannerisms seemed to bridge the masculine and femi-
nine. Mary worked on the auto assembly line and had been transferred to
Baltimore when a plant closed in New York. She had worked for the auto
manufacturer for almost 20 years.
Mary was a veteran of working with men in traditionally male trades and
in the military. She had confidence, courage, and resilience that I wanted to
understand and capture since these qualities came in the face of tolerating
harassment by men at work.
Mary was having a difficult time on the job in Baltimore, despite her
years of experience. I asked her if she would consider an interview, and
she eagerly agreed. Like many of the women, she was motivated to help
me with my research so that other women could benefit from her experi-
ences and so that she could learn about theirs. In the interview, we quickly
focused the conversation on Mary and her job.
CHRIS (STATE HIGHWAY-MAINTENANCE CREW)

When I met Chris, she shared her interest based on her years working
on a state road crew. Chris was single and in her early 30s. She had no
children and was self-supporting, living in rural upstate New York. Chris
was about 5’5” and usually wore flannel shirts and blue jeans. She had
long, straight, unrestrained strawberry blonde hair and clear blue eyes.
She had recently returned to school to obtain the credentials necessary
to legitimate her appointment at work as the crew’s Employee Assistance
Program representative. She not only wanted to share her experiences, but
she also wanted to support other women working in male-dominated work-
places, and I was eager to learn about her insights and experience. Although
on educational leave, she was still employed by the state and was working
on the crew during breaks and vacations.
CLAIRE (COMMERCIAL PAINTER)

Claire had been working as a commercial painter and was continuing to
support herself with painting while she attended college to become a den-
tal hygienist. Claire was shyer than many of the women I interviewed. She
was also younger, in her late 20s. Claire was average in stature, slim but
physically fit, and strong in appearance. She had short dark hair. She had
the sparkle in her eyes of Santa Claus and the smile of an innocent child.
When I called her, she wanted to meet but was concerned that she
wouldn’t have anything to say. I knew this interview would not happen if
we were both shy, so I assured her that I was eager to talk to her and learn
about her work. I told her about some of the other women, and she became
eager to find out more about them. She met me at a shopping center. Claire
and I sat in the middle of the food court with the tape recorder. Before we
knew it, an hour and a half had elapsed and the tape had run out. There was
still so much more to say.
CASSEY (NUCLEAR FIREWATCH)

Cassey’s job at the nuclear plant as a “firewatch” required her to work
long hours and weekends. Therefore, she was not present at the gatherings
of her family, to which I was regularly invited. I knew the family was
proud of her because they often talked about her in her absence. She had a
relatively secure job in a rural community that had high unemployment
rates and limited opportunity for young workers entering the labor force.
She was making a lot of money but was enduring long hours with difficult
work conditions.
When we met at a family event, she inquired about my research. Her
family was proud of the work she was doing, particularly because of the
high income and the independence it afforded her. However, family
members were unaware of the specific difficulties of her work beyond the
scheduling. Cassey wanted to be interviewed. Like many of the women,

she was very excited that she was to be included in this study and that I
thought what she had to say was valuable to a topic that she herself finds
important. Cassey was single and in her mid-20s, the youngest of four
children. She had gone to work in a nuclear plant in a rural area when she
was unable to find a job in business management after graduating from
college.
NANCY (INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST)

A woman politically active in her community, Nancy was one of three
names a local politician gave me; the women were the politician’s personal
friends who worked in blue-collar male jobs and who were active in local
unions. Nancy, I was told, inspected carnival rides. She was part of a
network of feminist women in her community with decades of experience
advocating for women and social justice. She had aligned herself and
worked in the women’s movement from the 1960s to the present.
When I talked with her to set the interview, she described her job as that
of an electrician by training who was working for the state. When I called
her, she was home on disability, and she invited me to her home for a taped
interview.
Nancy was older than most of the women I had interviewed, being in her
late 50s or early 60s. She was the mother of three grown sons and lived
with her husband. She was home on disability because she had fallen on
ice while at work, and she was considering retirement. Her current job title
was “industrial hygienist,” which meant “safety inspector.” She was
particularly interested in electricity, but her responsibilities were broadly
defined as those necessary for ensuring construction safety. She did inspect
carnival rides, but that was only part of her job as a safety inspector for
multiple work sites. Her work involved climbing and crawling into, over,
and under structures in order to assure that safety standards were met.
Most of the inspections took place on work sites run by men with male
workers, and most of her coworkers were men. She had worked with men
and for men for decades and was eager to share her years of experiences,
particularly as they had changed over time.
IRIS (LONGSHORE WORKER/COMMERCIAL

FISHER)
Iris appeared taller than her 5’3” stature, perhaps because she was very
thin and stood erect with shoulders back and head high. Her waist-length,
free-flowing blonde hair, high forehead, and prominent, poignant blue
eyes were reflective of her dual United States and Netherlands citizenship
and heritage.
During our meeting, her interest in my research and her experiences in
labor-intensive male jobs on the waterfront dominated our conversation.
Her employment history included work in the seasonal Christmas tree
industry, longshoring on the docks loading timber, and life as a commer-
cial Alaskan fisherwoman, followed by her employment in an engineering
firm. She not only talked about traditionally male blue-collar jobs, but she
also made some comparisons to traditionally male white-collar jobs. This
gave yet another perspective to the study as she compared multiple
experiences working with men in traditionally male jobs.
CAROL (POSTAL WORKER)

By the time I met Carol, she was making plans to leave her job in the
post office. She had started on the post-office floor more than 20 years
before, had been promoted to a position in the garage, and had worked
her way up to postmaster and was now looking for a change. While work-
ing as postmaster, she had completed her bachelor’s degree and defined
herself as a feminist and now wanted to focus on teaching and women’s
studies.
She was a single mother. She had raised her daughter, taken care of her
parents, and gone to school while working and remaining self-supporting.
Her decision to leave the post office was delayed by the death of her
mother, and so was our interview. Having worked her way up from a posi-
tion on the post-office floor to postmaster in a small community, she was
able to talk about differences between being a craftworker (and being part
of a union) and being a management worker within the evolving and auto-
mating postal service.
GRETCHEN (LABORER/CARPENTER)
Gretchen was single and in her late 20s and had dyed her dramatically
short hair red. She had large green eyes and was deliberate and demonstra-
tive in her speech. She was slim and tomboyish in her dress. Most of all,
she was very friendly, open, and candid with a quick sense of humor.
Gretchen wrote me a long note after being asked to review the prelimi-
nary report from which this book evolved. She was disturbed by the way
I was defining the women in this study as “blue-collar skilled trades-
women.” She didn’t think that “blue-collar” and “skilled” necessarily
described the women I was including in the study. Gretchen’s doubts were
based on her experiences in a job her employer classified as unskilled
blue-collar, traditionally male job. When not attending classes, she worked
seasonally as a laborer in a historic park. She said, “I mean, they [say
they] don’t require any skills, and yet I’m expected to know carpentry as
well as historic carpentry and be able to do framing, roofing, vehicle
maintenance, plumbing, electrical, and brick work.” She was the only
woman in her work environment. Seasonal labor was nonunion, and full-
time employees were union-represented.
Gretchen was from California and had started working at a national his-
toric park at the age of 18. She had worked there for nine years while going
to school. My response to Gretchen’s interest and her challenge of my
research was to interview her. She was eager to do the interview.
PERSONAL COMMENT
Though I have tried to give you an introduction to the women who
contributed to this study, I have purposely not provided a comparative
demographic description of them. I have shared a description that I hope
allows you to join with them and see them as the unique individuals that
they are. There is not one type of woman in these traditionally male blue-
collar jobs, and what these women do and don’t have in common does
not correlate to what their experiences are. Each woman is unique, and
each experience is unique. That is what makes their contribution all the
more valuable.
This sample was purposive in providing a range of experiences of women
from varied backgrounds. Their family backgrounds, physical attributes,
and sexual orientations were only important to note in this study when
they contributed to an understanding of employment discrimination and
workplace harassment. By omitting this information, I have attempted to
focus the reader on the womens’ experience, not their attributes. This is a
study of 17 women’s work experiences.
Chapter 3
UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT-

DISCRIMINATION LAW: AN
ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL POLICY
Social policy is one way to unify and bring together workers, such as the
women interviewed in this book, who are living in different geographic
locations and doing different jobs at different times—social policy becomes
the common thread. I have selected to analyze U.S. employment policies
since they provide a context for workers in the United States, and more
particularly, blue-collar women working in traditionally male jobs. I have
found that many women endure illegal conditions and accept them as busi-
ness as usual. In my interviews I found that although women workers know
they are not being “treated right” or are being treated differently than the
men they work with, they may or may not be aware of what is actually
illegal.
Through a comparison of the rights afforded them in the policies pre-
sented here, we can contextually analyze their situations and differentiate
what is illegal from what is only considered unfair or unjust. This allows
us to differentiate legal justice from social justice. We can then extend the
analysis as to whether the policies are in fact providing the protections
they were intended to provide. Since the interviewed women worked in
different jobs, for different employers, at different times, and in different
localities, federal policies are the ones that provide a unifying context.
Many policies contribute to providing equal employment opportunity
and to protecting women at work. For the purposes of this book, the dom-
inant EEO legislation in the United States is Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended. This act prohibits employment discrimination
based on sex and provides for equal opportunity in employment for women.
In addition to Title VII protections, women are protected against employ-

ment discrimination both directly and indirectly by many other interdepen-
dent legislative and court actions. These include, but are not limited to, the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans
With Disabilities Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, the Family Leave Act, the Violence Against Women’s Act,
E.O. 11246, and other labor and employment laws. Though these policies
are independent acts, they inform and set boundaries for Title VII. In order
to understand the dynamics of women and work in the United States, and
more particularly, work for women in traditionally male blue-collar jobs, it
is important to understand these policies, their protections, their limits, and
their interrelationship.
ANCILLARY CONTEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT

LEGISLATION
Contemporary women’s equal employment opportunity is provided
through an aggregate of federal employment-legislation. The combined
focus and key provisions of these employment laws provide a contempo-
rary context for understanding and framing Title VII, the subsequent case
law, and most of all, women’s experiences at work.
• National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) (29 U.S.C. 151–169)—This act
guarantees employees the right to organize, bargain collectively, and select a
bargaining agreement. It protects employees from discipline or discharge for
exercising these rights. It prohibits employers from discriminating in hiring
or in deciding tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment for
the purpose of encouraging or discouraging membership in a labor organization.
A violation of the NLRA may be sufficiently established if an employee’s
discharge interferes or coincides with the employee’s concerted activity as part
of the union to procure mutual aid and protection. Furthermore, the agreements
that are entered into by unions and collectives are upheld in Title VII, including
practices “pursuant to a bona fide seniority . . . system . . . provided that such dif-
ferences are not the result of an intention to discriminate” (Teamsters v. United
States, 431 U.S. 324, 354 n. 39 [1977]). Jobs performed by the women who par-
ticipated in this study were traditionally union-represented. The union provided
both barriers and supports to their job performance.
• Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938 (FLSA)— The purpose of this act is to regulate
the wages and hours of those who work. In reaction to the economic depression
of the 1930s, this legislation aims to allow employees to negotiate fairly with
employers for jobs. The United States Department of Labor, as an administra-
tive agency, oversees the minimum wage, compensatory time, migrant workers,
UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION LAW 21
and child labor.1 Women are not a special class in this legislation but are covered
in the general context of all employees. The compensation for jobs held by the
women in this study tended to exceed minimum-wage standards. This act
excludes certain types of employees: farmers; workers at small retail and ser-
vice establishments; professional employees and executives; severely physi-
cally handicapped persons; trainees; persons who do work at home; domestic
workers; waiters, waitresses, and bartenders; nonresident employees; and,
truckers, cab drivers, and some common carrier drivers. The women in this
study were hourly employees covered by the FLSA.
• Equal Pay Act Of 1963 (EPA)— The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was enacted in order
to address the issue of sex in regard to employment discrimination. It requires
employers not to discriminate
between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees of the

opposite sex in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays
wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on
jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and
which are performed under similar working conditions except where such pay-
ment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system
which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential
based on any other factor other than sex: Provided, that an employer who is pay-
ing a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not, in order to
comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage rate of any
employee. (Equal Pay Act 1963, Section 3)
The Equal Pay Act requires equal pay only for substantially the same work.
This legislation was believed to sufficiently address sex-based discrimination,
and thus, sex was not included in Title VII in 1964. This allows for further
exploration into the meaning of “equal work.”
• Executive Order 11246 (E.O. 11246), 1965— Executive Order 11246 prohibits
federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment and
requires that a nondiscrimination clause be placed in all government contracts.
It includes a provision that “employers take affirmative action to ensure that
applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment,
without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This requires
that employers prepare an “affirmative action plan,” and involuntary plans may
be required to rectify past discriminatory practices as defined by Title VII.
Affirmative action may include recruiting underrepresented groups, changing
management attitudes, removing discriminatory obstacles, and providing pref-
erential treatment. Some of the women in this study were hired or promoted
based on E.O. 11246.
• Occupational Safety and Health Act, 1970 (OSHA) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.)—
OSHA mandates that all employers provide employees with a workplace free
from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. This
duty includes a responsibility to recognize and abate hazards of workplace vio-

lence. This act is aimed at prevention and has resulted in written industry-wide
occupational standards. Failure to provide a safe and healthy workplace can
result in citations and cash fines. For the women in this study, unsafe situations
evolved as a result of generally lax occupational practices, the neglect of
coworkers to advise or protect them, and malicious acts perpetrated because the
women were unwelcome as workers.
• Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX)— Under Title IX, educational
institutions receiving federal funds may not use sex of students as a classifying
tool or criterion for decisions regarding admissions, benefits, or participation in
programs, or use other bases of classification that disproportionately disadvan-
tage one sex or the other. Although there are some exclusions, Title IX includes
admission to vocational and professional education. In 1981 the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals held that Title IX prohibits only intentional sex discrimina-
tion. During the decade, federal guidelines were issued on the prevention of
sexual harassment of students. “To alter beliefs about equal opportunity, one
available route is education” (Gelb & Palley, 1996, p. 93). Title IX has resulted
in the education of women in traditionally male skills such as industrial arts and
automotive repairs. For the women in this study, the absence of this early train-
ing and orientation placed them at a disadvantage when applying for jobs and
learning new skills and in training programs.
• Civil Rights Act Of 1991 (PL 102–166)—In response to interpretation, ambi-
guities, and loopholes, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 significantly amended
Title VII. The purpose of this act is to “strengthen and improve civil rights
laws, to provide for damages in cases of intentional employment discrimina-
tion, to clarify provisions regarding disparate impact actions.” It provides for
monetary punitive and compensatory damages and trial by jury. Further, it set
up the “Glass Ceiling Commission” to focus attention on, and complete a study
of, the artificial barriers to the advancement of women and minorities in the
workforce.
• Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act, 1992 (WANTO)
(PL 102–530)—The purpose of WANTO is to provide technical assistance to
employers and labor unions in order to encourage employment of women in
apprenticeable occupations and nontraditional occupations. The law was a
response to the increasing number of women in the labor force and the chang-
ing nature of the labor force. It provides technical assistance and grants to
community-based organizations, and it commissioned a comprehensive study
to examine barriers to women’s participation in the targeted occupations. The
results of this qualitative study of women’s experience in such occupations
identify barriers and suggest strategies for increasing the number of women in
these occupations.
• Violence Against Women’s Act, 1994 (VAWA)— VAWA provides for civil action
by women who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault. Employers
are prohibited from taking any adverse job-action based on the employee’s status
as a victim of domestic violence, assault, battery, sexual assault, or stalking,

including status as a victim of threats of these crimes. Employers must reason-
ably accommodate victims, with efforts including job restructuring, making
adjustments to existing facilities, and authorizing reasonable leave to seek medi-
cal or legal help, counseling, or safety planning. Victims can sue both the indi-
vidual perpetrator and the employer if the assault occurs at the workplace. The
harassment experienced by the women in this study included sexual assault, and
many of the women were victims of threats of these crimes, threats that contin-
ued to go unreported.
• States’ Fair Employment Practice Laws— Most states have laws on fair
employment practices, prohibiting discrimination based on sex. State statutes
may include additional protected classes that address familial status and sex-
ual orientation and may include employers who are not covered by Title VII.
These laws, or state human-rights laws, may be more or less restrictive than
Title VII and provide different remedies and compensation. Title VII encour-
ages pursuit of individual rights through state courts by extending times for
filing federal complaints if the plaintiff is pursuing state remedies. Since the
women in this study were pursuing remedies for the discrimination and prob-
lems they faced at work outside the formal legislative channels, state laws did
not play an overt role. However, since the women worked in different states,
their protections varied.
• Workers’ Compensation— All states have workers’ compensation laws tied to
employers’ responsibility to provide a safe workplace for workers. These laws
require employers to compensate employees for job-related physical and mental
injuries and illnesses that occur on the job or that are job-related. Compensation
laws vary by state, including in the amounts paid and in employer-coverage
requirements (i.e., self-insured, private insurance, and state insurance pro-
grams). Compensation includes coverage for income loss resulting from partial
disability, medical expenses, rehabilitation expenses (including education and
retraining), and income loss from death (Ledvinka & Scarpello, 1992). Also
covered under workers’ compensation would be injuries and illnesses that result
from on-the-job harassment or injuries that result from worker-caused injuries,
especially if workers are un(der)trained and un(der)skilled.
• Family Medical Leave Act (1994)—All workers, regardless of gender, are pro-
vided up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for certain medical and family situations
(e.g., care for a sick child, eldercare, adoption) for either the employee or a
member of the covered and eligible employee’s immediate family; however, in
many instances unpaid leave may be substituted for paid FMLA leave. This bill
was enacted to provide job security for workers with serious illnesses or who
are responsible for family members with serious illnesses; though lawmakers
recognized that women are disproportionately responsible for family caretak-
ing, they knew that enacting employment standards applicable to only one gen-
der could lead to employment discrimination against that gender, therefore, the
act provides for leave for both men and women.
• Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (1996)—this act replaced

the Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Job Opportunities Act. It
combined limited short-term financial benefits and job training, requiring
mothers to work to support their families. It does not, however, target living
wages or employment for women in higher-paying jobs.
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

(PL 88-352) WITH REGARD TO WOMEN
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides for “nondiscrimina-
tion in employment” on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, and national
origin. The substantive and procedural civil rights and protections of Title
VII provide a unifying context for employment discrimination in the
United States and for the comparison of the work experiences of individual
women. They serve as a framework for the resulting recommendations for
employment practices generated from the narratives of women working in
traditionally male blue-collar jobs.
The Problem: Lower Pay and Job Segregation for Women

The combined effects of the social, political, and economic history of
U.S. women’s employment are pay inequity, job segregation, and employ-
ment discrimination against women. Women overall earn less than men
do, are segregated into jobs that pay less than traditionally male jobs, and
are underrepresented in higher-paying traditionally male occupations.
Since 1950 there has been a significant shift in women’s participation in
the labor force, with most of the change happening after 1970. More than
65 million jobs for women were added from 1964 to 1997, more than dou-
bling the 1964 figure. This represents a rise in rates of 43 percent of the
labor force in 1970 to 60 percent in 1999 (Bureau Labor Statistics, 2005).
Though women represent more than half of the labor force,2 they are over-
all paid less than men, earning 76.5 cents for every dollar a man makes
(IWPR, 2005). This problem is compounded by the fact that women are
disproportionately represented in lower-paying service and clerical jobs.
Beyond an overall consideration of pay equity is the concern for
employment opportunities for women in higher-paying traditionally
male occupations. The Women’s Bureau of the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) defines women’s nontraditional occupations as those
occupations in which women comprise 25 percent or less of the total
workers in that occupation. In 2001 more than 80 nontraditional occu-
pations for women were listed by the DOL (see Appendix). “These
skilled jobs are attractive because they offer entry level wages between
$7 and $9 per hour, and a career ladder with pay between $20 and $30
per hour (DOL, 2002 (a)).” Yet women have historically been employed
and continue to disproportionately be employed in traditional areas of
clerical, sales, and service work.
Pay equity and occupational representation indicate quantitatively that
men and women do not have equal employment status and infer that oppor-
tunity is not equal. Moreover, the higher the pay in the job, the more likely
that women will be underrepresented; and the lower the pay, the more likely
that women will be employed in that occupation. Higher-paying blue-collar,
nontraditional jobs represent a way out of poverty for some women
(Kissman, 1990). But though the wage gap is narrowing and women are
increasingly participating in the labor force, their participation in higher-
paying, traditionally male blue-collar occupations continues to be low.
Inequality in pay and occupational segregation for women result in eco-
nomic disadvantages that extend to the women workers and to their families,
who live in communities where they have less purchasing power and less
economic independence than men. The impact spans the life cycle since the
disadvantages extend to denial of promotions to jobs that pay more, and the
result is lower pensions, social security, and benefits over the life cycle.
In addition to economic inequality at work, there is social inequality.
Workers gain a sense of self, personal power, and prestige from the work
“organization” (Kanter, 1993). Work is a “social institution” where
employers provide for the basic needs and welfare of the worker through
pay and benefits including health care, family support, and retirement
benefits and through ensuring worker safety. Yet for women, tradition-
ally male blue-collar jobs have tended to be incompatible with women’s
Table 1. 2002 EEO Occupational Employment for Private Industry by Sex

Participation Rate
Office & Clerical
Service Workers
Sales Workers
Craft Workers
Professionals
Technicians
Officials &
Operatives
Managers
Laborers
Workers
Total
Sex
Male 52.5 65.3 47.9 53.2 44.3 20.2 87.0 72.2 65.3 42.6
Female 47.5 34.7 52.1 46.8 55.7 79.8 13.0 27.8 34.7 57.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: EEOC, 2004, Employer Information Report EEO-1.

qualifications and their needs regarding safety, hours, and scheduling

(Lillydahl, 1986, p. 314).
Equal employment opportunity policy and practices seek to rectify the
tangible problems of sex-based disparate compensation and job segregation
and the social inequalities of low-paying unskilled jobs—key indicators of
the less tangible “pervasively hostile work environment.” These indicators
serve as markers for the continued existence of and change in sex-based
employment discrimination. These indicators show that discrimination
continues over time and across workplaces and occupations. But they do
not explain why or how women are discriminated against and harassed.
Historical and Legislative Development of Title VII

Since the 1800s, legislation has been enacted in the United States for the
protection of women’s employment rights. In some cases these laws pro-
moted women’s employment rights, and in other cases they purposely
restricted rights through what has been termed “protective legislation.”
Employment legislation builds on the rights afforded to men that were
denied to women dating back to the Constitution. Various forms of
women’s-rights legislation since the Constitution have denied or extended
to women basic rights already afforded white men, including the rights to
vote and own property.
With regard to work, legal rights have historically taken two stances.
Prior to the 1960s, women’s employment rights were principally protec-
tive. “Protective legislation” included sex-based differential limitations on
work hours and physical-labor restrictions that led to job segregation in the
late 1800s and early 1900s (Hill, 1979). These laws were designed to pro-
tect women from employers’ exploitation and oppression in terms of the
labor that they were required to perform in order to remain employed.
Though many of these laws have been repealed, employment policies, dis-
crimination, and sex stereotyping of jobs continue to reflect these “protec-
tive” interests. Protective legislation demonstrates how the seemingly
well-intentioned assertion of women’s rights can in fact reinforce domi-
nant structures and further discrimination.
The 1960s represented two significant shifts in employment policy for
women. These shifts were (1) from protective legislation to equal-rights
legislation and (2) from the tradition of men writing policy for women to
a renewed movement by women advocating for policy for themselves
through a visible, organized, national multiapproach campaign. The 1960s
was a time of recognition and policy initiatives to eradicate both inequality
in opportunity and discriminatory treatment as experienced by individuals
and society as a whole. The focus included but was not limited to the
employment rights and opportunities afforded to women. Three policy ini-

tiatives were integral: the Equal Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was enacted in 1964 with sex included as
a protected class, thus extending equal employment opportunity to women.
Not until the debate was drawing to a close in the House of Representatives
did Rep. Smith of Virginia offer the amendment to the Civil Rights Bill that
would add sex to the other protected classes of race, color, creed, and national
origin. There was little discussion in the House of Representatives or in the
Congressional Record of the act’s intent or of definitions of discrimination
or other guiding concepts and terms as related to women. Therefore, policy
analysis is largely dependent on case law, reference to other ancillary
employment laws, legislative amendments, and interpretation of and infer-
ence from application and intent with regard to the other protected classes.
The application of this legislation and protections afforded by it do vary
from one class to another. Sex as a protected class has been particularly
complicated and differs from race and national origin because of inherent
biological differences between men and women (e.g., pregnancy and actu-
arial death rates). But gender has challenged presumptions about employ-
ment practices that had been deemed to be based on biology, practices that
are, in fact, socially constructed and that lead to discriminatory practices
(examples of such practices are height and weight requirements).
Underlying Values and Assumptions: Equal, Employment,

and Opportunity
Underlying the written rights and provisions of employment policy are
the values and assumptions on which they are based. In analyzing equal
employment opportunity, I have identified three dominant social values
that underlie U.S. equal employment policy by simply breaking down the
words “equal employment opportunity”:
1. employment as embodied in the value for work;

2. equal as valued in equality; and
3. opportunity as contraindicated in individualism.
A discussion of these three underlying values serves to provide a founda-

tion for a social policy analysis of Title VII as a text and legal mandate.
Employment policy is first reliant on the value of work. Work is valued
and organized in formal organizations that are hierarchical and efficient
and that contribute to the maintenance and advancement of the larger soci-
ety (Hartmann, 1976).
Work is performed by the labor force, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s
definition of the labor force further illustrates what type of work is valued;
the bureau officially defines the labor force as all persons age 16 or over
who work at least one hour for pay or profit during the week, those who
work at least 15 hours as unpaid workers in a family business, and those
who are unemployed and looking for work. In order to be “unemployed,”
you have to have been previously employed, and this previous employ-
ment does not include unpaid work such as household or volunteer work.
Employment policy is designed to support the larger value of work and the
goals of the workplace as a social institution. These formal sources of sup-
port are more important to women, and the informal sources are more
important to men (Lambert & Hopkins, 1995).
As an institution, the employer provides for the social needs of those
employed in that particular workplace. The social institution of work and
the employer, as the representative of the particular workplace, are respon-
sible for providing for the welfare of the workers (Gilbert & Terrell, 2002).
This responsibility includes providing compensation and benefits and pro-
tecting workers’ personal safety. Socially and legally, the employer is held
responsible for workplace discrimination and harassment. It is the employer
that sets the employment policies and that polices the workplace with
respect to fair employment practices aimed at efficient and effective pro-
ductivity. Work also contributes to a person’s sense of self-worth; our
occupations or jobs contribute to our sense of self-worth and value, and
occupations are ranked and provide status. Well-designed jobs and sup-
portive workplace relationships and policies are important in mutual com-
mitment between employers and employees.
Equal versus Equality

In order to understand Title VII, it is necessary to address the limited
nature of “equality” the law intends to extend. Title VII recognizes that all
people are not afforded equal opportunity when it comes to employment
and sets out to level the playing field for men and women workers. Title VII
specifically addresses and provides for equal opportunity, not equality, in
employment.
How men and women can be equal in the workplace when they are
biologically different is an ongoing question. Individual responses to and
choices regarding work have been attributed to social, psychological,
and biological differences between men and women. In EEOC v. Sears,
Roebuck & Co., 628 F. Supp. 1264 (N.D. Ill. 1986), it was decided that
women were biologically different from men and socialized differently
from men; therefore, the majority opinion reasoned, women’s choices of
occupations may be the result of individual choices, not denial of opportunity.

Equal opportunity allows for and recognizes that the sexes are different and
allows for individuals to be different if they choose to be. Women are not
guaranteed equal jobs or the same jobs, pay, or benefits. “Equal” is only
guaranteed in regard to opportunity.
Opportunity versus Individual Choice

Finally, building on the previous two values and assumptions is the con-
cept of opportunity as related to individualism. In the United States, indi-
vidualism has served as a foundation for policy and programs and generally
for how we limit, judge, and protect each other. The United States is
founded on freedoms that value individuals’ rights to be different from one
another. Individualism values freedom of choice and inner direction.
Individualism when applied to employment purposely rejects social
control of the workforce, “leaving it up to the individual to make up his
own mind as to how to proceed” (Tropman, 1989, x). In keeping with the
tenets of individualism, Title VII and related employment policy protect
individual choice and, at times, hide behind assumptions inherent in indi-
vidualism. It is within the concept of opportunity and the protection of
individual choice that policy analysis and interpretation have centered with
regard to sex.
Equal employment opportunity legislation attempts to grant rights to
those who are experiencing discrimination and those who, through no fault
of their own, are unable to attain the economic and social benefits of work
in this society. In terms of employment, this means granting equal oppor-
tunity to compete in the labor market and derive the economic advantages
of work, including pay and benefits. Legislation acknowledges that equal
opportunity does not exist without government intervention. It is the legit-
imate role of the government to intercede on the behalf of those who are
discriminated against by the capitalist economic system. The decision
regarding how much to intercede takes into account the desire to balance
between a free economy and one that actively protects the civil rights of
the citizens.
TITLE VII RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS
Who Is Covered: The Allocation of Sex-Based Equal

Employment Opportunity
The act protects all employees from employment discrimination, with
an “employee” defined as an employed individual working for an employer.
Subject to 1974 Title VII amendments, “employers” are defined as being

engaged in an industry affecting commerce and employing 15 or more
employees. Employment is defined as either a formal or informal contrac-
tual relationship.
Once a contractual relationship of employment is established, the provisions

of Title VII attach and govern certain aspects of that relationship. . . . The contract
of employment may be written or oral, formal or informal; an informal contract of
employment may arise by the simple act of handing a job applicant a shovel and
providing a workplace. (Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 [1984])
In addition to covering traditional employers, the law also applies to edu-

cational institutions, state and local governments, some parts of the federal
government, labor organizations, employment agencies, and job training
and apprenticeship programs.
Title VII protects individuals and does not include “the protection of the
minority group as a whole” (Connecticut v. Teall, 457 U.S. 440 [1982]).
Although all individuals who are discriminated against are entitled to these
protections, they must protect their own individual rights, filing complaints
on their own within the guidelines prescribed in the later “Service Deliv-
ery” section of this chapter. Individuals who do not file within the pre-
scribed time, individuals who are not included in a class action, or
individuals who were unaware of the discrimination in time to file a com-
plaint are not eligible for the benefits negotiated by others who experi-
enced the same discriminatory employment practices.
What Is Provided: The Provision of Equal Employment

Opportunity
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (PL 88-352) provides for equal
opportunity in employment for women (and six other protected classes) by
making discrimination illegal. The provisions apply to all six protected
classes; however, additional provisions and limits apply specifically to
women. These distinctions have developed from the original act, subse-
quent court decisions, and amendments that have interpreted and revised
the act. Further, although not part of the act itself, the EEOC Guidelines
for Employers (1980) provide information as to what and how protections
are provided.
The act provides for employee rights in the following ways. A. It is unlawful for an
employer
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to dis-
criminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race,

color, religion, sex, or national origin; or,
(2) limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in
any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employ-
ment opportunities or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual
because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
(Section 703 (a))
Further, the law makes it illegal for employment agencies “to fail or
refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any
individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, or to
classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of his race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin” (Section 703(b)). It is also unlawful
for a labor organization
(1) to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate

against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants for membership
or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any
way would deprive or tend to deprive any individual or employment oppor-
tunities, or would limit such employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee or as an applicant for employment,
because of such individual’s race, color, religion, ex, or national origin; or,
(3) to cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an indi-
vidual in violation of this section. (Section 703 (c))
In the matter of training programs, the act makes it unlawful
for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee con-

trolling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job pro-
grams to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established
to provide apprenticeship or other training. (Section 703 (d))
There are two exceptions to these Title VII provisions. The first excep-
tion deals with bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ):
(1) it shall not be unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and
employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for
employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its mem-
bership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an
employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee con-
trolling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or
employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion,
sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or
national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably neces-
sary to the normal operation of that particular business enterprise. (Section
703 (e))
It is also not unlawful for a religious educational institution to discriminate

on the basis of religion.
Second, the act allows seniority, merit, and productivity systems to exist,
provided the intention is not to discriminate on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin (Section 703 (h)). This is in keeping with
the protections established under NLRA and FSLA. Professional ability
tests are allowed if it can be proven that requirements are job-related. Fur-
ther, the act allows employers to differentiate between employees upon the
basis of sex in determining the amount of wages or compensation to pay
employees, as long as such differentiation is in keeping with section 06(d)
of Title 29 of the Equal Pay Act.
The act also prohibits interpretation of the act as granting preferential
treatment in employment to any of the protected classes. This was debated
in the Congressional hearings, where it was made clear that the act is aimed
at “equal opportunity,” not preferred opportunity. In their interpretations,
the courts also have been clear in pointing out that this is not a law granting
equity in employment. The law does not grant or intend for the protected
classes to be given preferential treatment although employers could imple-
ment policies that sought to eradicate past discriminatory practices as long
as those policies did not disadvantage any other group, including the
majority, in the process (United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443
U.S. 192 [1979]).3 This was further clarified in McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail
Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976), establishing that the law pro-
tected white as well as nonwhite employees.
Employment discrimination has been categorized into two forms: dispa-
rate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment refers to discrim-
inatory acts or behaviors directed toward an individual or group in terms
of employment. Disparate impact refers to policies and procedures that
may appear neutral but that result in unfair or unequal employment oppor-
tunities for a protected group. Discrimination may be in the form of actual
policies or behaviors (treatment) or in the form of the impact of those
policies and behaviors on the protected applicants’ or workers’ ability to
obtain, compete, and perform in those jobs. For example, Griggs et al. v.
Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429 (1971) found that requiring a high
school education when one was not needed for the job had a disparate
impact on African American males and was in violation of the act.
Demonstrating disparate impact is complicated and requires statistical

and enumerative evidence based on labor-force availability (Hazelwood
School District. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 [1977]) and must show
causality between the statistics and the employer’s practices (Wards Cove
Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 [1989]). Objecting to the require-
ments of Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, the Civil Rights Act of 1991
overtly amended this decision, redefining disparate impact from the more
general test of causality to the more specific test of job-related and busi-
ness necessity. This means that plaintiffs are required to demonstrate that
a particular practice is discriminatory, not just the general practice of an
employer.
Sex-Based Provisions for Equal Employment Opportunity

Beyond the more general protections of Title VII are the specifics
regarding women and gender. The issues that women have brought to the
courts, in many cases, have varied from those of the other classes. The
courts have interpreted application of the law differently when discrimina-
tion is based on sex versus other protected classes. For example, sex was
included in the BFOQ category whereas race was not. It was found that
employers could discriminate on the basis of pregnancy benefits because
this was not based on sex, although only one sex could get pregnant
(Holthaus v. Compton & Sons, Inc., 514 F.2d 651 [8th Cir. 1975]).4 Marital
status was found not to be a BFOQ (Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444
F.2d 1194 [7th Cir. 1971]), but it was decided that a marriage policy that
applied to all employees regardless of sex was legal (Harper v. Trans World
Airlines, 525 F 2d 409 [8th Cir. 1975]).
Women’s rights in the workplace have impacted women’s safety, pay,
and the administration of benefits. Women cannot be subject to differing
benefit plans based on gender (City of Los Angeles Department of Water &
Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702 [1978]) or subject to insurance programs
that provide different benefits based on actuarial tables or that distinguish
by gender (Arizona Governing Committee for Tax Deferred Annuity &
Deferred Compensation Plan v. Norris, 463 U.S. 1073 [1983]).
One important consideration is the differentiation between comparable
worth and equal pay. Historically, men and women have performed differ-
ent jobs, resulting in what is referred to as job segregation. The different
jobs pay different rates, with traditionally male jobs paying higher wages
than traditionally female jobs, even when the jobs require similar skills.
Thus, workers performing jobs of comparable worth often do not receive
comparable pay, and the courts have considered whether employees doing
jobs of comparable worth should be paid the same if the work is deemed
to be of the same value.
Courts have made it clear that the intention of Title VII is to provide
equal opportunity, not consider comparable worth. Simply, the legal
question was whether the Equal Pay Act (1963) sufficiently addressed
the pay issue, or whether Title VII extended equal opportunity across
occupations. In the County of Washington v. Gunther (452 U.S. 161
[1981]) and AFSCME v. State (770 F.2d 1401 [9th Cir. 1985]), the rela-
tionship of the Equal Pay Act to Title VII was clarified. Incorporating
the Bennett Amendment into the discussion, the courts made clear that
Title VII was intended to complement and not supersede the Equal Pay
Act, which purposely said “equal pay for equal work,” and the courts
rejected the comparable-worth theory and arguments.5 The courts were
clear in their interpretation that disparities in compensation for women
exist but that it is not the intention of Title VII to eradicate the dispari-
ties (McCarthy, 1986).
Perhaps the most public and prominent issue for women regarding
benefits from Title VII is in the realm of sexual harassment. In 1980,
when the EEOC issued guidelines declaring sexual harassment to be a
form of sex discrimination and in violation of Title VII, the courts had
yet to decide if sexual harassment was a form of employment discrimina-
tion based on sex.6 The Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment is a
violation of Title VII in 1986 (Meritor Saving Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S.
57 [1986]).
There are two types of sexual harassment: “quid pro quo” and “hostile
environment.” Quid pro quo is employment compensation in exchange for
sexual “favors.” What defines a hostile environment is much harder to
articulate. In 1998 (Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118S.Ct. 2257,
1998), the Court delineated a distinction “between quid pro quo and hos-
tile environment as a distinction between cases involving a threat which is
carried out and offensive conduct in general.” Proof of a hostile environ-
ment requires that five criteria be met: (1) the employee belongs to a
protected group; (2) the employee is subject to unwelcome harassment;
(3) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment;
(4) the harassment was based on sex; and (5) the employer knew or should
have known about the situation (Lee & Greenlaw, 1995). Prevalence rates
of sexual harassment of women by men at work range from 25 percent to
80 percent.7
The meaning of hostile environment continues to evolve in the courts.
One key issue is whether harassment is determined based on the reason-
able-person standard adopted in Bennett v. Corroon & Black Corp, 845
F.2d 105 (5th Cir. 1988), or the reasonable-woman standard (Ellison v.
Brady [1991]). The reasonable-woman standard is applied not only to

whether the behavior is offensive but also to whether it reasonably could
interfere with a woman’s ability to perform the job (Paetzold & Shaw,
1994). Gutek and O’Connor (1995) reviewed research on the two stan-
dards and concluded that there is little difference between the standards
but that, in general, women define sexual harassment more broadly and
inclusively than do men.
In Harris v. Forklift System (1993), the Supreme Court decided that a
woman did not have to prove psychological damage in order to prevail in
a sexual harassment lawsuit. The decision states,
Whether an environment is “hostile” or “abusive” can be determined only by

looking at all the circumstances, which may include the frequency of the dis-
criminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliat-
ing, or a mere . . . offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with
an employee’s work performance. The effect on the employee’s psychological
wellbeing is relevant in determining whether the plaintiff actually found the envi-
ronment abusive. But while psychological harm, like any other relevant factor,
may be taken into account, no single factor is required.
In 1998, in Oncale V. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998),

the Supreme Court found that same-sex discrimination is actionable under
Title VII and that same-sex sexual harassment charges must continue to
meet the previously described tests of the reasonable-person standard,
quid pro quo, and hostile environment. The Supreme Court decision went
on to clarify that this did not transform Title VII protections into a “general
civility code for the American workplace.” In both Harris v. Forklift (1993)
and Oncale V. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., the Court upheld the
reasonable-person standard.
Title VII includes protections for employees from employers who retal-
iate in response to individuals’ exercising their rights under Title VII. Pro-
tections of Title VII are extended not only to the victim of the
discrimination or harassment, but also to others who experience employ-
ment discrimination in retaliation for supporting, assisting, or protecting
victims. Acts of retaliation against which employees are protected include
those against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participat-
ing in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices. Further, the
protections continue after discharge, particularly with regard to negative
and retaliatory employment references (Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519
U.S. 337 [1997]).
Benefits are available to those whose civil rights are violated. These are
granted either by court order following litigation or upon agreement by
the parties in an out-of-court settlement. The delivery of these benefits is

discussed in the next section. Such benefits are called remedies, and rem-
edies are granted both in kind and in cash. The amount of the benefits is
commensurate with the severity and pervasiveness of the violation if the
case is settled in court. The parties involved may also agree upon reme-
dies outside of court.
Ignorance of the acts’ protections is no defense for an employer; how-
ever, if employers were unaware of the disparate impact, they are usually
only responsible for corrective actions (in-kind benefits). Legal remedies
for employment discrimination are (1) reinstatement and promotion;
(2) back pay and benefits; (3) monetary damages—limited by size of
employer and extent of personal injuries; (4) injunctive relief—court-
ordered changes in company policies; and (5) attorney’s fees—all or a
portion of the complainant’s fees.
Distribution is based on the variable parties and entities involved in the
action (i.e., the individual, the employer, the court, the EEOC). Provisions
are granted on two levels. The individual receives personal benefits based
on personal damages. Employers may be required to (1) post notices to all
employees addressing the violations of a specific charge and advising the
employees of their rights under the laws that EEOC enforces and of their
right to be free from retaliation; (2) take corrective or preventive actions to
cure the source of the identified discrimination and minimize the chance of
its recurrence; and (3) discontinue the specific discriminatory practices
involved in the case. It is implied that as a result of the remedies and the
efforts of the individuals, all persons in that workplace will benefit and the
employer will change the practices.
Asserting Civil Rights and Contesting Violations: Service

Delivery
The purpose of this description of the service-delivery system is to dem-
onstrate the complexity, inaccessibility, and prohibitive time and expertise
necessary for pursuing action against violations.8 Service delivery of the
rights provided by Title VII operates at the private, state, and federal lev-
els. Employees with complaints can seek resolution from their employer,
State Fair Employment Practices Administrations (FEPAs), or the Equal
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Litigation is pursued through both the
state and federal court systems.
One of the most significant factors in the court interpretation of Title VII
is determining the party responsible for denial of opportunity and for hos-
tile work environments. It is the responsibility of employers and supervi-
sors, or those in authority, to uphold protections of Title VII. Remedies are
sought against the corporation, employer, or union. Individuals are only

responsible for providing remedies if they are officers of the corporation:
An employer . . . is responsible for its acts and those of its agents and supervi-
sory employees with respect to sexual harassment regardless of whether the
specific acts complained of were authorized or even forbidden by the employer
and regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of their
occurrence. The Commission will examine the circumstances of the particular
employment relationship and the job functions performed by the individual in
determining whether an individual acts in either a supervisory or agency capac-
ity. (EEOC, 1980)
If an employee files a complaint, employers must then accommodate the

employee, investigate the charges, and take tangible employment action. If
the employee does not reach a resolution with the employer, he or she can
proceed with a formal action.
The first step in a formal action is to file a complaint with the EEOC.9
The EEOC then investigates the claim and seeks reconciliation between the
employer and employee(s). If reconciliation is not reached, the EEOC
can make a finding of “no cause” or issue a “right to sue” letter, or the
EEOC itself can sue the employer . In most cases the “right to sue” letter
is issued.
This letter allows persons to file in federal or state courts (Yellow Freight
System v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 [1990]) since states offer similar protec-
tions against employment discrimination. The responsibility for providing
proof of discrimination lies with the complainant. At this time the com-
plainant must obtain an attorney, and access to legal counsel is a privilege
that limits the protection of the individual’s rights granted in Title VII.
Access to attorneys willing and qualified to handle these cases varies, and
sometimes the most discriminated-against persons have the least access to
legal counsel for reasons including not knowing how or where to contact
them and not being able to afford them.
The court then hands down a decision and assesses remedies. Deci-
sions may be appealed, and often, employers appeal to seek reduction in
monetary awards. If the decision is continually appealed, the last step
could potentially be the U.S. Supreme Court, which would make the
final decision on the case. It is not unusual for the complaint and litiga-
tion process to take from 5 to 10 years. Gates (1976) proposes that
“unfortunately asserting one’s legal rights through litigation can be
expensive, time consuming, and difficult. Plaintiffs in suits against
employers are sometimes ostracized, harassed, and branded trouble-
makers” (p. 73).
WHO PAYS AND HOW IS PAYMENT TENDERED?

FINANCING OF TITLE VII PROTECTIONS
The financing of Title VII cases and remedies are paid by federal and
state governments, employers, and employees. The federal government
funds the EEOC, the federal administrative agency established to enforce
Title VII. EEOC’s fiscal-year budget appropriation for 1998 was $242 mil-
lion, including $27.5 million for payments to the FEPAs.10 The EEOC
services are available to employees free of charge, and federal dollars pay
for investigations. This includes the expenses for issuing the right-to-sue
letter, for EEOC mediation, and for EEOC’s pursuing the suit, if the agency
decides to do so.
With extensive and expanding complaints and case loads, the time
frame for EEOC investigations and resolutions is forever increasing,
often making it necessary for plaintiffs to pursue their cases in the courts.
Both individuals and employers are responsible for retaining their own
legal services; however, the plaintiffs can seek reimbursement for legal
fees as part of the remedies. These private expenses are often prohibitive,
particularly for individual employees. Attorneys take cases on retainer or
on hourly or contingency fees. Attorneys may establish fees and the pay-
ment schedule for cases based on the merits of the case. In determining
fees, attorneys may assess the facts of the case, the strength of the
employer’s resources, and the plaintiff’s ability to endure the disruptive,
lengthy, and complex proceedings. Regardless of the payment structure,
plaintiffs are routinely required to pay unpredictable out-of-pocket court
fees and expenses for depositions, often mounting to tens of thousands
of dollars.
In addition to these formal legal costs to employees are other personal,
career, and financial costs. Prolonged litigation can leave plaintiffs doubt-
ful of their competence and career goals, disrupting career potential, and
costs of lengthy litigation can lead to adverse credit ratings, including
bankruptcy. Personal emotional tensions may also result in family disrup-
tion and even divorce (Lenhart & Shrier, 1996).
Employers are responsible for paying their own legal costs for defend-
ing employee lawsuits. These costs are not reimbursable by the employee
should the court decide in favor of the employer. Employers, however,
if found guilty of discrimination or sexual harassment, pay the case-
settlement costs as described in this chapter’s section on remedies. The
average cost of a discrimination lawsuit to employers is upwards of
$250,000. Additionally, employers bear the costs of retraining and
rehiring, absenteeism, workers’ compensation, health care, and loss of
productivity.
SUMMARY OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS AT WORK

EEO policy aims to open doors for women in employment, protect them
from discrimination and harassment, and equalize pay and compensation
between men and women. Under the reviewed current legislation and
Supreme Court decisions, women are afforded the following equal employ-
ment rights and protections:
• Women are entitled to equal employment opportunity protections, including

those that apply to hiring, training, promotion, and discharge;
• Women are protected against workplace policies and practices that result in sex-
based disparate treatment or have a disparate impact on their employment;
• Women have the right to equal pay for equal work, but not to equal pay for
comparable work;
• Women cannot be subjected to differential benefits;
• Sexual harassment is a form of employment discrimination, and the two recog-
nized types of sexual harassment are “quid pro quo” harassment and harassment
created by a pervasively “hostile environment”;
• Employees are protected from acts of retaliation by employers and coworkers
for filing or supporting charges of discrimination;
• Employees have the right to organize, form, and join unions;
• Seniority, merit, and productivity systems are exempt from the provisions of
Title VII, provided their intention is not to discriminate;
• Workers have the right to receive a fair and minimum wage and to be compen-
sated for hours worked;
• Women have the right to receive the necessary training and education regardless
of their sex or the sex-role stereotyping of jobs;
• Federal contractors must take affirmative action to employ women, including such
actions as recruitment of underrepresented groups, changing management atti-
tudes, removing discriminatory obstacles, and enacting preferential treatment;
• Women have a right to education that does not use sex as a classifying tool or
criterion for decisions and that is free from sexual harassment;
• Women’s inclusion in apprenticeship and training programs in nontraditional
occupations is a strategy to increase their participation in those occupations;
• Workers’ compensation provides compensation for job-related physical and
mental-health injuries, including those resulting from employment discrimina-
tion and sexual harassment;
• Employers must provide employees with workplaces free from recognized
health and safety hazards, including workplace violence.
• It is each employee’s responsibility to know her rights under Title VII and to file
a claim on her own behalf should she be discriminate against.
These protections provide the common context for women’s employ-

ment in the United States. The scope of coverage and protections granted
to women under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ancillary
employment policy is broad, providing an umbrella of economic, social,
and personal protections, and at the same time, the scope limits the guar-
antee of opportunity. The substantive rights and protections address the
range of behaviors and practices that include overt, covert, and institution-
alized discrimination.
All of these policies represent basic assumptions about women, work,
and women’s place in society. The reviewed legislation and case law have
provided a context for the values and limits of social responsibility of
employers and employees with regard to providing a safe and welcoming
workplace. Yet ambiguities and discriminatory practices prevail in wom-
en’s experiences at work. Procedural rights are inadequate and largely
inaccessible and prohibit the implementation of the policies. When women
do exercise their rights, the costs are high, and the time and resources
expended by both employer and employee often exceed the rewards
(Lenhart & Shrier, 1996).
The courts currently are seeking opportunities to clarify issues with
regard to gender, particularly with regard to defining “hostile environ-
ment” (Harris v. Forklift [1993]). The best way to understand, articulate,
and define the hostile environment is by talking to the persons—the
women—who encounter it. Individual women’s work experiences and
perspectives form the basis for responding to the court’s question.
It is the inclusion of the women’s experiences and insights that shifts
this study from the functional social-policy analysis provided in this chap-
ter to a qualitative, feminist social-policy analysis. It further allows us to
reconsider, through a gender-first lens (Hartmann, 1976), the implications
of EEO policy as it stands. The functional social-policy analysis legiti-
mates the women’s experiences and perspective, but what is missing from
this analysis is the perspective of the constituency the social policy is
designed to serve. Without the gender-first policy lens, these are just sto-
ries and strategies for dealing with discrimination and men at work. With
the gender-first policy lens, the stories and insights clarify what is and is
not just or illegal. The subtleties of women’s work experiences and insights
help us to organize our thoughts about what is and is not discrimination. It
moves us toward defining the “pervasively hostile work environment.”
Chapter 4
PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT:
EARLY PREPARATION FOR
TRADITIONALLY MALE
BLUE-COLLAR JOBS
The decision to enter a male-dominated blue-collar workplace is part of an

intertwined matrix of social, economic, and personal needs and capabili-
ties. It is a result of the distinctive cultural messages each woman is given
and the personal resources and assets she attains. Each woman’s family,
school, neighborhood, and community encourage or discourage her pur-
suit of male-dominated workplaces. The women I interviewed had
embarked on their journeys toward their blue-collar, traditionally male
jobs long before applying for the jobs.
The women I interviewed were clear about why they entered their occu-
pations and what attracted them to their jobs. For each woman, reasons for
entry into a male-dominated position were complex and involved her rela-
tionships with her family of origin and current family, the communities
and circumstances in which she lived and had grown up, and her expressed
needs at the time of employment. The themes that emerged during the
interviews were family members’ influence, year of birth, age upon enter-
ing the job, the women’s formal education and training, their informal
preparedness for the job, and their occupational tract. These themes are
dealt with sequentially in this chapter.
FAMILY MEMBERS’ INFLUENCE

Most of the women identified family members who influenced their deci-
sions to enter male-dominated trade jobs. The women interpreted family as
a dominant occupational motivator or inhibitor. They pointed to relatives
from their childhood and youth who had had an impact on their choice of
jobs. Family members may have attempted to deter them or encourage them
or, more often, may have simply served as a role model. Family members
shaped their understanding of what work was like and what working with
men would be like.
Angela’s grandmother was an Italian immigrant who had worked in a
sweatshop as a seamstress. Angela credited her grandmother with spurring
her own interest in unions and with inspiring her toward her position as the
president of a local for one of the United States’ strongest and largest
male-dominated trade unions. In Angela’s words,
I come from a very union-oriented background. As a little girl, I remember my

grandmother talking about the union. She came to this country from Italy. And
the conditions that she worked in, in a tailor shop, were horrendous. Conditions
like you see in the movies—with all the electricity cords. They used to lock
‘em in. They were allowed to go to the bathroom like once a day. No windows.
Fires all the time. And people used to get into a lot of fights. They were dying
or just passing out and yet—“you’re not working fast enough.” They would
give them hard candy about two o’clock in the afternoon because they’d be
lethargic, the poor things. And forget who’s got diabetes or anything else—
you’ve got to have this candy ‘cause you have the sugar high in order to finish
up the remainder of your day. My grandmother spoke about how when the
union came in, things got better for them. And that always played a very, very
important role in my formulating my opinion of unions and [my decision] to be
a participant.
Although Angela entered the union in a traditionally female job of sales

agent, she became the only female union president representing the con-
struction industry in a dominant national union. She went on to say that
her sister supported her and that her mother, although long since deceased,
would have been proud and surprised at Angela’s accomplishments. For
Angela it was the women in her family who had instilled in her a commit-
ment to her employment path.
Mary had mixed stories to tell about her family’s influence on her
choosing to work on the male-dominated assembly line of an automotive
factory:
My father was a factory worker and was very involved in the union. He was a
safetyman. I remember, when I was very young, they would be out on strike and
picketing. There were large fights all over the country for “silly little things” like
medical benefits and retirement. All the men pulled together. Of course, there
weren’t women then, although they took care of the factory during the war. Yes,
the togetherness. I just thought it was so cool. I just had to do this.
PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT 43
However, Mary’s family was not supportive of her entering the male-
dominated world of manufacturing.
My father forbid me to work in a factory. I was offered a job at the manufactur-

ing plant where my father worked. He said he would quit, and he had 33 years
seniority. They didn’t hire me. My father told me I’d have been very sorry. My
mother is still of the firm belief that women go to factories and work in factories
to find men.
Both Angela and Mary cited their families’ commitment to and invest-
ment in the union as the main reason they chose to enter male-dominated
blue-collar work. The organizational structure of the workplace with
unions, or the “brotherhood,” contesting oppressive and unjust workplace
conditions attracted the women to the jobs.
Sally drives tractor-trailers. She identified her father’s influence as lead-
ing to her interest in trucking:
My dad brought me up right [laughs]. I was the oldest of four, and my dad always
needed a helping hand. We had a small farm. He taught me how to cut wood. He
taught me how to work on cars. He said, “If you’re gonna drive, you’re gonna
know how to change a tire. And you’re gonna know, if something breaks on a car,
how to fix it.” I guess he kind of brought me up like the son he didn’t have first.
I mean, he had two boys after that but I was like my dad’s right-hand man.
Her family supported her decision to pursue a career in truck driving.
And I had always wanted to be a trucker. I mean, it’s been a dream of mine for
years. My one son is a trucker now, and his big thing was, when he was grow-
ing up, “My mom and I are gonna buy a truck and we’re gonna drive trucks
together.”
For Sally the skills that she saw her father practice and that he taught to
her were the determinant of her occupational choice, not the camaraderie
and benefits of participating in organized labor. Further, her son, husband,
and brother all supported her ambition to drive trucks. Sally wanted to
master the skills and perform the physical labor required to handle driving
an 18-wheeler. She wanted the challenge.
Some women did not cite their fathers as influencing or preparing
them for the skills of the job. Rather, they attributed their childhood
homes as preparing them to combat the male-dominated relationships in
their chosen traditionally male professions. These women were quick to
identify the connection between their relationships with their fathers
and their lack of apprehension in entering a hostile workplace. Both Carol
and Cathy left female-dominated secretarial positions to take jobs in

male-dominated workplaces. Carol sorted mail for the post office, and
Cathy worked as a customer-service representative for a utility. They
believe that their alcoholic homes and dominant, abusive fathers attracted
them to male-dominated workplaces and prepared them to work with
men. Since they had dealt with their fathers and witnessed their fathers’
domination of women, they felt they could handle the anticipated diffi-
culties in working with men. Both of these women worked in jobs that
were less physically labor-intensive than the jobs of other women inter-
viewed, yet men still dominated their work relationships and tradition-
ally performed their jobs.
The women came from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Two of
the women’s fathers were doctors. The influence of these women’s fathers
resulted in the women’s feeling of entitlement to be in the job. Iris indi-
cated that the sense of having an “inalienable right” to pursue and perform
the job came from her family background. Having gone to private schools
with a father who was a self-employed “prominent doctor” gave her a dif-
ferent outlook from Mary. Mary had seen the union as the paternal organi-
zation that protected her father’s constantly contested right to keep his job,
work in a safe environment, and support his family. Peg’s father was a
neurosurgeon. She has a sister who is a doctor and a brother who dances
professionally. Both of her parents, particularly her father, influenced and
reinforced her choice of a career in law enforcement.
He’s a surgeon. And my mom’s a social worker. So they know what’s out there in
the real world. My mother grew up in South Philly, so she knows what life’s all
about. We were raised pretty much to go for whatever we can. My mom is a
feminist, so much so that she could not live with my father anymore because my
father’s an Old World Italian. He’s Old World Italian, but he’s screwy in that his
girls can do anything. I mean, we were brought up that you go out there and get
your college degrees. You get jobs. You make money. We weren’t raised to grow
up, get married, and have kids. That wasn’t our foremost goal in life, even though
that’s what we all want as part of our lives. But we all went for careers first. For
me getting into the police academy came from [the] same drive as my sister get-
ting into medical school.
Peg’s mother, on the other hand, both shaped and discouraged her pursuit
of law enforcement as a career.
My mom’ s a social worker in Philly. So, she’s aware—but she told me I’d never
last in the police department. She said that it’s not that I wouldn’t be capable. She
said, “You’ll learn. Cops, they’re tough. They’re sexist. You won’t fit in.” And she
was right.
The women did not cite only persons from earlier generations. Sandy,
a community police officer, grew up in the housing project with five brothers.
She talked of her brothers’ role in preparing her for her career choice:
I think a lot had to do with my background growing up—growing up with eight

kids, rough neighborhood, and five brothers. You learn that if you get beat up,
punched in the face, get scratched up, or even shot in the leg, you don’t run. I’m the
fifth child. I’d get out there and just play football and they’d tackle me because I
wanted to be tough. I think that it goes back to my childhood. I just wanted every-
body’s approval. People liked you when you were tough. They respected you.
Sandy’s family background of physical confrontation and of being sur-

rounded by men prepared her for both the skills of the job and the people
with whom she would have to work. Her job in law enforcement rein-
forced her desire to be tough, caring, and respected. Her desires and abili-
ties to achieve these goals started at home.
For all the women, family background gave meaning to their jobs and
reinforced their choices of occupation. Their fathers, brothers, and sons were
the family members they most often cited as propelling them into their jobs,
and the women in their lives provided impetus and determination. Family
members also offered words of caution and warning that the women sought
to defy. The significant person or persons may have been generations older
or younger, and the impact may have been more or less significant; however,
these family relationships did shape the women’s subsequent job choices.
Their families’ influence included preparation for the organizational struc-
ture of the workplace, the skills of the trade, the confidence to enter the
workplace, and the ability to face and deal with male coworkers.
YEAR OF BIRTH
Pathways to employment are directly related to and must be viewed in the
context of year of birth, particularly with regard to corresponding employ-
ment laws, education laws, and the labor market. The women I interviewed
were born between 1938 and 1969. Employment options, training opportu-
nities, degree of automation, and the environment of workplaces were differ-
ent based on each woman’s year of birth. Workplace stereotypes, cultures,
practices, demands, and policies have varied greatly over time.
Nancy, born in the late 1930s, had been working for almost a decade
before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. During her school
years, women had worked in factories in traditionally male jobs but were
replaced by men when World War II was over. Mary, born in the mid
1950s, talked of women working in factories during World War II as part
of the history of her occupation as an automotive assembly-line worker,

but not as part of her personal experience.
In the mid-1970s, Carol entered the labor force. She had just completed
high school, where she had received secretarial training. Her entry into the
post office coincided with a push toward hiring women and the automation
of the U.S. mail system that reduced the physical demands of the job.
Cassey, born in 1969, began life in an era in which the school system and
workplace were charged with efforts toward equality in education (Title IX)
and employment (Title VII) and affirmative action. By the time Cassey was
20 years old, sexual harassment had been ruled to constitute sex discrimina-
tion in the workplace (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson [1986]). In contrast,
Nancy was 48 and a grandmother in 1986. When drawing comparisons of
women’s work choices and experiences, year of birth must be taken into
consideration as it relates to a woman’s personal placement in history.
AGE
The women I talked with ranged in age from 26 to 57 years. The age of
entry into nontraditional skilled jobs ranged from 18 to 50. Age discrimi-
nation represents an additional employment barrier and protection for
women. As with race and ethnicity, the greater the number of protected
classes that a woman belongs to, the less likely she will be to occupy a
traditionally male job. Age is complicated by the fact that the process of
aging has been ruled a legitimate occupational qualification since the aging
process has been documented to limit physical and mental abilities
(Usery v. Tamaimi Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F.2d 224 [5th Cir. 1976]).
Considering women’s experiences at different ages can help identify what
determines women’s occupational choices as they get older.
Chris, Cassey, Mary, Carol, and Gretchen entered their male-dominated
jobs in their early 20s. Iris and Claire were in their teens, just out of high
school. Beth, Peg, Sonja, Joyce, and Sandy were in their mid-20s. Cathy
and Nancy were in their late 20s or early 30s. Angela was in her 40s, and
Sally was 50.
Sally passed the test for her Class A commercial driver’s license on her
50th birthday. Though she had held other traditional and nontraditional
jobs previously, driving tractor-trailers had been her lifelong dream.
And I turned 50 the day I got my license. I just passed my 50th birthday, and it was
like, “I did it all!” It was my dream that I wanted. And I said, “It may have taken
me 50 years to do it, but I finally did it.”
The women did not describe age as hindering their decisions to enter a
job (although it may have been an eligibility factor or may have influenced
the person hiring them). For Sally age made her accomplishment more
noteworthy and heightened her determination. The women entered their
respective jobs when they became aware of the opportunity or the oppor-
tunity was made available. There was no relationship between the wom-
en’s ages and their physical ability and limitations in pursuing their
chosen occupations. This resulted in a variation in age of the women
included in this study. However, since all the women interviewed were
selected because they were indeed employed in traditionally male blue-
collar jobs, no assumptions about job choice can be drawn regarding
women who were interested in such jobs but were excluded because of
age or maturation. Unfortunately, if these women were excluded from
the jobs, they were also excluded from these interviews of women
employed in the jobs.
MARITAL STATUS
Women’s work has been studied largely in relation to women’s paid and
unpaid labor and to the relationship between work inside and outside the
home. At the time of entry into their jobs, the women varied in marital
status and sexual orientation. Blue-collar, traditionally male jobs do not
attract one “type” of woman—married, divorced, lesbian, heterosexual,
single, or single mother. All of the women did attribute their particular
familial and marital status as impacting and complementing their choice of
blue-collar, male-dominated jobs.
There was no single path or indicator linked to choosing a male-
dominated job as related to marital status or sexual orientation. There were
as many stories as there were women interviewed. Peg was single when
she decided to become a police officer. She had been raised to pursue a
career first and then get married and have a family. Mary’s being a lesbian
was a direct contradiction to her mother’s belief that women took factory
jobs to find a husband.
Iris lived with her boyfriend, but they were not considering a life com-
mitment to each other. They both worked casual labor jobs and were jointly
piecing together enough money for food, living expenses, and drugs. The
casual labor status of longshoring was compatible with her needs and life-
style at that time.
Carol had married right out of high school and became pregnant. She was
focused on supporting her daughter when she applied for her job at the post
office, where her husband also worked. Cassey was engaged to be married
when she began her job, and she lived with her boyfriend in a home where
they split household responsibilities and expenses. Claire, a lesbian, had
been introduced to her profession by a girlfriend who was a painter and
with whom she had lived off and on. Chris was single, a couple years out of
college, and on her own:
I didn’t have any kids to support or anything, and I could just do it like a personal
mission and—the money was real good.
Sally had two children, one in high school and one working. She was
divorced, remarried, widowed, and remarried. At various times, she had
financially supported herself, her children, and her husbands or had been
supported by husbands.
I was using it as a way of setting up a lifestyle. I thought I would eventually be on

my own, and I wanted to make good money to raise my kids.
Prior to entry into male-dominated blue-collar workplaces, the different

women in this study were mothers, wives, girlfriends, single, gay, and
combinations thereof. All of these aspects of the women’s identities fac-
tored into their finding these jobs suitable, attractive, and opportune. In
combination, family status, marital status, and sexual orientation directly
affected the women’s choice of employment, the risks taken in pursuit of
the work, and the benefits they sought to derive from work.
OCCUPATIONAL TRACT
Each woman had been following a career path and had already had one
or more jobs when she began her traditionally male blue-collar job that is
the focus of this study. For some this job was one of many traditionally
male occupations they pursued. Others had previously been in tradition-
ally female jobs and predominantly female workplaces. Some of their pre-
vious jobs required skills, training, or education that directly and indirectly
led the women to the male-dominated workplace. Others entered the male-
dominated blue-collar workplace through unskilled jobs or jobs for which
training was obtained on the job. For each woman, this study focuses on
only one of the traditionally male blue-collar jobs she has performed.
During Iris’s last year of high school, she had strayed from the strict
academic curriculum and had apprenticed in a boat yard. After high school
she supported herself with seasonal jobs, namely repairing boats and bail-
ing Christmas trees. When she started to work on the docks in Washington
State as a longshore laborer, she was young, strong, petite, and blonde.
Most of all, she was adventurous and hardworking.
Out of high school I went to work at a little ranch that was operated by a city park
department. I was one of the horse wranglers. We saddled the horses up and took
kids on rides. My responsibilities were taking care of the horses and taking the
kids out on trail rides, but that was actually just a summer job. The next thing I did
was I worked in Olympia in the Christmas-tree industry. I loaded trees on trucks.
I had a boyfriend at the time, and his family had been in the Christmas-tree indus-
try for years, and so he knew the industry. We did that for four years. The first
season, it was just him and me, and we worked as contract labor operating a bailer.
We got paid by the tree, and the faster we bailed, the more money we made. We
worked late October through a couple days before Christmas. The following years,
we put together a gang of people with six on a crew and loaded the trucks and
once again got paid piecework to load the trucks. A truck would come in. The yard
boss would hand us a sheet of paper that said these are the trees you have to put
on this truck. One of the yard crews would bring us the trees, and we would load
them and stack them on the truck. We made a reasonable amount then, but the rest
of the year we were unemployed. That’s when we started longshoring. I found out
about that gig and started doing it.
Mary was 18 and just out of high school when she entered the military,
another male-dominated occupation and culture. Certain that she wanted to
work in a manufacturing plant, Mary entered the service to fill time because
the plants were slow and not hiring at the time. When she got out of the
military, she continued to apply “every day” at manufacturing plants.
Beth graduated from high school and went to work as a telephone oper-
ator at a local utility company. She was a temporary employee, meaning
she could not bid for other union jobs in the company. After one layoff and
the threat of a second, Beth took her civil-service test and applied for a job
at the local police department. She wanted excitement. At the age of 23,
she became a police officer, but after three years and the filing of a suc-
cessful sex-discrimination suit, she moved on to become a security guard
at a public utility company. She is quick to say that she “got excitement in
law enforcement, but not the kind [she] had planned.” She now works for
a utility as an electric planner, continuing to be a woman in a traditionally
male job.
For most of these women, their entry into the traditionally male, skilled
jobs followed work in a traditionally female job. Carol had graduated from
high school and chosen to start a family, passing up the college scholarship
she had been offered. She became a secretary but applied to the post office
when she heard the pay and benefits were significantly greater than what
she could earn as a secretary.
I was administrative assistant for a chairman of a small computer company. I always

worked office work. I worked for an engineering firm for two or three years when
Rachel was a baby. Then I went to this computer-staffing place, and I worked
there a couple of years. Then I started PO. And I went in as a market clerk, which
is computer input—that’s all you do all day is sit and type codes for mail, forward-
ing mail. . . . So I went from Ten Main Center, which was downtown and very
high-class, to the PO on the floor, which was real blue-collar. So you go from
being the chairman’s secretary to one of a hundred input operators. And of course,
I made so much more money at the PO.
Cathy had worked for years as a secretary. She worked in a male-

dominated utility office and, as a secretary, was represented by the union,
another male-dominated organization. She had accrued seniority and
wanted to advance. She applied for a job as a customer-service representa-
tive working with commercial customers, representing the company on
construction projects and expansion of utility services. It was a man’s job
that required working with men both within the company and in the field.
Sandy had worked at a bank in accounting, alongside mostly women.
Then she became a school-bus driver while pursuing her interest in tractor-
trailer driving. Angela was working as a sales representative for a car-
rental company when she was recruited to be president of the local of the
construction union. Chris had worked as a social worker, a female occupa-
tion, prior to working on the state highway crew as a light equipment oper-
ator. Peg and Cassey had both worked part-time as clerks and waitresses
while in school and college. After earning bachelor’s degrees, Peg and
Cassey chose the male-dominated blue-collar jobs of law enforcement and
firewatch, respectively, for their first full-time occupations. Mary’s career
path took her into the military, which was followed by entry into other
male-dominated workplaces.
Some of the women seemed to follow occupational paths that led from
female jobs to traditionally male-dominated jobs. Others chose more direct
paths from one traditionally male job to another. Once in a traditionally
male job, the women did seem to move from one traditionally male job to
a traditionally female job. However, for all the women the lure and occu-
pational decision to change to and pursue traditionally male jobs reflected
the desire for excitement, status, security, money, and challenge.
PREEMPLOYMENT EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Specific education for blue-collar jobs is often not a requirement. In fact,
this has traditionally been one of the defining characteristics of blue-collar
work—the need for on-the-job training and a lack of formal-education
requirements.1 However, the women in this study all entered their jobs with
educational backgrounds that met or exceeded the requirements of their
positions. The women cited educational background and experience as
influencing their decisions to enter blue-collar, male occupations.
All the women were educated and all valued education; this was consis-
tent. A few had received formal training in preparation for their male-
dominated jobs prior to being hired; however, all had acquired occupational
skills and education unrelated to the male-dominated jobs they entered.
All of the women were high school graduates. Through formal education,
many of the women had acquired secretarial and bookkeeping skills. Some
were working on college degrees. Some of the women had earned bache-
lor’s degrees prior to entering male-dominated blue-collar workplaces.
One was in law school.
For Chris, her education was crucial in providing the confidence to apply
for a traditionally male blue-collar job. Chris had graduated from college
with a degree in social work. She then worked in corrections. After a few
years of minimal pay and budget cuts, she found herself unemployed. She
attributes her education to giving her the impetus to apply for a job with
the state highway crew. She had heard about the job and knew that hiring
a woman was a mandate and, further, that the boss was going to do what-
ever he could to discourage any women from applying for the job. She
wanted and needed the job, so she applied.
It pissed me off, so I figured I’d call his bluff because I felt that a lot of women
that were applying for that job wouldn’t take it because if they couldn’t hack it,
then they would be unemployed. And I felt very employable because I had a
degree. I felt like I had an edge because I came from a social-work background
and I’m just a defiant feminist anyway.
Some women regretted preparing for the careers on which they had
focused their education. Sandy was working at the university and pursuing
a degree in nursing when she applied to the police department. Three of
the women earned a bachelor’s degree prior to entering their blue-collar
jobs. Sonja had completed her second year of law school by the time she
realized that she wanted to pursue a completely different career, and she
then took a job as a meter reader in her hometown, walking from house to
house, reading meters and talking with customers. She now drives a truck,
wears a uniform, and works with men.
I was in the beginning of my third year. And I went for all the wrong reasons . . . It
was one of those—I want to be a great lawyer. Your parents would love to have a
lawyer in the family. So you do it. And then while you’re in there you think, “Wow,
this is like a bad marriage.” I’ve got to wake up to it every day. I went to sleep with
it every night and I hated it. I hated the idea of doing it. I hated the idea of being in
this for the rest of my life, and I went so far as researching every possible thing I
could do with a law degree. And it all came out the same. It all came out to, I don’t
like it; I don’t want it. I don’t want to be thinking this way. I don’t want to be acting
this way. And I won’t do it. I’ve always been a pencil pusher. I’ve always been
behind books and in school, so to become secure I took this job.
Sandy, Cathy, Carol, and Sally had formal training in secretarial and
bookkeeping skills beginning in high school. Iris came the closest to
obtaining formal training through her public education with her high-
school apprenticeship in the boat yard being related to her job as a long-
shore worker, but it only provided her a familiarity with the vessel, not
training in the specific work of longshoring.
Some traditionally male blue-collar jobs do require training or educa-
tion for hiring. This was true for Valerie, who completed an apprenticeship
program, the historical route to employment in the trades. Sally received
formal training at “tractor-trailer school” prior to getting her license. She
had previously driven a school bus for years without any formal training in
trucking. For other women who had received formal training, this training
was specific and required for entry into their jobs. Blue-collar jobs are
often specific to and defined by the skills necessary for entry. Women
seeking these jobs must find out what these requirements are and specifi-
cally get that training to qualify.
All of the women were educated or trained, yet few of the women were
directly applying their formal education at either the high school or col-
lege level to the traditionally male jobs that they were pursuing. Far from
the stereotype of blue-collar workers as the uneducated proletariat, these
were women with options who had choices and made choices based on
educational experiences, not work experience. Prior education was an
important component of their career paths although it was rarely required
or directly applied on the job. These women chose to abandon their previ-
ous training and education to pursue dreams and learn new skills and
trades. For these women education and training provided fortification and
determination for entry into male-dominated blue-collar jobs.
INFORMAL PREPARATION FOR THE JOB

Many of the women talked about their acquisition of the skills necessary
for their jobs. Much of the informal training happened after they were
hired and was dependent on relationships with coworkers, but the degree
of training prior to hiring did vary. Formal criteria and requirements for
preparedness and eligibility included certification, licensing, or a civil-
service test. The women generally felt that they were less prepared to per-
form their jobs than the men they worked with, even though they met the
stated qualifications. As the electric planner pointed out, “Men are exposed
to have construction and industrial skills from high school and at home—it
becomes second nature.” The basics may not be ingrained or may even be
discouraged in women. Regarding tools and materials of the trade (i.e.,
different types of ladders, lumber, and so on), the women cited being less
familiar than their male coworkers with what the items looked like, what
they were used for, and how to carry and transport them.
The women mentioned ways that they compensated for and obtained
this informal training in order to compete with men for traditionally male
jobs. Claire was young and unemployed and had a girlfriend who was a
painter. Painting wasn’t something she had planned to do. She had no plan,
only an opportunity.
I learned how to paint from a friend of mine who had a painting business. She had
her own business. I didn’t have a job at the time so I started with her and she
taught me. I caught on real quick. For about two or three years, we painted together,
until she moved out of town. After that I went and worked for two established
painting contractors with all men for about a year for each company.
Chris needed the job with the state highway crew but realized that she
had never done anything like this before. Knowing that they had to hire a
woman, she applied, however:
So being a female, I would have liked to have been twice as qualified, but I was
like not even mildly qualified—but I was the only female that applied.
When Gretchen applied for her carpentry job, she knew that she did not
have the experience they were looking for yet, but she noted,
My dad had been a carpenter, and I figured I was kind of handy with stuff. So I
figured that just sounded like much more of a challenge, and I correctly figured
out right from the beginning that that job would be something that was pretty
much different everyday . . . Probably they could have gotten somebody more
skilled that was a guy.
Sally was her father’s “right-hand man—the son he had wanted.” Nancy’s
father owned a machine shop. Her mother would dress her in fancy clothes
and send her off to school, but on the way home she would stop at her father’s
shop for the afternoon. There she was eager to learn about machinery and
particularly electricity. This provided her with the background and under-
standing for her future as an electrical and machinery safety inspector.
For those jobs requiring skills, it is often difficult for women (and maybe
for any person) to obtain the training and experience. Sally explained,
My brother owns a trucking company. He worked with me when I was getting my

Class 1 license. He took me out on weekends. I drove to Buffalo, and I went with
some of his drivers and with him, and I drove his rigs. The only thing is to hire me
without five years of logged-over-the-road driving, the insurance company would
triple his insurance on the most expensive rig that he owns. He says, “Right now
I can’t afford to do that, but I’ll help you out in any way I can.” And he keeps me
in touch with the big rigs, and I could call him up today and say, “Can we go out
this afternoon?”
Many of the women obtained informal training for their jobs. They had
acquired minimal skills through friends and family. For others the absence
of informal training and family socialization into traditionally male jobs
emphasized the importance of training in a women’s perception of her
qualifications for the job. Many of the women did not perceive that their
families had socialized or taught them the minimal skills and knowledge
that men obtain in childhood. Preparation for the job is important for
women since they are often excluded from entry-level jobs because of
their self-professed perceptions about being unqualified due to gender,
even when there are no skills necessary.
SUMMARY
Women receive messages in childhood and preemployment that guide
and direct their work choices throughout life. Occupational choice is influ-
enced by individual aptitudes and attitudes, socialization, and presented
opportunities. Particularly influential are the messages, relationships, and
training they receive from family and schools.
Women are attracted to blue-collar, traditionally male jobs because of
the challenge and intrigue of the tasks of the job and the higher pay and
compensation afforded offered through these jobs. Even before entering a
discussion of the workplace, we begin to see, through these women’s expe-
riences, that traditionally male jobs pay more and that women need proac-
tive channeling and mentoring to consider pursuing traditionally male
jobs. They are discouraged from pursuing these jobs because family and
their communities give them the message that they are entering workplaces
where they will not be welcome or qualified and the message that gener-
ally the workplace will be hostile to them.
However, when families and schools support and train women for these
jobs and the adversity they will face, some women seek out these jobs and
are empowered to pursue the greater economic rewards and perceived job
satisfaction of these jobs. These women transcend the established eco-
nomic and labor-force structures and pursue the challenge, intrigue, and
economic rewards of traditionally male blue-collar jobs. They perform
jobs they were unsure they were capable of and get higher pay and more
benefits than they did or would in traditionally female jobs with similar
training. The same people, places, and things that discourage or inhibit
women’s pursuit of traditionally male blue-collar jobs can also encourage
and empower women’s choices.
The overriding message that women received as to whether they were
capable of performing the job was integral to their decision regarding
whether to even seek out or apply for the job and whether to then assert
their abilities, capabilities, and aptitudes in the job interview. Even before
they apply, women are given the message that jobs in male-dominated
occupations involve working in hostile workplaces for women and that
although they have the right to be there, they are not necessarily welcome.
This prevents some women from even going the next step of pursuing the
job opportunity. The next chapter will look at the experiences of the women
who did have the interest and courage to take the next step, getting hired
into traditionally male blue-collar jobs.
Chapter 5
THE HIRING PROCESS: WOMEN’S

ENTRY INTO TRADITIONALLY
MALE BLUE-COLLAR
OCCUPATIONS
The hiring process is the beginning of women’s discovery of the workplace

realities regarding apparently gender-neutral or affirmative policies and
procedures that encourage, discourage, or deny employment to women.
The preemployment process of hiring is the women’s initiation to the
workplace they will enter if hired. They usually meet some of the men they
will be working with and for. It is here that women receive their first indi-
cations as to how welcoming or how hostile the particular workplace they
are pursuing will be.
Becoming employed in traditionally male blue-collar jobs was a process
for the women. First, the women had to become aware of the job’s avail-
ability; this required an awareness of the occupation in general as well as
of the particular job. The women considered job opportunity broadly to
include not only a vacancy in a position, but also the perceived rewards
and compensation. They then had to determine if they had a chance of
being hired, while considering the roles of affirmative action and nepo-
tism. The next step was applying for the job and going through the inter-
view process. And finally, they had to be hired and accept the terms of the
job. This chapter considers this process and these factors.
JOB OPPORTUNITIES
The initial challenge for women who enter traditionally male blue-collar
jobs is finding out about job availability, eligibility requirements, and
application procedures and policies. These jobs are often not posted in places
where women look for jobs. In advertisements the jobs are not outlined in
language that describes the skills and capabilities of the women who are
interested in them. Overall, employment counselors, friends, and family
didn’t routinely tell women about these jobs and encourage them to apply
because they didn’t think these were jobs for women or of interest to women.
Generally, the women came to find out about nontraditional jobs in seem-
ingly nontraditional ways.
Gretchen had visited the national historic park with her family before
returning several times that summer, fascinated. After several visits and
countless questions of the staff, she attracted the attention of one of the
rangers. As Gretchen describes herself, she was young with long blonde
dreadlocks, and she was energetic and most of all inquisitive.
I was a college student, and I had done all this reading about the historic park, and
for some reason I kept running into the same park ranger, who turned out to be the
park historian. He is like this old hippie and he is great. He is the coolest ranger.
I kept asking him all these questions, and my questions were not just the regular
questions like you get a hundred people every day asking you. I asked him really
specific questions, and so he remembered me. And finally after seeing me a bunch
of times, he said, “You keep coming back here. You should get a job here.” And
I said, “You can do that?” So he said, “Oh yeah, you can do visitors’ services or
maintenance. He said, “You can do maintenance work.” Maintenance work meant
fixing everything that was broken or rundown in the historic park. You have to
clean all the toilets in the outhouses, and you have to take out the trash. And I
didn’t think that sounded like too much of a problem.
Carol’s husband was working for the post office when she heard that
they were hiring, and hearing also that they were going to hire women, she
applied.
I don’t know, back then, it was predominately male. The group that I was hired
with was predominately female. And the reason we were was that up until 1978,
when I was hired, all mail was forwarded by hand. In 1978 they decided as part of
this long-term automation plan to start automating the forwarding mail. So they
had a hundred computers . . . So who are they going to hire to do computer work,
data input? Women. I think there were three hundred of us hired at once, and that
was national. There was a large influx of women at the postal service just by the
fact of the automation plan, but we worked with the men on the floor.
Claire had learned to paint from her friend, so she applied for jobs with
painting contractors. Sally had her Class A license, so she contacted the
Teamsters and trucking companies. Iris had experience with boats, so
when she heard that the longshore workers’ union was taking day laborers,
she showed up at the union office. Cassey’s boyfriend’s aunt was in human
THE HIRING PROCESS 59
resources at the power plant in their community and told her that there
were openings for temporary employees as “firewatch.” Beth’s father and
brother were with the sheriff’s department and told her the police depart-
ment was hiring.
Iris remembers being in the back seat of a car with some friends. They
were trying to figure out the best way to “work, earn money, and party on.”
Her friend told her about the openings for casual laborers with the long-
shore union.
But what happened was that there was somebody who wasn’t somebody’s son
who kept showing up to the hiring hall every morning, day after day after day, and
of course he never got picked. And he got kind of pissed off about it and filed suit.
The union lost the suit. It was obviously discrimination in hiring. And so then the
whole system got switched around, and all the sudden it was wide open. They had
the state employment security department do the picking from then on. And so
anyone that wanted to could show up at employment security in the morning and
write your name on a piece of paper. It would all go in a hat. The union hall would
call into employment security and say, “We need ten people.” They’d pull ten
names. Those people would get hired for the day. I heard about it just a few weeks
after that started—“Wow, man you can make a hundred and twenty bucks a day
doing this shit! Pretty cool.” So I started showing up at employment security
because it’s totally touch and go. It’s totally by chance. You can work five days in
a row. You can work not at all.
Another group of women, though not included in this study, cannot be

overlooked in a consideration of women’s access and entry into tradition-
ally male blue-collar jobs. These are women who have been trained in a
skilled trade or who have completed apprenticeships, obtained licenses, or
otherwise received formal training to perform male-dominated skilled
trades and yet cannot find work. Valerie said,
On the other hand, I have met a lot of disenchanted women who felt like they had
worked in the trades and learned a trade and couldn’t find work. This is especially
true for non-electricians or operating engineers, in trades where networks count
for everything, and where the work is brutal to men as well as women. It could
hold that there are niches for certain minority men, depending on hiring networks
in different cities, both union and non.
Although the women in this study did relay indicators of this problem
and were affected by it, they did not experience it directly. Carol was aware
that she was hired for a job that had been de-skilled due to automation and
that the de-skilling was the reason women were hired. Mary wanted to
work in a manufacturing plant but joined the military while she waited for
positions to open up. Mary was also aware that the company was offering
fewer apprenticeships in the mid-1990s than in the past because there were
many unemployed electricians and qualified tradespersons out of work
and readily available. Increased automation and a decline in the demand
for skilled labor have had a differential effect on the sex segregation of
occupations and on opportunities to enter these jobs.
Some of the women had already chosen their specific trade before hear-
ing about the job opening. Some had chosen the community in which they
wanted to live. Some were expanding their careers or just wanted a change.
However, most heard about the job through a personal contact who was
aware that there was a job opportunity in a traditionally male position that
required hiring a woman. Learning about the job opportunity went beyond
learning that there was a job opening, to learning that the job opportunity
was for women in particular. The women learned how the hiring was going
to be done and what the job required as far as skills for entry and tasks
when hired. The women’s next steps were dependent on the time frame
during which the interest was piqued and the determination that emerged
to proceed and apply.
PAY AND BENEFITS

As was indicated in the previous chapter, many of the women pursued a
job because of the excitement, intrigue, and skills of the work. But pay and
benefits were also consistently part of the attraction to male-dominated jobs.
Most of the jobs were perceived as offering good pay, benefits, and security.
Pay and benefits were the part of the job opportunity that resulted in future
security. When the women learned of a specific job opportunity, information
regarding the increased benefits and compensation afforded traditionally
male jobs was given out in real numbers and dollars.
Chris had pursued her social-work profession after completing her
bachelor’s degree. After starting at $9,700 a year in the early 1980s, she
was up to just over $11,000 in a few years. But instead of then going to
$11,500, she was going to have her pay cut back to $10,000. So she applied
to her state’s department of transportation.
Then when I went to DOT, I got $14,700 the first week. And the next week there
was a union raise. I went to $15,500 so I went from $10,000 to $15,500 in two-
weeks time.
Cassey had earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration in the

early 1990s when she was twenty-two. She graduated with good grades,
limited experience, and optimism. She lived in a rural community with few
job opportunities, and when she applied for jobs in her field, she received
offers for entry-level office work at or near minimum wage. But the nuclear
plant in her area was hiring, the pay was better than what she could earn in
business management, and the job required no special training or skills.
I made $15.75 an hour, and everybody that came in when I did made that rate. The
people I work with—most of them have a high school education, that’s it. Most of
them are very happy being in firewatch. They are never going to make this money
again in their lives. I mean, they don’t have the education or knowledge to ever get
a job making $16.00 an hour. They don’t want anything better. They don’t want
responsibility.
Carol had previously worked in an office. She wore fancy clothes and
looked good, but she was always struggling to make ends meet. When she
heard that there was a job at the post office, she applied. After leaving her
secretarial job to work for the post office, she took a cut in pay the first
year; however, the future income potential was better than the potential in
her secretarial job and was a decisive factor in her decision to pursue the
job at the post office.
Initially, I think I took like an $800 a year cut to go to the PO, but I knew in the
long run I would make so much more money than I would being a secretary.
Beyond the pay, she was attracted to the benefits of the post office for her
daughter and herself.
Rachel’s dad had been a letter carrier for years. He had insurance, two- or three-
weeks’ [or] four-weeks’ leave every year. And as a secretary, you got your two
weeks.
Gretchen’s job at the state historical park was a different situation. Con-
trary to most male-dominated construction jobs, the pay was minimal.
I am just getting paid six dollars an hour, lousy wage. They used to give us hous-
ing, but now we have to pay rent. So why do I do it? I love it.
All the women indicated that these jobs were offered at the same pay for
men and women. For most of them, the money was considerably more than
they had made previously in female dominated occupations or unskilled
opportunities. In the United States, women make 76 cents on the dollar as
compared to men. These jobs, however, offer equal pay and benefits, regard-
less of sex. The pay, though it may not have been the precipitating factor in
the women’s decision to seek this employment, was attractive and offered
freedom and security the women had not previously known. They anticipated
and sought both long-term and immediate financial rewards from the
male-dominated occupations.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Although few of the women attributed the job opportunity and avail-
ability in their cases directly to affirmative action, or Executive Order
11246, most of the women were aware that their being hired was directly
because of the employer’s need to have women in that job in that work-
force. The women described affirmative-action hiring practices in the
following ways:
• So I think they needed another woman probably. —Joyce

• They didn’t want to hire me. I was a quota. They had to hire a girl in the state’s
park system. —Gretchen
• And the one reason why the one chief practically begged me to come to work
for him is that they don’t have any women, and they wanted a female as a
member of this police force. I’m the only woman. —Peg
Chris had been working in a social-service position at the local correctional

facility since her graduation from college. Funding was diminishing and
along with funding went her salary and benefits. When she heard that the
state’s department of transportation would be hiring, she was eager to
apply.
At the time when we had to take a pay cut, I was dating somebody who worked at
the DOT. He told me that he had to hire a woman. The head engineer who runs the
county had been there for twenty years, and he swore that he would never hire a
woman for the road crew. I always wanted to work outside and do blue-collar
work, but I had never really had an opportunity. So that was like a downside
because I didn’t have any experience. I didn’t want to back off just for that. Actu-
ally I was discouraged because of that. My boyfriend said, “Look, people who get
hired there [are] basically, political appointees, and a lot of them come in with no
restraints and no clout. But they’re somebody’s nephew or whatever so they just
learn on the job. You won’t be any different in that regard.”
The involvement of affirmative action does not mean that the women did
not have to meet the qualifications to perform the job. Women went through
the same application procedures as the male applicants, and the women were
concerned about their ability to do the job and whether they had the necessary
skills. But the effectiveness and future of affirmative action has remained
tenuous. There has been much confusion, particularly regarding quotas. The
women in this study attribute their hiring in many cases to employers’ having
mandates, and they generally believe that men are hired for all nonmandated
positions. Gretchen explains,
This last year, we had more maintenance workers because we got more money,
and next year we’ll have more again. There will still be only one woman. They’re
not hiring any other women because they don’t want to. They didn’t want to hire
me. I was a quota. They had to hire a girl to work for the state park system. The
state has districts that have to have so many women in these jobs. So the district
headquarters said, “OK, well you are going to have to have one in the historic
park.” . . . So they had two positions. One for anybody—could have been a
woman. And one for a woman only. So I interviewed and I got the job. I don’t
know who those men interviewed, but they probably could have gotten somebody
that was more skilled that was a guy. I know they thought they could have done
better if they didn’t have to hire a girl.
Affirmative action did result in the hiring of many of the women in this
study. Affirmative action goes beyond equal opportunity and mandates the
hiring of minorities, and it provided a twofold benefit for these particular
women: (1) it encouraged the women to apply for jobs because they knew
that they would receive preferential treatment in hiring, and (2) it forced
employers to hire women when they would have preferred to hire a man.
The women that were hired into affirmative-action positions felt that
without affirmative action, they would not have had a chance of being
hired.
NEPOTISM
Regardless of affirmative action and legal obligations for employment
opportunities for women, the existence of nepotism1 and similar infor-
mal means for determining hiring and promotion practices predominate
in the hiring process. Nepotism is an “affirmative action” for those with
status and a previous relationship with an insider in the hiring process. It
is an affirmative action of privilege. The privilege of knowing someone
or being related to someone worked both to the benefit and to the
detriment of the women in this study. Though nepotism is defined as a
familial relationship, usually within two generations, this study will use
the word to refer to similar connected bonds that result in hiring not
based on the person’s ability to perform the job, but based on that rela-
tionship. Legally and according to dictionaries, nepotism relates to
family as defined in a traditional contractual and genetic framework that
does not necessarily represent the divergent family structures and familial
relationships represented in this study or in the contemporary United
States.
More than one woman referred to the fact that hiring access and decisions
were based on family, friends, and sexual relationships. Some of the
women admitted to being a part of the privileged group that had an advan-
tage in hiring based on connections to the workplace. For Beth, her first
nontraditional job was in the police department. Her father and brother,
who worked in law enforcement, had “put in a good word for her.” Mary,
however, wanted to work where her father worked, but he interceded at the
workplace to prevent her employment. On the other hand, Peg was from
out of town and knew no one. The city police department’s decision to hire
her was based solely on her civil-service test and the application process.
It was this civil-service requirement in hiring that provided her the oppor-
tunity in a department where sons and nephews were traditionally given
preferential treatment.
Nepotism and preferential hiring practices for family members have
been litigated and in many cases have resulted in court-ordered and super-
vised hiring practices that have opened the doors to women. Most states
have laws that restrict and define hiring practices in public employment
with respect to nepotism. As described by Iris, a case filed by a man con-
testing nepotism provided her with equal opportunity for a job through a
daily lottery on the docks. These casual laborers in turn qualified for union
membership and full employment after tenure as casual laborers, changing
the present and future opportunities for employment in that workplace.
Valerie’s opportunity to join the electrical trades was through a major court
decision addressing long-term discrimination in employment, housing,
and business opportunity in a metropolitan inner-city community.
Although many of these women knew someone in their prospective work-
place, it was usually not the person making the hiring decision, but often it
was someone with influence over or connected to the person making the hir-
ing decision. Chris used her association with local politicians developed in a
previous social-service position as a mechanism to ensure her hiring when
the employer, the supervisor of the state department of transportation, made
it clear that he did not want to hire a woman for the job.
Claire’s first painting job and training came from her lesbian partner,
who had her own business and hired Claire. Claire has attributed her sub-
sequently being hired at a “male” painting company to the fact that a previ-
ous coworker had attested to her abilities prior to her interview; Claire’s
situation defines “knowing someone,” by having a positive reference as to
her abilities even before she had applied. The following quote from Claire
also demonstrates the difficulty and fine lines between “nepotism,” “know-
ing someone,” and just having a “personal reference”:
The main reason was, one of the guys, in fact the old guy—he used to work for the
guy I used to work for previously. And he said if I lasted on the job for a year with
that other guy, then I could definitely paint ‘cause he wouldn’t keep anybody for
more than a few weeks if they couldn’t paint. He would get his men to harass ’em
or something until they left. And so that was pretty much what he went on. He
said, “I’ll give you a try, I’ll give you a try.”
Nepotism is not the use of a reference to testify as to your experience

and capabilities. Nepotism, as defined here, exists along a continuum based
on the strength of the relationships. These women more often benefited
from situations where equal hiring practices were implemented and the
reform of nepotistic practice was court-mandated and supervised. However,
a combination of nepotism, strong references, community ties, and affirma-
tive action provided a central counteraction to long-standing discriminatory
hiring practices.
APPLYING FOR THE JOB

The final hurdle for these women’s path to employment was the applica-
tion and job interview. For many of these women, the job interview was
their exposure to the politics and the adversarial situations that they would
encounter at work. Interviews were with men, many of whom had sworn
they would never hire a woman. At the interview, Gretchen described her
assessment of how and why she was hired:
It was kind of weird. I couldn’t really tell. Apparently there was a bunch of other
people who were supposed to interview, and apparently they didn’t show up.
It was really cold and it was snowing. The maintenance mechanic and his boss—
those two men hated each other—were there. They were both interviewing me
because the big boss wouldn’t let the one guy do it because he didn’t trust him
and because he hated him. So there was a really bad sort of dynamic in the room
to begin with. Plus, I had padded my job application considerably because I wanted
the job so badly. I sort of exaggerated a good deal, and it turned out I was later
found out, years later. Actually four people had interviewed for the job I’m doing
today, and I always thought I got it because I was the only one who showed. The
interview was just stupid. They didn’t hardly ask any questions, and I try really
not to remember much about it.
Mary knew she wanted to work in the automotive plant in her hometown.
After being discharged from the military, she applied repeatedly until she was
hired. Iris just showed up one morning at the union office for longshoring and
filled out a tax form and a next-of-kin emergency form. She had entered the
casual labor pool and was immediately eligible to work under the imposed
lottery system.
Claire did not talk about the interview conversation, but she did talk
about what she wore and about her assessment of her performance in the
interview. She was hired immediately, which she attributed to handling the
interview process well. However, she did have experience as a painter, and
this was the second male-operated and male-staffed company she had
worked for. So unlike Chris and Gretchen, she applied with skills and
experience.
When I went for my interview, I dressed in khaki-colored dress pants. I didn’t

overdress because of the type of work. I didn’t want to dress in a skirt or anything
where I’m going to apply for a painter. But I dressed in shoes like I’m wearing
[bucks]. I was neat and clean but not dressed up as if I was going for an interview
for an office job. You know, I thought that was most appropriate, just clean,
neat . . . but I didn’t overdress because I felt like it wasn’t appropriate. They were
going to think that I was some little secretary type, tweedle-dee or something, and
that I can’t hold my own painting on a construction site. So that’s why I did that.
But I got hired right off, right away.
Angela had been a member of the union, working in customer relations

in the car- and truck-rental industry. She had worked with men and women
but in a traditionally female job. She had been active in the union as a
member for decades. Her first job in the male-dominated work world was
as the president of the local for construction. She described her job “inter-
view” as follows:
As a matter of fact, I was renting cars one day, [and] that evening I come to a
union meeting. The next thing I know, I’m taking my notes. The next thing I know,
I’m nominated and seconded and it’s unanimous, and I’m the new president. I say,
“Oh, my gosh.” Now where do I go to work tomorrow?
The application and interviewing process for entry into traditionally

male jobs did not simply involve responding to an ad in the paper, writing
a resume, showing up for the interview, or providing references. The job-
application and interview process was the culmination of preparation
(mostly informal), determination, planning, creativity (to the point of
deceit), and sometimes just plain luck. The interview was often the wom-
en’s first contact with the supervisor or boss, and there were numerous
references to the bosses’ resistance to hiring women. The interview was
the final hurdle and preparation for the entry into the male-dominated
workplaces that the women sought.
SUMMARY
Each woman overcame multiple and different obstacles in procuring her
traditionally male blue-collar job. Hostile and unwelcoming characteristics
of the workplace and employment were apparent to the women pursuing
male-dominated workplaces even before they began their jobs. Before

women are hired—and in many cases, before they are even aware that a job
opportunity exists—the environment of work is already hostile and domi-
nated by men.
Contemporary employment rights and protections include requirements
for equality and opportunity in hiring practices that precede employment.
Social and policy factors point to the political or policy concerns that
inhibit and encourage women’s entry into traditionally male blue-collar
jobs. The stories and insights of the women interviewed indicate that these
rights and protections are directly responsive to the factors that encour-
aged or inhibited their entry into male-dominated blue-collar jobs.
The obstacles and concerns that the women encountered prior to
employment were precursors to the adversity and problems they faced
once on the job. The next chapter begins to demonstrate the capabilities
of these women; the obstacles they face in performing their jobs; the envi-
ronments in which they have worked; the skills they have acquired; and
what is required to perform their jobs. The next chapter starts where the
women’s preemployment preparation and hiring for the job leave off.
Chapter 6
ON THE JOB, DOING THE JOB:

RECONSIDERING JOB
DESCRIPTIONS, PERFORMANCE,
AND EVALUATION
Blue-collar, traditionally male jobs are historically characterized by phys-

ical labor, routine, concrete performance requirements, and limited job
mobility, and they generally require training rather than education.
As stated in the previous chapters, the women I interviewed came to their
jobs with varying qualifications, levels of expertise, and ability to perform
the work. Many of the women chose the jobs because of the perceived
tasks involved in doing the job. Truck driving, policing, carpentry, paint-
ing, electrical contracting, automotive assembly, and loading ships were
some of the labors that attracted the women. However, once in the work-
place, the women found that doing the job was more complicated than
simply using skills and performing tasks. The jobs were dangerous and
challenging and required innovations. This chapter examines job perfor-
mance for blue-collar workers and describes (1) what the women were
supposed to do, (2) what they did, (3) how they did it, and (4) how they
evaluated their own competency.
THE JOB DESCRIPTION

Written descriptions of jobs set the standards for doing, measuring, and
assessing performance. But the job descriptions given by the workers per-
forming those jobs included a wider range of issues and concerns than did
the written job descriptions. The workers’ own job descriptions reveal
the meaning and language that the women give to doing the job.
When descriptions of what is involved and necessary in doing the job are
considered, work can be redefined, and a broader range of workers and

individual talents can be utilized to benefit workers and employers.
Reviewing open-ended interviews with women in traditionally male blue-
collar jobs allows us to move beyond both the written descriptions, which
are designed for men performing the jobs, and our own assumptions,
which are grounded in male constructs, to what “doing the job” means for
the women workers.
Written Job Descriptions

For the purposes of this study, the “written job description” is the offi-
cial administrative written description of the required tasks and responsi-
bilities of a job. Both individual workplace and nationally accepted
standards exist. The workplace-specific job descriptions for the women in
the study were in two forms: (1) company descriptions and (2) union
descriptions. The company and union descriptions were not available for
analysis and were not an intended part of this study; however, the women
were aware of those descriptions and referred to them as markers for
assessing their personal job performance, which is further discussed later
in this chapter.
The Occupational Outlook Handbook (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2002), published biannually by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, pro-
vides descriptions of nationally recognized jobs, and descriptions are bro-
ken up into the following categories: (1) the nature of the work; (2) working
conditions; (3) employment rates; (4) training, other qualifications, and
advancement; (5) job outlook; and (6) earnings. The standard characteris-
tics listed for particular jobs in this publication were consistent with the
jobs that the women described in the interviews. The handbook identifies
national norms, or standards, and projects occupational trends and labor-
force demand in the coming decade.
The women in this study engaged in 16 different occupations, and the
Occupational Outlook Handbook included descriptions of all the occupa-
tions. In some cases, the handbook used different names for the jobs than the
women did or than their employers did, but the tasks these women performed
were included in and consistent with occupations listed in the book.
According to the handbook, the jobs these women described as blue-
collar had the following similar characteristics:
1. None of the jobs require an education beyond high school;

2. All require the ability to read and write;
3. All are characterized by hazardous physical demands involving a level of
strenuous activity;
ON THE JOB, DOING THE JOB 71
4. Skills are developed primarily from experience, on-the-job training, and appren-
ticeship, with most instruction coming from experienced coworkers; and
5. Workers are responsible for very expensive materials and equipment (e.g.,
machinery, trucks, and cars).
Since the jobs held by the women interviewed are usually performed by
men, the handbook’s occupational descriptions provide a standard for com-
parison across workplaces as to whether the jobs described by the women
in the interview are similar to the male standard of the occupation.1
Workers’ Job Descriptions

This study focuses on the jobs as described by the women during the
interviews—the workers’ job descriptions. I cannot fully convey the pride,
enthusiasm, and excitement that accompanied the women’s verbal descrip-
tions of their work. As they proceeded to describe the jobs, task-by-task,
step-by-step, down to the fine details, their speech quickened, their eyes
widened, and my attention was captured.
It was often as if, through their descriptions, I could picture myself per-
forming the jobs. These descriptions were quite different from the dry
occupational-handbook profiles described previously. The women
described jobs that were challenging, dangerous, and exciting—much as
they had anticipated in choosing to enter these fields.
Claire (commercial painter): “I loved it with all my heart. Days would just
whip right by. I’d do a job right alongside that old guy, and we’d completely
prime and paint a whole entire house, ceilings and walls, in a ten-hour day.”
Chris (state highway crew): “I always wanted to work outside and do blue-
collar work. I went out on the road and did my six-month urinal scrubbing. We
had snow and ice in the winter. On the days we were not out plowing, we could
do maintenance on the facility or maintenance on the vehicles.”
Beth (electric planner): “It’s the best job in the company, and I knew it. As a
guard, I sat there and watched people, and I knew that someday electric plan-
ning was the job for me. It’s an interesting job. You go in the field a couple days
a week. You’re drawing a few days a week. And you’re on the computer a
couple days a week. There’s a lot of diversity. There’s a lot to learn. And you
never stop learning.”
Cassey (nuclear firewatch): “You go in and sit there for one hour at a time.
Then you go down the rotation one post at a time—the relay run. You are sit-
ting there because the cardox system, the fire-prevention system, is inoperable.
If a fire were to break out, the cardox would dump and put out the fire. Well,
the cardox is not working, so if a fire breaks out, there is nothing there to put
out the fire—that’s why we’re there.”
Mary (automotive assembly): “1600 degrees. That’s hot. You wear fireproof
clothes. You stand back just far enough not to get burned. When the aluminum
goes into the machines and it’s compressed, sometimes it blows out on you and
it burns you, but then when the machine opens up, the part falls into a pit of
water and comes up cool, somewhat cool.”
Sonja (meter reader): “It’s physical; you’re tired. You need to look for people
to get you through the day. I make a point of getting to know the customers. If
I didn’t, the job would be extremely boring and tedious. I really think that you
can affect them positively.”
These are jobs that are physically demanding yet personally rewarding,
skilled yet independent, hazardous yet safe, and routine yet exciting. They
prove wrong the stereotypes of blue-collar workers punching a time clock
and collecting a paycheck. For these women, the time on the job passes
quickly and the demands vary through the course of the day. In their inter-
views the women characterized blue-collar jobs as
• being dirty,
• being physically strenuous and dangerous,
• including responsibility for ensuring personal and public safety,
• requiring complex interpersonal skills,
• involving measurement of individual work in hours and units produced,
• requiring active involvement rather than sitting behind a desk,
• featuring casual and utilitarian attire and uniforms,
• including them as “one-of-a-hundred” doing the job, and
• providing ongoing learning and skill development.
Additionally, these women compared their ability to do the job to their

male coworkers’ job performance; they wanted to make sure they were
doing the job as well or better than the men did. The women entered the
jobs thinking that they had to be stronger, smarter, and more skillful than
the men and be able to look like and act like the men they worked with.
JOB SKILLS
Beyond the description of the job itself is the description of how the job
is done. This is the utilization of required skills for accomplishing the job.
The job description does not reveal what is required to do the job. These
women’s job skills are both physical and mental, and they began their posi-
tions with some skills and acquired others on the job.2 The women expressed
varied prowess in the requisite skills at any one time. But above all, they
had the ability to integrate the skills they did have into a workplace for
which they were often unprepared or underprepared. They were also inno-
vative in situations in which they were unable to perform in the traditional
male style. The women compensated for personal inadequacies with assets
they did have in order to perform the job.
Each woman described varied skills that were important and representa-
tive of her job. Among these skills described were hauling, lifting, climbing
ladders, and working at heights. More intangible skills included negotiat-
ing, protecting, planning, caring, providing customer service, and assuring
safety of coworkers. The jobs require strong mental abilities in order to
solve problems, often under stressful physical conditions and time con-
straints. In some situations recalled by the women, a woman’s strength
was relied on to ensure the safety and protect the lives of male coworkers.
Iris described skills that resulted from the combination of strength, mental
ability, and experience.
I was damn good at what I did. We were in a situation for two or three years where
there were new people on the waterfront every day. They needed people who had
some experience and who had some smarts because handling logs not only takes
a tremendous amount of strength, but it also takes a reasonable amount of skill to
make it all work right.
Iris also described her understanding and constant awareness of how dan-
gerous the job was and the results of the risks of working with unskilled
laborers.
And the scary part is that when a log is not loaded right, not only does the log
come down at you, and you have to scatter, it comes down with so much force, and
the water’s shallow enough, that it goes down and hits the bottom. That changes
its trajectory, and it comes back up, and you don’t know where it’s going to come
up from. So you could be thinking you’re perfectly safe because you’re far enough
away from where it lands, but then it comes back up and nails you. And I did see
people get killed down there, by accident. I saw guys get killed due to accidents.
The required skills for performing each job were indicated by the women
during their interviews in the categories of physical strength, safety assur-
ance, mental acuity, emotional empathy, customer relations, independence,
leadership, and physical appearance. Having all these combined skills ren-
dered a woman capable of doing the specific job.
Physical Strength
The jobs held by these women are characterized by some level of
strenuous activity (BLS, 2002). The Supreme Court has reviewed whether
protected classes, including women, can be required to have minimum

levels of physical strength for certain jobs and how these levels would be
determined, particularly with regard to disparate impact of such require-
ments. The Court has determined that women do need to meet the phys-
ical requirements of the job, but that these requirements need to be
directly tied to the performance of the tasks of the job, not based on arbi-
trary standards.
Having physical strength served four functions for the women I inter-
viewed: (1) it was required for performance of their jobs; (2) it demon-
strated that the women were part of a gender-neutral workforce, both equal
and capable; (3) it earned them higher wages; and (4) it led to acceptance
by coworkers. These factors combined to give women the right to stay on
the job. Gretchen reported,
When the lumber came, it was my partner’s Friday day-off, so I ended up working
three days on this four-day project with Bob, the supervisor. I mean, I just got the
shaft. It just fell out badly for me. . . . So what ended up happening was he would
barely let me stop to pee. We would just work. By the second day, I realized
I wasn’t going to get to take lunch, so I put protein powder in a bottle of juice, and
every time he would stop to scratch his head and think about what he wanted to
put where, I’d stop and gulp down some of this stuff because I knew I’d be going
crazy from lack of nutrition. I just knew this was going to be kind of a make-it-or-
break-it thing. He didn’t trust me at all, and he didn’t trust my skills, and one of
the really key things in this job is to show that you’re strong.
The women were not all strong enough to perform all the physical tasks
required. Because they were being judged and evaluated based on their
ability to perform as the men performed, at times the women demonstrated
other capabilities to compensate for their lack of strength. For Gretchen,
although her objective was to show that she was strong, the way to compen-
sate for lack of physical strength or skills was to be prepared and helpful.
So half of the load was on my shoulders because the other half was being lifted by
Bob. I suppose that’s why I was tired [laughs], but that is what it took initially to
get respect from him—to work hard, to work just as hard as him, to keep up—
because he is very strong. Maybe I didn’t have to do that, but that was what I per-
ceived, and that really set the pace. Whatever he does, I do it. I try and do it just as
well, even though I’m not as skilled. In terms of strength, he is obviously stronger
than I am. In terms of lifting, I never back away from lifting anything or carrying
anything. I usually carry a much heavier nail bag than Bob because he expects me
to have stuff: “Gretchen, give me your crescent wrench”; if I don’t have it, then
it’s “Gretchen, run to the barn and get the crescent wrench.” Then I have to go at
90 miles an hour, half a mile across town to get something—so I usually carry like
20 to 30 pounds of tools so that whatever he asks for, I have, because I’m the
helper, I’m his employee. Like the nurse to the doctor, I have to have everything.
That’s what he expects from me. I can’t be any slower than Steve or Bob. A lot of
the time, we have to work with hand-tools. I can’t be any slower. One way that
I have gotten a lot of respect from them is that I just never drop from exhaustion
or fail because of strength. One perception is that women are not strong, and so
I’ve made myself physically very strong. That’s something that has really built up
over the years. I am much, much stronger now than I was nine years ago.
For Sally, compensating for less strength involved asking for help and
thanking male coworkers for stepping in.
They’ve seen me fight with the tailgate on my truck . . . Till I finally say, “I can’t;
there’s something hung up. Will you please help me?” I might need help changing
a tire. I cannot change a truck tire. I can take the lug nuts off. I can release it.
There’s no way I can lift it. And I’ve seen some men who can’t lift it. But two of
them will do it for me. And I thank them. I’m always there with “thank you.” I’m
always there with “please.”
Since most of these women’s jobs required physical strength, the women
anticipated that displaying physical ability would be the way to prove
themselves on the job. Sandy described new police officers who received
broken noses and back injuries as they learned to wield nightsticks and
assert themselves physically. However, for Chris, the need to prove herself
and display job skills that rely on physical strength when she entered her
workplace was a misconception.
To show I could pull my weight, I worked. I really had to prove myself and work
twice as hard to be half as good, because of being female, because I didn’t know
what I was doing. This is a state job. My expectation when I took this job was of
physical labor. I could quit my gym membership, and I’d get in the best shape of
my life. Instead, I had to prove I could take breaks when they did and work [only]
as hard as they did, not harder.
The amount of physical strength required varied, but more important,

the expectations of coworkers and their supervisors varied with the work-
place and had to be learned. Ultimately, it was important to perform and
prove oneself in the manner appropriate to the specific workplace. This
often meant more than carrying one’s share of the workload, but it took
time for the women to determine what that load was and what was expected
in order to prove themselves.
Mental Acuity
The women acknowledged that in some cases they had less physical
strength than the men they worked with or less physical strength than was
required to perform the job. It is important to note that these are two differ-
ent factors. Whereas the women often described themselves as less capable
or strong physically, they usually described themselves as more capable
and clever mentally. Perhaps because the jobs were difficult for them if
done in the traditional way, they often used self-devised strategies diver-
gent from the male tactics for accomplishing the work. Some of these
strategies were valued by the employer and coworkers, and some were
discouraged or prohibited. Most of all, the women saw their solutions as
different and innovative.
Regardless of whether they were strong enough to do the job, they did
figure out ways to accomplish the tasks. Physical strength often was com-
bined with quick thinking and assessment of situations that, according to the
women, compensated for their lesser size and strength. According to Peg,
I’m the female there. I get sent across the line of fire. The kidnapper’s standing
there, and you can see him standing up in the window with a shotgun. So every-
body’s behind protection. I’m walking across the yard. I’m like, “great, this is
great.” The hostage is released, and I go to latch on to her because she came out
the door. Then I couldn’t get her to come with me. She was big. She was young,
but big. I was standing there with her, and everybody’s behind barricades trees,
cars, and houses. Everybody’s safe except the girl and me. We’re out in the front
yard, and he’s up in the window with a gun. And he pulls the trigger and I hear this
shot—I’ll never forget this. Then the captain was behind another captain and me,
and I was sent to talk to the guy. I was a rookie. They let me keep talking to him
because I had him. Two hours I talked to this guy. It’s amazing what you just
do—what goes on in your head when you’re trying to keep someone from killing
themselves. And so I did that although I had never trained to do that—just did it.
So when the gate was secure, they gave us the go-ahead. Two captains kicked the
door, and I was the littlest one, and I went through. We rushed him, grabbed, and
wrestled him on the bed.
Women in these jobs are often asked to perform tasks that rely on skills
and knowledge that men often acquired before entering the job. Many of
the women were not familiar with standard sizes of lumber, tools, and lad-
ders. They had to measure. They were not familiar with ways to move or
store materials and equipment. But when a woman has to do something
differently or expose her lack of skills, she risks ridicule from coworkers
instead of recognition of her ability to devise solutions to problems.
Many of the women talked about whether their jobs brought excitement
and boredom. Whereas some of the jobs included challenges that made the
days pass quickly, other jobs were routine and tedious. The women entered
the jobs looking for work that was exciting and stimulating. Sonja became
familiar with the residents on her meter-reading route as a way to fight the
boredom. A secondary gain to developing these relationships was improved

public relations for the company. Claire worked hard, harder than the men
did, because she loved the work and wanted to stay busy:
I was there. The painting had to get done, and I wanted to get out of there. So usu-
ally, I just pumped it out. I didn’t care. I don’t mind working. I’d rather stay busy
than stand around. That makes the day go by a lot faster.
For two of the women, their jobs were to monitor or “watch.” The jobs
were monotonous and isolated in that the women had minimal contact
with coworkers. Rotations to different sites or shifts broke the tedium.
Cassey described her nuclear firewatch job as boring, tedious, and monot-
onous. She would sit in concrete block rooms watching in case a fire broke
out. Cassey saw the importance of the job to insure the safety of the nuclear
plant from impending danger of fire; however, there was no challenge, and
there were no skills to be developed.
The room is probably 60 feet long by 20 feet wide, and I just look up and down, and
up and down and up and down, and that’s about it. You can sit down. I feel useless,
absolutely useless, because I do nothing, and I don’t feel good about what I do. It’s
important because it’s a nuclear power plant, and if something did happen, if a fire
were to break out, it could cause devastating damage if it wasn’t put out. So from that
aspect, they tell you, you are important, but it’s hard to believe you are important.
Although the women reported that many jobs required physically strenu-
ous skills and abilities, often much of the time was spent monitoring and
preventing situations requiring such tasks and challenges. For some of the
women, such jobs give them time to think. “Boredom” could be perceived
as time for oneself and as a positive. Sally describes her hours alone driving
a truck:
I do a lot of thinking when I’m driving truck. I think I can put my whole life in
perspective when I’m driving truck. Problems, you can solve them. It’s not that
your mind is not on your work. It’s that you have the peace and quiet. You have
time to think. I don’t really know how to explain it. It just gives you a totally dif-
ferent outlook on life.
The women welcomed diversification and change in order to break

monotony. Cassey’ s task of measuring and recording the room tempera-
ture at 15-minute intervals gave her a sense of personal responsibility that
relieved her boredom. Joyce, working as a security guard, told me about
her job of monitoring:
We’re just there to monitor alarm systems, to monitor people coming and going.
They move you around all the time. Every nine weeks, you’ll see us at the different
locations. Right now, I’m at the gate. Next week, I’ll be the rover at the evening
shift. Then on the night shift, I’ll be down at the core. It breaks up the monotony as
much as it can.
Some attempts to break the monotony were gender-stereotyped in the

workplaces and/or by the women themselves as “women’s” activities. For
Sally, these activities included reading, sunbathing, and doing crafts while
she waited for her truck to be readied to return to the road. For Cassey, this
meant “gossiping” on the phone with other firewatchers. Many of the
women identified activities to fill time and break the monotony that were
forbidden and grounds for dismissal, but they did these things anyway and
without consequence.
In describing what attracted them to the jobs, the 17 women did not
describe mental challenges or their innovation and strategic abilities. How-
ever, throughout the interviews, they identified these attributes as essential
to doing the jobs once they were on the jobs. Further, these were capabili-
ties that in many situations distinguished them from males at work. By
utilizing the women’s abilities and ingenuity, the women and their employ-
ers could benefit. Those innovations often required diverging from estab-
lished work practices and universal standards. However, because these
innovations, even though they worked, were different from business as
usual, the women ended up questioning whether they just did not fit in.
Safety Assurance
Safety was important in the performance of blue-collar jobs in three
ways: (1) personal safety, (2) coworker safety, and (3) public safety. Safety
was accomplished (1) by acquiring the needed skills and expertise to do
the job, (2) by speaking up and refusing to do jobs that were unsafe, and
(3) by learning the required safety procedures and insisting on adherence
to them. The women became visible among their male coworkers because
they asserted adherence to safety procedures and standards. This demand
for adherence was often confused with a presumption that the women were
unable to perform the job because of their gender. The women more often
viewed this as their responsibility in caring for their coworkers and in
some instances insisted on safety measures even at the cost of losing their
jobs. Claire tells this story:
I got laid off because I chose not to go shovel roofs. I did it for two days, and I found
that it was dangerous. The roofs are all ice. They’re slippery. I was the only one who
really had a choice not to go because I was a female. And I didn’t go. And boy, they
got on me for that. But I wasn’t about to go. I said, “I’m a painter. I’m not a roof-
shoveler.” I wouldn’t stand in zero-degree weather shoveling roofs, dangerous roofs.
I didn’t have the boots to begin with. I was wearing one of the guys’ pair of fire-
man’s boots that were heavy as can be. And I was wearing ’em over my boots
because they were that big.
Insistence on safety standards was something the women did because

they were outsiders. Although the men saw this as evidence of them being
the “weaker” sex in need of accommodation, the women saw themselves
as taking on a caretaking or maternal role, providing for the welfare of oth-
ers and themselves.
Dangerous and risky work conditions were characteristic of the wom-
en’s jobs. The women did not say that the work was hazardous because
they were women; it was just hazardous for anyone. There were work-site
safety manuals and procedures as well as state, national, and union safety
protocols. In some cases the introduction of women on the work site
resulted in existing standards being implemented or enforced, and other
workplaces even introduced new measures and facilities to accommodate
women, often benefiting the general workforce of both genders.
The women were aware that their introduction in some cases had simply
resulted in cleaner and more comfortable work sites. This was particularly
true at the post office. According to Carol,
It is an industrial workplace, even though what I was doing was computer work.
There was carpeting on the floor where they were doing the computerized for-
warding of the mail—it was in a separate room. They had just constructed a spe-
cial room that was cleaner. You walked out of the room that we worked in, and it
was a work floor. There were bags of mail. It was dirty. I had gone from a really
fancy office building downtown. It was just a whole different thing. That was
really hard to get use to.
Some of the women capitalized on their visibility as the only women by

blatantly insisting on adherence to safety procedures. Nancy, as an electrical-
safety inspector, noticed that most of the male inspectors no longer discon-
nected and tagged electrical boxes prior to testing the electric service. She
prides herself on insisting on adherence to codes and procedures, includ-
ing citations and disciplinary actions levied against coworkers who violate
the requirements. As a result of her reporting of violations, public, coworker,
and personal safety was increased.
For women in traditionally male blue-collar jobs, concerns about haz-
ardous work conditions are easily confused with gender-related constraints
to performance. This is particularly true when the standards are male stan-
dards, and the only available comparisons are to men. The question is, Are
women less capable due to their size and physical attributes, or are they
less likely to subject themselves to the risks of unsafe situations due to
their gender? As described in the previous section on physical strength, the

women often felt they had to demonstrate that they were as strong as or
stronger than men, yet once this was proven, they often refused to subject
themselves to situations that they deemed unsafe for both genders.
Some of the work sites, although not hazardous, were simply unwel-
coming or unpleasant. Sanitation and the availability of toilets on work
sites serve as a concrete indicator of the welcomeness of women to a work-
place. In the mid to late 1990s, when these interviews first were conducted,
there was great variation in the availability of private sanitation facilities
for women when at work. Where work sites included both secretarial and
blue-collar workers, separate restrooms were provided for men and women,
usually adjacent to each other with adequate toilet and wash facilities.
In some sites where the blue-collar laborers’ work areas were physically
separate from the office staff, the only convenient restroom facilities were
for men. One interview was held in a work garage, where I observed that
there was only a men’s shower and toilet facility, which the women also
had to use. This door was labeled “Men,” and the backs of the toilet stalls
were decorated with full-length posters of women dressed in bikinis,
advertising beer.
Some of the women were aware that the introduction of restrooms and
toilet facilities for women was the direct result of Title VII, OSHA regula-
tions, and union negotiations. More often, the strongest credit was given to
the influence and insistence by unions. Additionally, the introduction of
facilities for women often resulted in the introduction or improvement of
facilities for men. When the needs of women at work are met, the work
lives of men are often simultaneously improved. Some accommodations
are expensive and require redefining workspace and activities, whereas
others are inexpensive and simple to implement. Although this is not the
focus of this study, during informal conversation, men at the same male-
dominated blue-collar work sites acknowledged that many of these changes
in facilities and procedures had benefited them and were welcome changes
addressing concerns they had had for years.
Physical Appearance and Clothing

The interviews indicated that clothing on the job was directly linked to
the performance of the job. These jobs were characterized by uniforms,
boots, pants, and protective wear. Learning what to wear and how to wear
it was a skill acquired by the women over time. Clothing and appearance
served to (1) accommodate the tasks of the job, (2) make all workers look
the same in order to project a unified workforce, and (3) separate work
lives from personal lives. Although the specific clothing was different for
different jobs (e.g., blue uniforms for security and police and white paint-
er’s pants for the painter), over time all the women adopted a male stan-
dard of clothing that was both self- and workplace-imposed.
The clothing in many jobs was prescriptive, serving purposes of safety
and utility. Protective clothing included steel toes, heat- and chemical-
resistant outerwear, or heavy belts for back protection. Perhaps the most
common characteristic of the clothes was their compatibility with dirt and
grease. Clothing designed to promote safety and to get dirty was associ-
ated with male attire, as compared to skirts, high heels, and stockings asso-
ciated with female work attire. To this stereotype, Mary retorted,
I’d like to know what feminine means—we are all in dirty work clothes, and we
are all greasy and dirty.
In some cases prescriptive work clothing was not required but was made
available by the company, as in rented wear for state highway workers.
Choosing what to wear was developed like other skills of doing the job and
evolved over time. According to Chris,
Deciding what to wear to work was actually pretty easy. I started out just wearing
jeans. But they had this uniform-rental service with some kind of polyester pants,
and a lot of the guys rented those. So I rented those because I wanted to look like
them for two reasons—one is stay the same, and the second reason is you worked
around grease and oil a lot, and I didn’t want to ruin all my clothes. And this
stuff—you just wear them, throw them in a box, they take them out and clean
them and bring them back—it was really inexpensive. At first I rented the shoes,
then these blue pants and the shirt. There was a blue cotton button-down shirt, and
at first I wore that a lot. I’d wear a tee shirt under it. I looked bad, really unattract-
ive, but it worked. It worked because you go in the morning and everyone looked
the same. Pretty much everyone would wear either jeans and flannel shirts or the
rental clothes, and I didn’t want to deal with the grease and stuff. I just went with
the uniform, and that way I could fit in—because I really wanted to blend in.
I didn’t want to stand out anymore than I needed to.
In other cases clothing was practical, distinguishing the blue-collar

women from the women in pink-collar secretarial positions. Claire noted
that she wore a tee shirt and jeans or painter’s pants while the secretaries
and office staff wore “high heels, the sexy leather-skirt type.” Carol distin-
guished her prior work as a secretary wearing heels and dresses from her
life at the post office, where she wore jeans. Uniforms and blue-collar
clothes in general were perceived as less expensive and more comfortable.
At the post office it didn’t matter how you dressed. That was really hard getting used
to. I went from a really white-collar atmosphere to a really blue-collar atmosphere.
Further, hairstyle, nail-care, and amount of makeup, if any, were signifi-

cant components of job appearance. In some workplaces there were strict
rules and regulations requiring woman to take on traditionally male physi-
cal attributes. In other workplaces women did this by choice. In the wom-
en’s estimation, blue-collar jobs were best done with short nails and
tied-back or short hair. Chris described her dilemma:
If I really wanted to, I could have cut my hair, but I didn’t do that. I might put
my hair in a ponytail, under a cap. At first it was like, if I was doing some job
where it really was in my way, but for the most part, I would just leave my hair
long and down.
When women looked the same as men in terms of clothes, they increased
their solidarity with coworkers and their self-concept as a blue-collar
worker in general. Sandy describes the changes and benefits of adopting
the police department’s requirements:
We couldn’t wear makeup, no fingernail polish. I normally do my fingers every

Friday. You can’t use that; it’s against the rules and regulations—because the
whole time, you are not supposed to be distinguished. The guys should not know
that you are a woman. You have to wear your hair under [your] hats. It was funny
because all the women would cut their hair when they came in, but now it’s not
like that because you just braid it and flip it over—because it can’t [be longer than
collar-length because if] you ever fight somebody . . . they [could] grab your hair,
pull your hair, choke you.
Clothing is a visual representation. It distinguishes workers performing

different jobs, and it distinguishes workers form the public. Gretchen
explained,
We all wear uniforms so we all look like rangers, and the public doesn’t distin-
guish a maintenance person from a visitors’ services person, except we are allowed
to wear dirty clothes, and they’re not. And our clothes can be torn and really
shabby, or partly shabby. So you can’t really tell us apart.
By wearing the same clothing as the men, a woman becomes less notice-
able as a woman doing the job and is seen more as a person doing the job.
For example, hats allowed the women to wear their hair up. As Sandy said,
“The guys should not know that you are a woman.” And this blending-in
was accomplished in part for the women I met through dress and physical
appearance.
Clothing, particularly in the form of uniforms, also can become the sym-
bol or boundary to the women as to whether they are working or not. Cloth-
ing becomes the sign of “woman at work.” These women did not wear these
work clothes in their out-of-work lives. For Sandy the uniform had such a
strong effect on her behavior and demeanor that she insisted on changing
her clothes before leaving work, leaving her work clothes in her locker.
In the uniform, I was bringing it all home. You get so caught up in your job to
where my one rule is to always change my uniform. My locker is for hanging the
clothes, and I go to work and change. You are never off duty in your uniform. So
I’m still on duty when I get home. I’m still dictating. My children even gave me a
nickname at home. It’s called Barracuda.
None of the women indicated that they did not want to wear the pre-
scribed or ascribed clothing or that it encumbered their ability to do the
job. Though some women had a neutral attitude toward the clothes, most
saw the clothing as facilitating their ability to do the work. Clothing and
physical appearance served to let the women look like the men and present
themselves as able and ready to perform their jobs: specific clothing, out-
of-the-way hair, and lack of make-up enhanced their ability to perform
required tasks that were often physically demanding, hazardous, and dirty.
Wearing the clothes clarified to coworkers, to their families, and to the
public that they were on the job.
The clothing was designed, however, for men and by men. Clothes were
carefully designed visually to project the image of strength and practicality
and protect the body of a blue-collar male worker. All of the women adopted
the male standards of dress for the job, wearing pants, boots, and uniforms
and shedding makeup, nail polish, and unrestrained long hair. Some of the
women described the clothing as increasing and some as decreasing their
individual choices, but they all conformed and felt that the clothing was
advantageous for both themselves and the performance of the job.
Independence and Autonomy

In the women’s different jobs, the amount of physical and verbal contact
the women had with coworkers (the degree of their independence) and
how much control they had over their schedules and the execution of their
work (the degree of their autonomy) varied. The amount of independence
the women wanted varied, as did their need for autonomy. These two
aspects of work were often interconnected and related to job satisfaction.
Independence for the women came in physical, mental, and emotional
forms. It was often associated with being outside and having uninterrupted
work. Sally describes what working independently meant to her:
I’ve always loved outdoor work. I liked the freedom of not being closed up. I do a
lot of thinking when I’m driving truck. I think I can put my whole life in perspective
when I’m driving truck. Problems, you can solve them. It’s not that your mind is not
on your work. It’s that you have the peace and quiet.
For the women independence was desirable and even a solution to the
tensions of working with and being harassed by men. Beth told me,
It’s easier in the field because I’m out there on my own now. You come into the
office, and it’s a different story because there are people watching. There’s always
someone watching.
This distinction is illustrated by Claire’s further statement:
Days would just whip right by. Like when I was painting that whole house by
myself—I was in heaven. That’s why I didn’t need to take breaks. I just loved to
do it, to work, to go at it.
Beyond and different from independence is autonomy. Being autono-

mous means being responsible for completing a job or task and being able
to determine how best to accomplish it, being able to problem-solve inde-
pendently, and being permitted to organize a workload in an efficient man-
ner consistent with personal style and ability. Autonomy can be measured
by a person’s ability to make choices about how or when work is accom-
plished, autonomy allowed these particular women to develop and apply
innovative and appropriate solutions to problems and constraints posed in
a male-structured work environment.
A lack of autonomy was characteristic of some women’s blue-collar,
traditionally male jobs. As a result, the women were denied personal
choices, and the jobs demanded conformity to mandatory, unpredictable
job conditions. This led to personal conflicts that restricted their ability to
do their jobs as they faced multiple and competing responsibilities. Carol
compared the differences between pink-collar and blue-collar work and
the effects on women as follows:
There was no choice [in blue-collar work]. If at four o’clock in the morning, when
they decided they wanted you to stay a mandatory two hours, it didn’t matter.
“Well, I don’t have a baby-sitter.” “Well you better call somebody and get some-
body lined up because it’s mandatory.” Mandatory meant mandatory. If you didn’t
stay and work, then there were going to be repercussions. You could be suspended
or get a letter of warning. You didn’t have a choice.
Carol’s problem with childcare and mandatory overtime crosses the

continuum of independence to become an issue of autonomy when she is
denied the choice of how to accommodate her multiple responsibilities.
Now all of a sudden, I’m a line worker and it was like, you go in and hit the clock
to go to work. You had leeway of three or four minutes, and if you didn’t hit in
within that three or four minutes, they would come and talk to you about why you
were late. You know, it’s like all this stuff—“Why are you bothering me about
something so ridiculous?” It was really a different mindset.
The women’s desire to work independently combined with their desire

to be autonomous was complicated by their desire to be part of a work
crew and employee of the organization. Mary chose her job in the assem-
bly line because of the camaraderie. All of the women described positive
relationships and the necessity of dependence on coworkers at varied times
in their work lives. The women did not want to eliminate these relation-
ships; they just wanted the relationships to facilitate their performance on
the job instead of encumber it. Autonomy was a way to restructure the
work to facilitate or accommodate individual capabilities. Independence,
on the other hand, was valued as a way to negotiate relationships and unen-
cumbered job performance. Independence and autonomy allow the women
to “just do their jobs.”
Representing the Company and Customer Relations

Many of these jobs required direct contact with the public. The women
felt that they were particularly adept, as compared to men, at serving the
public, and they saw this skill as compensating for any lack of physical
strength or of the traditionally male skills of the job. Interpersonal-relations
skills are apparent job skills when the women talk about their tasks, but
reference to these skills is absent from the formal job description in many
cases. These skills were not characteristic of traditionally male blue-collar
jobs described in the Occupational Outlook Handbook.
Sandy, the community police officer, described her compassion for the
children of families that she was forced to evict. Alternatively, she described
her responsibilities with enforcing parking violations:
They will kill you for a ticket. I have seen people with suit and ties come down
ready for a showdown over a ticket. But you learn how to talk to people. It’s yes,
no, and how to keep everything in control here. I also got a taste of how much
authority you really have.
Peg, the police officer, described her negotiating skills as highly valued in
domestic violence and hostage situations. The meter reader described her
attention and friendliness to the elderly and homebound on her route. Beth,
the electric planner, noted,
Because there’s customer interaction, and we interact with the different depart-
ments, too, we interact a lot, which is very rewarding and interesting, too—a lot
of personalities. And I find that some of the girls are better at that than the guys.
For some of the jobs public-contact experiences were the opposite.

Interpersonal skills of caring, negotiating, and being friendly are seen as
unnecessary and inefficient in performing the job. Workers are supposed to
be working. Many jobs require being friendly, but many others require
avoiding or ignoring the public, and yet others require being “tough.”
Being tough is understood as able to endure adversity and perform their
jobs in the public eye for long periods of time and maintain a position or
perform tasks and requirements of the job without faltering. For some of
the women this idea of being tough contradicts their first response of car-
ing and empathy. For other women, presenting themselves this way is the
next step after demonstrating the physical strength and mental acuity
required. Sandy explained,
When I walk in, what do kids see? They hear police radios. They see you are in
uniform. Then I realize I have to be tough. I was standing my stance. There is a
stance. People don’t mess with you when you are standing in a stance. You know
you stand flat-footed, cross your arms, and then the uniform, and you don’t smile,
and it shows you’re pissed. You mean business.
For Sandy, dealing with customers required combined compassion,

diplomacy, and assertiveness. For the meter reader, customer representa-
tive, police officers, electric planner, industrial hygienist, carpenter, and
commercial painter. customer contact was part of doing the job. It required
assessing what the customers needed but with the realization that they, the
workers, were representing their company and occupation to the public;
with this latter realization, the women had to disregard or moderate ten-
dencies toward being caring and interpersonal, relating only as needed to
accomplish the tasks of the work. The women did see themselves as relat-
ing to the public differently than men performing the same job. They felt
that they generally had more concern for the needs of the public than the
men, and this enhanced their job performance. Ultimately, each woman
had to be able to assess situations and react in the manner appropriate for
a person representing the company and doing her particular job.
JOB PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

Job performance is often related to evaluation. Once again, there is the
formal job evaluation conducted by superiors and the self-evaluations dis-
closed by the women in the interviews. Job evaluation reveals the difference
between what is expected and what is done. For the most part, the women
did not talk of the company evaluation process as the way they themselves
determined if they were able to do the job. In fact, they evaluated their abil-
ity to perform the skills and complete the requirements of the job by com-
paring their abilities to (1) other women’s ability to perform the job or a
similar job, (2) men’s ability to perform the job, (3) their own assessment
of their ability, and (4) their own self-appraised improvements in their
performance over time.
Job performance assesses how they do the job and their ability to do the
job. There was a strong and overriding feeling among the women that they
were always under scrutiny, that they had to constantly prove they were
capable, and that regardless of company and legislated protections, they
were not secure in their jobs. Each woman admitted that she did not enter
the job capable of performing all the required tasks. All the women felt that
they were not equipped with the same skills that the men had, and they told
of strategies they developed and learned on the job in order to perform the
job—ways that they developed the necessary skills.
Since men traditionally performed the jobs, and many of the women
worked only with men, the ability to do the job and the assessment of
women’s ability to perform the job was based on the male standard. This
comparison was perceived as a separate standard and did not seem to be
integrated with their interpersonal relationships with the men. The women
evaluated the outcome—their ability to produce the good or service.
As previously discussed, they recognized that their methods were often
different than the men’s, making comparability of the end product even
more critical.
Although the Occupational Outlook Handbook posits that jobs are
gender-neutral, the women were acutely aware of their gender and felt the
need to overtly address gender concerns in describing their ability to do
the job. They accomplished this by comparing their ability to perform the
job to the abilities and performance of men, including predecessors and
the men that they worked alongside. Claire indicated that she was able to
compare her performance to another painter’s performance by how much
painting each of them accomplished in the same amount of time.
I was a good painter. I could keep up with the best of ’em. I remember going down
this hall one day, painting this university dorm. One of their best painters was cut-
ting in on one side of the hallway, and I was cutting in the other. And don’t you
know, I met him right at the very end. It was neck and neck all the way.
This comparison of output or piecework is easily accomplished in blue-

collar jobs since the products or services are often defined in tangible units
(e.g., number of pieces assembled, numbers of pieces of mail processed,

number of logs or bags loaded, numbers of meters read, and amount of
surface painted). For others, including those in policing, customer rela-
tions, planning, laboring, and union-leading, the tasks were less defined
and more varied and therefore had more varied outcomes.
For women in traditionally male blue-collar jobs, there is the perception
that their performance is always suspect and being watched. It is easy to
“watch” them because they stand out physically—as women. They are vis-
ible. Further, their performance is being compared to men’s. Sonja
explained,
I think they kind of have a tendency to believe that somebody put me here. I said,
“I earned this position. Nobody put me here. I earned this position.” I said,
“I worked my way up.” “Well, you’re a woman.” “Well, yes, I’m a woman. Yes,
granted this is a nontraditional position for a woman that I hold. But who’s doing
the job? Who’s getting it done? So . . . ” “You are.” Okay.
Angela replaced a man as union president. When she walked into the job
as the first and only woman in her position, her gender was visible and
suspect.
I just want them to know gender has nothing to do with it. It’s who gets the job
done—and my predecessors sat here for 20 years and they weren’t getting it done.
And when I look through the files, and I see the various deals (and I use the termi-
nology loosely) that were cut, I’m appalled. And now I try and undo the wrong
that was done.
Companies may base hiring, firing, and promotion on formal evalua-

tions to be discussed in the next chapter. Women base their own estimation
of job performance on direct comparisons to coworkers. For women in
nontraditional jobs, the day-to-day recognition for their contribution and
ability was more critical than the formal evaluations stored in personnel
files. These accomplishments of the women were often in direct contradic-
tion to the credit that they were given. Claire explained her frustration:
And we’d get back and they’d say, “Oh, great job, Ed. Great job. You know, you
really earned us the money today.” I cut in the whole thing, and he rolled the whole
thing, so we did equal parts of the whole job, and he’s the one that got all the credit
for it. I’d be like . . . “What do you mean ‘Ed’? ‘Congratulations, Ed?’ What about
me?” I helped him all the way through, and they just didn’t take me seriously.
In some workplaces awards for excellence or exceptional performance

are made. The women perceive these as not being gender-neutral and as
being tainted by interpersonal relationships and politics. Recognition
through such acknowledgments is important to and sought by women as

an indicator of their full participation and acceptance in the workplace.
Peg described,
I was written up for a commendation, which is an award. It’s just this little stroke
job. And I was so thrilled to be written up, but it was denied. It was all in the line
of duty, which is what they said. Everything you do as a cop is in the line of duty.
It was a real slap in the—it was a real slap. The sergeant took all this trouble to
write a commendation. It cost them no money to give a commendation. It’s just a
piece of paper that says ‘Nice job.’ But the request for me to get commendation
was denied. I just started thinking, what’s going on here?
Once a woman is in the job and is noticed within the work group, work-
place, or larger community, the gender composition of the workplace can
begin to change. Although the visibility is a challenge for the first woman,
it becomes easier for subsequent women. This shift in gender composition
often results in changes in assessment of job performance in several areas:
(1) woman can compare their ability to do the job to other women’s abil-
ity; (2) the women on the job have reduced visibility and reduced constant
scrutiny; (3) the male standard is challenged by the performance of the
women as a group, not by an individual’s performance; and (4) seeing
women do the job affirms other women’s decision to enter and perform
these jobs. Not only do the men realize that women can perform the job,
but other women do also.
The women in this study could not trust the evaluations of their supervi-
sors due to overriding interpersonal sex-based harassment, hostility, and
discrimination between them. These interpersonal relationships, when
adversarial, clouded the evaluation. The employers’ written job descrip-
tions, however, were a starting point for performance self-assessments in
light of criticisms brought by supervisors in evaluations. Written descrip-
tions provided a tangible reality check. As with most jobs, many needed
skills and tasks to be performed were not mentioned in the written descrip-
tions. Nevertheless, the descriptions gave the women a marker and negoti-
ating standard to use in advocating for themselves. In light of what was
written, the women would often refer to discrepancies in bosses’ and
coworkers’ expectations and criticisms of their abilities and of them as
women performing the jobs . Sonja explained,
As a matter of fact, one day I got off the phone with my supervisor, and I was
brought to tears—which doesn’t happen too often. I was shaken up. I don’t even
remember what conversation that was. It was just one of these, “You’re getting
paid good money to do your job and I don’t think you’re doing your job.” And
I said, “Well, name something that I’m not doing. Maybe I don’t know what I’m
supposed to be doing. Tell me what it is.” “Well, I can’t think of anything right
now, but I know. I have a notebook on you. I’m watching you, and I think you’re
not doing your job.”
Each woman’s own personal assessment of her job performance was

unwritten and informal. The examples were concrete but undocumented.
They were proud of the work they did, aware of times their performance
fell short of requirements or expectations, and eager to improve or com-
pensate. However, the performance descriptions and evaluations they
described to me were not documented and not available to repudiate super-
visors’ written documentation. For the women, establishing that they were
doing the job and deserved to stay was a daily chore. Being assessed as
competent necessitated performing the job, but beyond that it included
eliciting recognition, over-functioning, and not rocking the boat.
The greatest frustration expressed by the women was not in their ability
to do the job, but in the fact that they were not even given the chance to try.
The women were either steered away from or simply excluded from per-
forming the job in its entirety. Three of the women expressed their frustra-
tion as follows:
• I feel good about all the work I’ve done because I know I do a good job. It’s just
getting a chance to do it.
• When somebody gives me a chance on the job, once they see that I can do it,
then it’s okay. But as long as they don’t give me that chance, it’s like, I don’t
have the opportunity to do it.
• I didn’t have any disappointments in the job, not in the job itself. There were
disappointments in how I was treated. I wasn’t afforded the same opportunities
for advancement as men were.
SUMMARY
The women’s “just wanting to do the job” includes doing the tasks of the
job they were hired to do, developing and using skills that result in strong
performance of the work, being able to perform and do the work, and dem-
onstrating that ability in keeping with standards and in comparison to
coworkers doing the same job. Though the desired product, service, or
outcome of doing the job is the same for men and women, how that job is
done and what personal assets and accommodations are required are often
different for women than for the men in traditionally male blue-collar jobs.
“Just doing the job” involves the ability to perform tasks and provide ser-
vices, ensure personal safety, and manipulate the work environment under
challenging and often adversarial conditions. When the women have these
abilities, they can perform jobs that are personally and organizationally
rewarding both in terms of recognition and compensation and in terms of
production of goods and services. The next chapter looks at the compensa-
tion and benefits that the women receive for performing these jobs. Orga-
nizational policies and compensation combine with job performance to
provide the infrastructure of the work environment.
Chapter 7
WALLS AND DOORWAYS:

EMPLOYERS’ BARRIERS AND
SUPPORTS TO JOB PERFORMANCE
Workplace policies and the organizational structure at once impose barriers

and provide supports to job performance for blue-collar women. Though
not static, workplace policies and procedures are designed to govern and
organize all workers and frame the work environment. Workplace policies
include written agreements and policies on compensation and benefits,
and they outline the organizational structure of supervision, power, pro-
motion, and discipline that governs work. For the women I interviewed,
each workplace had policies and procedures that applied to all workers,
regardless of sex. These policies were designed to be gender-neutral and
comply with Title VII and the ancillary state and federal laws. Part of work
or “doing the job” was operating within the confines of the organization. In
this chapter I present some components (e.g., policies and compensation) of
the workplace that blue-collar women identify as critical in their decisions to
stay or leave jobs.
As they talked, the individual women cited many of the same factors as
being pivotal in their decisions to stay with the job. However, what was
supportive for one woman may have posed a barrier for another. The
differences were based on individual needs and the varied workplaces. For
this reason, this chapter looks at the themes that emerged in the interviews
but does not attempt to classify those themes as strictly beneficial or detri-
mental. Instead, a continuum is presented. The themes presented are pay
and wages, job security and seniority, employee benefits, training and
apprenticeships, promotions, nepotism, and affirmative action.
PAY AND WAGES

All the women were attracted to the jobs because of the pay and stayed
in the jobs, at least in part, because of the pay. No one said that she was
underpaid or unfairly paid, whether in general or in comparison to the men
who performed the same jobs as the women did. Because the jobs were
rigidly defined, the tasks to be performed were prescribed, and the women
were working in the same positions as the men, the accompanying pay was
the same for men and women. None of the women complained of pay
inequities for doing the same job as a man. The women did not indicate
any violations of the Equal Pay Act.
The interviews did reinforce the fact that women often make more
money and receive more compensation from male jobs than traditionally
female jobs. This is even more disconcerting since many of the women
possessed advanced skills and experience in traditionally female jobs as
compared to an admitted lack of skills in the traditionally male occupa-
tions they were entering. The women in this study were well aware that if
they left their traditionally male occupations and returned to the female
labor force, which in many cases featured jobs for which the women had
training and education, they would receive lower pay. Comparable worth
is the quantification of the comparison of jobs requiring different skills. But
the interviews revealed that there was not comparable worth between the
traditionally male jobs and the traditionally female jobs. The traditionally
male jobs would be evaluated as providing equal pay for equal work under
the Equal Pay Act requirements because when the women did the same job
as a man, they received the same pay as a man.
Although the pay was the same for men and women doing the same job,
there were still indications of pay inequities in overall annual income of men
and women doing the same job. This is, in effect, the impact of distribution
of overtime and holiday time. Supervisors are routinely responsible for the
day-to-day distribution of work assignments. Through the assignment of
overtime, men could in fact be paid more than women for the same job.
Sonja provided this example of discriminatory overtime distribution:
I said, “I really would like to be able to come in on Saturday for a few hours and
clean up my meter rereads.” My supervisor said, “No, I can’t afford to give you
any overtime. I’m not going to give you that overtime. You’re gonna have to find
a way to get those done.” When I came in on Monday, one of the guys I worked
with was filling out an overtime form. I said, “Oh, when did you work overtime?”
Then I looked, and all the rereads I had were done. And I said, “Did you do those
rereads?” And he kind of hemmed and hawed. Well, what happened was two guys
had been told on Friday, “You know, if you want some overtime tomorrow, you
can come and do Sonja’s rereads.”
WALLS AND DOORWAYS 95
Beyond the matters of discrepancy in pay and the women’s worth in

the female job market as compared to the male job market, another
concern was their monetary value within their families. The women
were paid the same as the men they worked with; however, the pay was
compared to and in the context of the women’s family economic situation.
When Angela became union president, her pay increased significantly
from her previous female occupation’s salary. She said her husband liked
the income but did not like the cost to the family since she was no longer
home as much to perform her roles as housekeeper and cook. When
Sandy’s husband threatened to leave her and the children, she could
depend on her salary to prevent his threats of ruining her financially. For
Joyce, when her family had to decide on childcare responsibilities, her
income was twice that of her husband (also a security guard); hence,
more of the responsibility for childcare fell on him. For the three women
who were married and who mentioned the effect of their pay on their
husbands, the husbands felt threatened and questioned their adequacy
when their wives’ income exceeded theirs, particularly since their wives
performed men’s jobs.
BENEFITS
Employee benefits are compensation afforded workers beyond their
monetary pay. The benefits most often cited and valued by the women
in this study were health care, paid leave, education, and retirement.
Benefits have assigned monetary value. They are computed and included
when determining the total monetary rewards of a job (e.g., in Title VII
lawsuits). Additionally, employers’ ability to “bundle” benefits brings
them discounts based on the volume they purchase, making employer-
provided benefits of greater value to an employee, considering how
much more it would cost the employee to have to go and purchase the
benefit services independently. For the individual employee, this makes
the value of the benefits greater than the actual cost to the employer
purchasing them.
As with pay, the women indicated that the benefits in traditionally male
blue-collar jobs were superior to those they received in secretarial and social-
service jobs. EEO law guarantees women the same employee benefits as
men in the jobs, in the same way it guarantees equal pay. However, what
these benefits mean to women is not necessarily the same as what they
mean to men. The Supreme Court has decided that discrimination in
health-care benefits, retirement, or leave is forbidden under Title VII, in
that such benefits must be equal. In some cases providing the “same”
benefit results in a negative disparate impact.
Health Care
All the women considered health-insurance coverage essential and of
great value to them personally and to their families. Two of the women spe-
cifically cited health insurance as the benefit that attracted them to their jobs.
For most of the women, the insurance offered by blue-collar employers
exceeded coverage that was offered through previous employment or their
spouses’ employers. Larger and union-represented businesses offered health
insurance to employees at little or no cost to employees. Often the plans
offered more and better coverage than what smaller companies and agencies
offered employees. This was true of the social-service agency Chris had
worked for and the law office where Carol had worked. For Carol, a single
parent, health insurance at the post office was a financial benefit providing
security from possible and feared catastrophic illnesses for her and her
daughter. Chris described the difference in health coverage as follows:
I had very little health insurance [at the social service agency]. They just
couldn’t. They just didn’t have it. When I went to the state, I had dental, eyeglass,
and a prescription card.
Further, health insurance kept women from leaving their jobs since they
saw it as an essential provision. For Cathy, this was the tie that bound her
to the job despite persistent harassment and hostility at work. Although
she had considered starting her own dog-grooming business, Cathy indi-
cated that she felt bound to stay at the public utility because she could not
afford health insurance on her own.
Another characteristic of blue-collar health care in the larger companies
is the on-site company nurse or doctor. Although these services were con-
veniently accessed at the workplace during work hours (at no cost), women
approached these health-care services with suspicion. Company medical
staff were regarded as agents of the company charged with assuring pro-
ductivity, promoting return-to-work, and policing disability and worker’s
compensation claims. The women did not think that the company medical
staff held the women’s personal health and safety as primary concerns.
They felt that company medical staff’s treatment of women was disparate—
and in some cases even intrusive and harassing. Women preferred to sepa-
rate their health-care practitioners from the company. However, if they
were hurt on the job, their health care was subject to company policies,
which often required them to report to company medical staff. For example,
Mary hurt her back at work and reported the following experience:
I’d say it’s different with women; [the medical staff] think, “it’s more like they’re
lazy and they want to get out of work and go home.” For example, I hurt my back
at work. I got to the emergency room because the medical department, the nurse,
sent me. When I got back to the plant, the doctor said, “Why did you go to the
emergency room?” I said, “Because the medical department sent me.” “Well I
can’t understand how your back could be so bad you had to go to the emergency
room.” Then he said, “Can you bend over?” I said, “Yes, I can bend over. That
hasn’t been a problem. It’s getting back up that’s the problem.” He said, “Let me
see you bend over.” So I bent over. Then a man that worked for the company came
in. He sent me to a transitional work site not doing my regular job. When I was at
the transitional site, a man that had a back problem came in to the site Friday. He
had been out for eight weeks. I was off for four days. Do you think that there’s a
difference there? A man gets hurt at work and it’s, “Oh, wow, he got hurt.” When
I got hurt that night, they were all walking around mocking me, out saying, “Oh,
was all your vacation time used up?”
The women suspected company medical staff of gender bias and gendered
assumptions about women’s ability to do men’s work as well as about the
women’s motivation for seeking care for injuries. This led to reported dif-
ferential medical treatment, with staff saying different things to men and
women and providing different work assignments to accommodate illness
and injuries, depending upon whether the ill or injured employee was a
woman or a man. Though the health benefit was equally provided to both
genders, the practitioners were suspected of engaging in the same discrimi-
natory and discriminate practices as supervisors and coworkers and of
contributing to the overall sex-based hostility in the company environment.
Education
Education was an employee benefit for some. Employers paid tuition
and, in some cases, accommodated class schedules in work schedules.
Some of the employers offered tuition reimbursement regardless of whether
the course was directly related to the employee’s job. Many of the women
were pursuing and continuing their formal education while in their jobs.
Moreover, the women used education as a support for job security.
Education represented a way to increase job security. Job security, how-
ever, did mean security in the job a woman was currently performing and
most often did not even mean security with the same employer in a different
job. Education provided the future security that the women could get a job
that (1) would provide an acceptable income level regardless of employer
and (2) would not require them to endure the hostility or physical and mental
stress that they experienced in male-dominated blue-collar workplaces.
Mary did not want to be trapped in the hostile environment she was experi-
encing at the auto-assembly plant. Pay and benefits combined with payment
of school costs meant she could remain self-supporting while she worked
toward personal career goals at her employer’s expense.
And I can go to school. I guess now it’s okay; I’ll get even. You pay for my
education, and you pay my paycheck and you pay my benefits, and when I get my
degree, I can walk out and say “stick it.”
The women utilized education benefits for a variety of pursuits. Claire,

a painter, was studying to be a dental hygienist and completing the require-
ments for an associate’s degree. Beth, an electrical planner, was completing
her bachelor’s in social work and was anticipating the completion of her
master’s degree. Sonja, a meter reader, wanted to stay with the company
but was interested in the fields of employee counseling and consumer
advocacy, for which she needed a master’s degree. Mary, an assembly-line
worker, was taking courses on weekends toward her associate of arts degree
and certification as a substance-abuse counselor. The automotive company
and union Mary worked for offered college-level labor-relations courses for
employees and accommodated attendance in their work schedules. Cathy,
a customer-service representative and executive board member in a union,
was pursuing a bachelor’s degree in business. She was enrolled in an alter-
native bachelor’s-level university that gave credit for work experience and
offered most courses through correspondence and independent study.
Gretchen, a construction laborer, was a doctoral candidate, having worked
in traditionally male blue-collar jobs throughout her educational pursuits.
After completing their education goals, all of these women would be quali-
fied for jobs outside those defined as blue-collar or skilled trades, jobs that
proffered similar compensation to that offered by the traditionally male
jobs they were presently working.
For some of the women, education meant taking courses necessary for
advanced certifications or licenses in the traditionally blue-collar male
occupations. Education is different from apprenticeship and training, as it
is not conducted on the job or directly related to increasing skills used in
the trades. Nancy, a safety inspector, completed courses in electrical
engineering in order to advance in her job. Sally was pursuing advanced
trucking licensing because of the economic and occupational opportuni-
ties this would provide.
I got a class A license, so I can drive a tractor-trailer. I took a refresher course

because I had already had prior experience in driving the tractor-trailer trucks, and
I took a 20-hour refresher course, went and got my license, and I now hold a class
A trucking license. That’s a two-part system—a tractor and a trailer that connects
to it. Or I can haul triples and doubles, which you will find on the thruway.
I already had my class B license, so I could drive dump trucks up to 55,000 pounds
and school buses. To drive school buses you have to have a license that states you
can carry passengers. And not very many people have that. And so when the union
found out I had it, they said they have been looking for Teamsters that had the
class B with the 2 license on it because they needed drivers for the pipeline for
buses and they couldn’t find anybody. The job working the pipeline pays $25.00
an hour. I have lots of options.
Retirement
Retirement pensions were another benefit offered by employers to the
workers I interviewed. It was an incentive to remain on the job and endure
otherwise adversarial work conditions. Other benefits were of equal value
once they were granted, but retirement accrued in value based on length of
service and wages earned. Retirement benefits were perhaps the most
powerful incentive for ensuring that women would endure adverse work
conditions for long periods of time. Further, the longer they endured, the
greater the incentive to stay, making the situation increasingly oppressive.
Women would risk personal harm, family stability, and their own mental
health for years into the future for the promise of increasing retirement
benefits. Cathy said,
September 30, it will be 10 years. This division, everything has changed so

much—so I’m trying. I’d like to ride it out here. I have 10 more years to get 20 in,
but I’m vested now so, I just take it one day at a time now.
Some women were concerned about the physical demands of the job as
they aged, largely based on their observations of men’s deteriorating physical
capabilities over time. A further differential impact on women with regard to
pensions was the fact that they had less opportunity for promotions into jobs
with more supervisory and administrative responsibility, jobs that were less
labor-intensive. Additionally, in order to reap the long-term rewards of retire-
ment, women could not take extended leaves for child-rearing or family-care
responsibilities beyond the lengths of time set out by the Family Leave Act or
the individual employer’s family-leave policies. Women elected to stay or
were trapped in lower-paying jobs, as discussed in this chapter, which effected
their access to alternative schedules, training, and promotions and retirement
benefits that are based on wages and seniority. Retirement systems, though
apparently neutral, did not allow for or compensate women’s traditional fam-
ily roles, late entry into traditionally male blue-collar jobs, physical limita-
tions, and limited access to promotions.
ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULES
Work hours were far from routine for the women. Most of the jobs
required flexibility within the women’s home schedules and families for
the women to meet the demands of the jobs. Although the pay was hourly,
the individuals’ hours varied. This meant swing shifts, evening and night
shifts, mandatory overtime and holidays, rotating days off, and seasonal
lay-offs. What was not flexible was the workplace accommodation (or lack
of accommodation) for the inconvenience that these variations imposed on
the women who were often the primary caretakers for children and family
members or who had other social responsibilities. However, for some
women variable schedules were one of the attractions of the jobs.
Mandatory Overtime
The work schedules of these women were often in direct conflict to the
traditional family responsibilities that they had as caretakers prior to
taking the jobs. When Carol first came to work at the post office sorting
mail, she was required to come to work early or stay late with advance
notice of only a few hours, making childcare for a preschool-aged child
complicated and difficult. Prior to taking her job as union president,
Angela advised her family that she would have evening responsibilities
and would no longer be able to meet her family responsibility of meal
provision.
For women with personal and family responsibilities, the cost of over-
time often exceeded the compensation. So in fact, it not only zeroed out
overtime but in some cases also cut the pay the women realized from their
regular pay. For example, overtime meant having to pay for childcare or
other services necessary to provide for the care of family members they
were responsible for. Overtime and increased pay are perceived as a benefit
of blue-collar jobs. For some workers, and women in particular, this may
not be the case. When overtime is mandatory, it becomes a problem and
may have a disparate impact on women.
Seasonal Work
Work schedules fluctuated in response to seasonal or workload fluctua-
tions, and seasonal fluctuations and variable workloads are characteristic
of some blue-collar jobs. When I interviewed Sally, she was laid off until
spring, based on the seasonal nature of the construction industry. Her high
income during the work season made her lay-off a welcome opportunity to
rest, attend to her children and husband, and complete household remodel-
ing projects. Gretchen’s job as a construction laborer in a state park coor-
dinated perfectly with her availability while in school full-time. She
worked full-time at the park seasonally while in school for more than nine
years. As a full-time seasonal employee, she accrued benefits and seniority.
As union president, Angela promoted the seasonal layoffs of the construction

industry as a benefit for women to have time to prepare for the holidays and
spend large amounts of time with their children while maintaining benefits
and seniority.
Leaves of Absence
Most workplaces offered “leaves of absence.” These leaves were unpaid
but allowed the women to take 1 to 12 months of leave while retaining
their benefits and seniority. Beth used a leave of absence to go to school
full-time and complete her bachelor’s degree after years of part-time
studies. Chris was granted two one-year leaves of absence from the
highway crew while she pursued her master’s degree. These leaves also
made it possible for the women to try an alternative career and have the
option of returning to their current positions. Leaves of absence are
particularly attractive because they are not stigmatizing like sick leaves
are, and the employee’s time is not accountable to the company, as in
disability or worker’s-compensation leave. In many cases the leaves were
valued breaks from the work routine. Whether to return to work at the
end of the leave is the employee’s decision, with no consequences for
resignation other than loss of the job. Although there is no pay, the
nonstigmatic nature and job security of the leave override the loss of
income in many cases.
For some of the women, a leave of absence was requested but not avail-
able. Although leaves of absence defined as such may be granted for a
restricted list of reasons, there are other policies and protections in some
workplaces that guarantee reemployment after an employee chooses to
leave a position. Peggy wanted a leave when she took a job as a teacher.
She was not sure she would prefer teaching to police work; she really
loved police work.
I tried to get a leave of absence, and they wouldn’t grant me one. They had rules.
A leave of absence was for a sick child or family member or having a newborn at
home. And that was it . . . so I didn’t fit the criteria. So I’ve been told they’d take
me back in a year. That’s civil service. So I left on my own volition.
Leave policies varied from employer to employer. The broader and more
open the policy, the greater the benefit for women. Leave was a way that
women could individually deal with many problems of the hostility at
work without involving the employer. They were helpful in resolving,
testing, or completing family, education, alternative-employment, mental-
health, and health issues.
Rotating Shifts
Many of the women, particularly in their early years on the jobs, were
required to work rotating shifts. These were prescribed hours (usually
eight a day) that allowed for advanced planning and family accommoda-
tion but were still difficult to balance with personal and family needs and
responsibilities. According to Sandy,
When I first started, I worked five days on, two days off—the next week, six days
straight, two days off. It’s called the wheel. Nothing was stable, and it takes a lot
out of you. You wonder, “What day is it?” And I have to work 11 to 7—midnights.
You know, you have no stability. You do what they want you to, when they want
you to. You are just like a little bouncing ball, and that’s what they do to you.
This is not to be confused with mandatory overtime, or being on call. This

was a routine and predicated schedule. However, it was mandatory in most
cases with the most inconvenient schedules assigned to the newer workers,
since choice regarding shifts and schedules came with seniority. Once
again, this has a greater impact on women since they are relatively new to
the male labor-force and are more likely to hold a disproportionate number
of the lower-seniority jobs.
For some women I interviewed, the alternative schedules were a benefit.
Jobs lower in the hierarchy were characterized by less conformity to the
nine-to-five, Monday-through-Friday norms of the business world. In
some cases the attraction to the variations kept women in lower-paying
and skilled jobs in order to benefit from the family accommodations and
financial relief of the alternative schedules. For Joyce, working evenings
and nights meant saving money on childcare.
I considered taking a meter-reading job just to get out for a while and to get a day
job. A day job means to pay the babysitter $400 a month, and the baby’s at the
babysitter nine hours a day, so I’m not sure that’s the right way to go either.
TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIPS

Job skills in blue-collar jobs are learned and developed over time through
informal training by coworkers, formal employer-sponsored training, and
apprenticeship programs. The women acknowledged a sex-based lack of
preemployment job skills, making on-the-job skill development even more
critical. The women expected and needed to be provided with training and
apprenticeships in order to acquire the necessary skill levels for performing
the job.
Informal Training
Informal training in occupations nontraditional for women is dependent
on women’s relationships with male coworkers. One way for coworkers to
limit women’s ability to succeed was to deny or limit the quality of the
informal coworker training. As Beth said about her coworkers, “If they
don’t train me, I won’t make it.” The quality of the training was in the
hands of coworkers, and the quality for women being trained by men is
often different from the quality of training for men being trained by men.
Beth further explained,
We’re very dependent on these guys. We go through a two-year training program,

and we’re assigned to different guys throughout the two years. Some guys are
very helpful. Some guys are very resistant to having women with them at all.
Formal Training and Apprenticeships

The women felt that formal training afforded them better opportunities
for on-the-job skill development than did relying on coworker training.
The results were acquired skills with certifications, resulting in opportuni-
ties for promotion and advancement. Chris described the training for the
state highway crew as incremental, understandable, and accessible:
I was working my way up. I got my license, and I was promoted to driver to drive
large trucks and haul hazardous materials. They bring trainers in from the central
office, and they would train all the new people who didn’t have a license, and I fit
in that program. I wasn’t blocked as far as that goes.
Formal training and apprenticeships were afforded based on prior job

performance, passing of tests, and affirmative action. Mary explained her
decision to apply for an apprenticeship as an electrician.
Every so often, they have applications for it, and I always put it off because I
thought that I wasn’t smart enough. The test is real hard, and they only take the
top third of the test for the interview. Then there’s four years of school and working
on the floor as an apprentice. But when you’re done, it’s a national certification,
and you end up a journeyman. So I decided to take the test and apply.
Additionally, Mary’s decision to apply was based on her assessment of her

likelihood of being accepted. The apprenticeship was included in the
company’s affirmative-action plan. She described her assessment of the

selection process as follows:
There will be 15 hired. Out of that, so many have to be a minority. There are no
blacks that applied. There are three GM women from other plants who put in for
the apprenticeship. And I don’t know what the national affirmative-action plan
is—I can’t remember what the numbers are—but I would say it would be pretty
good that all three of the women would be chosen.
Alternative Training Strategies

Although the initial effects of inadequate training were indicative of the
hostility of the workplace and gendered socialization, women devised ways
to obtain the skills required to do the jobs. For the women who did not receive
training from the company or male coworkers, two strategies for obtaining
needed training were cited. One strategy was for the women to teach
themselves. Angela went back to the basics to learn about construction.
Then there’s construction. There’s so much that you have to know. I even bought
a kid’s videotape about heavy equipment and everything. I just wanted to learn.
I said, “I want to know everything that there is to know.”
Cathy determined that the company was not providing the training
necessary for her to do her job. She was expected to rely on informal
on-the-job training. She also stated that coworkers, although sometimes
unavailable and unwilling to train her anyway, were often no better trained
than she was. She described her technique for teaching herself on the job.
I have to know an awful lot of things, and I was thrown into this job with absolutely
no training. I can do anything I put my mind to. If I’ve got something in writing
or someone credible to get information from, I’ll take notes two or three times,
and I’ve got it. I’m all set.
Beth, on the other hand, devised a different strategy by relying on female

coworkers for training. When she came to the department, she was the first
woman; however, within a few years there were five women. As a group,
they would all ask each other questions first, and then go to the men if none
of the other women were knowledgeable.
The long-term results of acquiring training were the development not
only of skills but also of self-confidence and resiliency. Male coworkers
were resistant to training women to do their jobs. In order to compensate
for this, women taught themselves, relied on other women, and used formal
training and apprenticeships.
PROMOTIONS AND TRANSFERS

Most of the women aspired to promotions and transfers within their
company. Such opportunities were attractive because they usually resulted
in increased pay, authority, autonomy, regularity in hours, skill develop-
ment, job security, or a combination of these things. Seeking this advance-
ment involved finding out that positions were available, fulfilling the
requirements for the qualifications, and being recommended for the posi-
tions. Promotions and transfers were based on employee requests, job per-
formance and completion of training programs, supervisor recommendations,
seniority, civil-service tests, and employer exams. The women perceived
that they were at a distinct disadvantage for consideration for promotions
and in many cases were unable to overcome the multiple obstacles.
Whether or not women applied for promotions depended on their find-
ing out what the job entailed, believing that they were capable of doing it,
and deciding that it was a job they wanted to do. Information that factored
into their decisions came from observation of others doing the job, con-
versations with coworkers, or direction from human resources offices.
In order to get promoted, the women had to know about the job and be
interested in the job. Many of the promotions and transfer were not in
direct, progressive job lines but required bidding for jobs in other depart-
ments and performing different types of work than the women were per-
forming in their current jobs. For Beth this meant going from a security
guard to a meter-repair worker to an electric planner. For Cathy this meant
moving from a secretarial position to a position as a customer representa-
tive. Joyce, a security guard, was considering applying for grounds main-
tenance. Carol went from mail-sorting to working in the garage to serving
as postmaster. Sandy went from being a parking-meter attendant to joining
criminal investigations to working in code enforcement.
Coworkers and employers often discouraged the women from applying for
traditionally male jobs by stressing the negatives of the job, particularly the
physical and environmental impediments. Women were even encouraged to
go from traditionally male jobs back into female jobs, devaluing or contra-
dicting the women’s achievements and satisfaction with their present posi-
tions. The personnel office warned Carol away from being a letter carrier.
I was warned away from being a letter carrier by personnel saying, “You don’t
want to do that. You don’t want to be that. You better take the clerk test. You’ll be
a lot happier inside as clerk. You don’t want to go out in all kinds of weather.”
Because you took a clerk exam, the exam you took covered clerk or carrier, so you
could be hired as a clerk/carrier and then go in to “figure out” what your job was
going to be when you got there. They would tell you what you were going to be
doing based on the openings at the time. If you had a choice, they would say, “You
can do that, but why would you want to? You have those dogs, and the snow and
the cold. You can be in here and it’s warm.”
The problem did not seem to be that the women were unable to meet the
qualifications, but more often that they did not even try or apply. As women
were promoted into nontraditional positions, their example prompted other
women to apply for those same jobs. However, once they decided they
were interested in the promotion, the women did not have the same oppor-
tunities or qualifications for promotion as the men. Beth described the
long-term benefits of having women as role models who can encourage
other women to pursue promotions into jobs within the company that tra-
ditionally are exclusively male.
I think I mentioned the difficulty of the standards. They were all men in the depart-
ment. The girls started to realize that’s a good job and started taking their training,
all their technical classes, and then all of a sudden, there are five jobs left, and the
only ones qualified were the girls. Then I think like the next five people in were
all girls. And that really hit them squarely between the eyes.
Promotional jobs involve multitasking and higher-level skills. In order

to demonstrate capabilities to perform tasks, workers must be given the
opportunity to (1) develop the skills required and (2) show they have the
aptitude or ability to perform the work. Women were given less chal-
lenging work assignments and less variety in work than men in similar
jobs or at the same level jobs, making the women less qualified and
visible for promotions. Peggy described her disadvantage for promotion
as follows:
Before I was eligible for the civil service test in the years—there’s a certain num-
ber of years you have to put in before you take the test—I saw a lot of movement,
and they transferred the men to criminal investigations, drugs, other areas of the
police department to get a more well-rounded work experience and career oppor-
tunities. I saw that they would ignore my transfer request. I would feel they . . .
ignored [me] because I would see men with less time go to these places where I
had requests in for consistently.
Whereas transfers and skill development were largely dependent on

supervisory recommendations, promotions in blue-collar skilled jobs usu-
ally relied on set standards, requirements, and procedures. The more
objective and clear the criteria and process, the more equal the opportunity
for promotion. The process for meeting these requirements went beyond
becoming aware of the requirements (e.g., civil-service test, seniority) to
finding out what the male standards were and meeting or beating the
standards (e.g., completing the required years of service, taking the test).
Peg described the situation at the police department:
The promotion to sergeant, lieutenant, and captain were all civil-service tests, so
that’s open, competitive tests. The first promotion test I took I aced. I placed very
high among the men, so then they couldn’t deny me a promotion the way they had
denied transfers.
More often, it was the combination of tests and recommendations that

led to nominations. The women reported that their relationships with their
supervisors often controlled their access to promotions, whether the con-
trol was through processing the requests or making recommendations.
Peggy stated that the way to get the promotion is by
not rocking the boat. I did my job. I didn’t challenge them, and I didn’t challenge
them when I saw my transfer requests were ignored. But I did the job I was assigned
to do, and I put my whole heart and soul into it, and I worked very hard.
Overall, the women felt that getting promoted and transferred was more
difficult and less likely for them than for men. They felt that their best
chances were through understanding and working within the existing sys-
tem, which preferenced males. They could do their job differently than
men to meet performance standards, but when it came to promotions and
transfers, they not only had to do what the men did, but they also had to do
it the male way and meet or exceed the male standard.
UNION BARGAINING AGREEMENT

The unions provided the women with a written bargaining agreement,
prescribed policies and benefits, and procedures and support for griev-
ances against the employer. Women in this study preferred union jobs to
management positions because, overall, the policies and protections
afforded by their union status benefited them as employees and as women.
Though the bargaining agreement was exhaustive in covering a range of
rights and protections for covered workers, there were two key benefits
that the women noted in the interviews. The grievance process and seniority
were benefits of the union afforded both men and women that helped
women to counter sex-based discrimination.
Grievances
For women in traditionally male jobs and in male-dominated workplaces,
the union grievance process provided a significant workplace protection
against discrimination and harassment. The courts have clarified that Title VII
only protects against sex-based harassment and is not a general civility code
protecting against harassment between coworkers (Oncale v. Sundowner Off-
shore Serv. [1998]). The union grievance process is a general civility code.
It is not the purpose of this book to debate the oppression and harassment
of coworkers in general, but for women experiencing sex-based discrimina-
tion, there is often stigma attached to asserting their Title VII and equal
employment opportunity protections. The grievance process allows women
to make claims without having to demonstrate the sexual nature of the offen-
sive action. Sonja had questioned whether the supervisor was harassing and
targeting her because of her gender or just because he didn’t like her for
some other reason. When she asked the union for help, underlying under-
standing in the conversation was that there were sex-based violations but
that the complaint did not need to be addressed under Title VII protections.
Because she was represented by the union, Sonja could pursue a union griev-
ance as an alternative to an EEO claim or in addition to an EEO claim.
I just told one of my union representatives, “You have to do something—‘cause if

you don’t do something, I’m going to take care of it on my own. I’ll get a lawyer
because this guy has made it impossible for me to work.”
The grievance procedure offers an additional protection to Title VII.

Sally filed both a grievance and an EEO complaint. Sonja wanted to avoid
the stigma of being a “man-hater” and filed a grievance. The protections of
the NLRA and Title VII are complementary and when coordinated extend
equal employment opportunity for women. Filing any formal complaint
was stressful for the women and placed them in adversarial positions with
supervisors and the company and often with coworkers. The women
avoided these formal procedures as pursuing them compromised the
women’s primary desire to just do their jobs.
Seniority
Seniority is a defining characteristic of blue-collar union work. Seniority
is “a privileged status attained by a continuous length of service” (Webster’s ,
1969). The women often cited the seniority system as protecting them once
they were in the job, thus allowing them to compete fairly for traditionally
male positions in the company. Sonja, Beth, Mary, and Sandy directly
attributed their job positions to the protections of the union seniority system.
For Sandy, seniority had an added benefit: although she did not change
jobs, seniority allowed her to attain a work schedule that accommodated
her socially and physically.
Right now, I have my seniority in. When I first started, I worked . . . the
wheel. . . . Nothing was stable, and it takes a lot out of you . . . You do what they
want, when they want you to. You know, you are just like a little bouncing
ball . . . With seniority, I think I’m settled in a Monday-through-Fridays,
weekends-off [schedule]. When I used to work the wheel, I used to have to take
a day just to rest, so I actually would end up with one day off to do something with
the kids. Your body is constantly rolling. It affects you mentally and physically
when you are on the wheel. And they do that when you first start.
Seniority is a system that is excluded from equal employment opportu-

nity protections under Title VII. Many of the women started their jobs at
entry-level positions with the intention of working their way up in the
company. Policy on seniority was the mechanism that made this possible
and predictable. However, day-to-day life on the job still involved inter-
personal competitiveness. Sonja explained,
I mean, in meter reading, everybody’s trying to scratch and paw to stay in the
company.
The seniority system provided confirmation and confidence that, in fact,

women deserved to be there when supervisors and coworkers challenged
their ability based on gender. The seniority system meant that a woman
was on the job because she continued to perform the job and had done it
long enough that she was qualified to stay. This was particularly important
when companies faced layoffs and downsizing. The fact that a woman was
in a position because of seniority meant she had reached a status equal or
comparable to the men, even if she had originally gotten the job due to
preferential hiring or affirmative action. The women had to have performed
the job at the same standard for performance as any man and had to be
eligible for the job based on seniority to avoid layoffs. Having seniority
combined with having met performance standards outweighed any con-
cern the women had over the fact that there were fewer women on the job
and they had less seniority than the majority of men they worked with. In
this regard, in the context of Title VII protection, the equal treatment that
seniority provided overrode any concern over the disparate impact on
women that preferencing seniority in employment decisions might impose
on them.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Many of the women were hired because of affirmative-action mandates.
Once they were in their jobs, affirmative action gave them access to train-
ing and increased job security. Such benefits of affirmative action far
exceeded the protections of Title VII. Affirmative action notified the

women that they were in demand for jobs and countered the informal
messages and steering by coworkers and supervisors that discouraged
them from pursuing promotions and more highly skilled and paying jobs
within the company. Mary, however, described affirmative action in pro-
motions as a “catch 22” for women.
Regardless of an edge because of affirmative action, I’m really proud of the work
that I can do and that I know that I’m smart enough to achieve other things. I talk
to other people that have come up. They say, “Oh I hear you had an interview.
Well, there’s a couple of women here doing this job, and there is actually one of
them that isn’t bad.” I think that’s where I think affirmative action’s a Catch 22,
you’re letting people in that shouldn’t be in or that are not capable of doing the
job, but you put them in there anyway to fill a statistic. And then there are capable
people that belong in a program, but they get mistreated once they’re in that
program because everyone treats them like they are only filling that statistic. The
fact is that they actually have filled a statistic. As a woman, you know you’ re a
number, and you are filling what needs to be filled. Often you don’t know any-
thing. The attitude is that you’re not going to know anything, so we’re not going
to bother with you. And what I see what happens a lot is that they don’t put the
energy or time into a woman, or in this case women or black or Hispanic, because
they don’t have quite the reading ability or previous skills that someone else does,
even though they may be just as intelligent in every other way. They might be
more mechanically inclined than someone else might be, and they tend to help the
others out.
Although affirmative action had a positive effect on women being

promoted, there was an unintended backlash once the women were in
their higher positions. Once again reliant on coworkers for the informal
training once in the new positions, they faced possibly being further
ostracized and denied the on-the-job training characteristic of and nec-
essary in blue-collar jobs. This cyclical process is ongoing as women
aspire to climb the ladder within companies into increasingly complex,
skilled, and technical positions.
NEPOTISM AND “THE GOOD-OLD-BOY NETWORK”

The women felt that nepotism and the “good-old-boy network” provided
more access to promotions, transfers, and better work assignments. These
relationships were even more important once women were on the job than
they were when the women were procuring their jobs. Though many of the
women, as previously described, had known someone and had benefited
from this during the hiring process, this was not the case during their
employment. Sandy compared the on-the-job situation for men versus

women as community police officers as follows:
It’s who you know. If you know somebody, you get an inside job. If you don’t,
you’re on the road training . . . We know. We have some women like I said that
have their Masters degree and teach and this and that but they still want you to put
your time in on the road and see like it takes them longer to get up. For most
guys—they put six months on the road and if they know somebody, you know,
especially if they think you are smart and they like you, they pull you in and they
put you inside and you get a Monday-through-Friday, nine-to-five. That’s called a
cushiony job. They [the men] get it a lot quicker.
Knowing someone was important for both men and women. What was
disparate was that men were more likely to know someone. However, it
seems that the experience for men and women who did not know someone
was similar. Peg met her husband on the job. He was a police officer of the
same rank as she was.
I’m not from this area. I have no family here. And there are a lot of family lines in the
city police department. So they take care of their own and they intermarry. So my
husband and I are pretty much out in left field. We don’t have a lot of connections. So
I couldn’t really be guaranteed that they would make accommodations for us.
Nepotism and politics, as Peg described them, did not tend to result in
blatant violations of the formal organizational policies. These factors more
often resulted in opportunities and accommodations so that employees
could accumulate experience and meet family and personal needs—and
subsequently enhance job opportunities. This was particularly critical for
women as they attempted to coordinate work and family demands.
While in the workplace, some women did make inroads into the
good-old-boy network. The person the women often connected to was
their direct supervisor or “boss.” But even when bosses were supportive,
they often appropriated themselves as father figures for the women and
assumed the role of protector instead of promoter. Sandy described her
relationship with her sergeant:
My sergeant personally thinks I belong to him. Men—they captivate and are terri-
torial. My sergeant reminds me of my father figure. They think you are personally
theirs. And I told him, “I need to get out of here.” He said, “You don’t,” and I think
he said to me [that] I really don’t know what I need. But I know what I need.
The women indicated that their supervisors enjoyed this protective,

paternal role. This made promotions and transfers even more threatening
to a woman’s supervisor. A transfer, promotion, or even development of

skills that might exceed the supervisor’s capabilities would result in a
sense of loss for the supervisor. If the woman were to rise to the same level
as or a higher level than the supervisor, the relationship would change from
a father-daughter dynamic to a relationship between peers. Over time, for
women, knowing a supervisor or someone in control of promotions could
end up being more detrimental than helpful, underscoring a disparate
impact on women.
On the other hand, women described not being connected and not being
related as an unrecognized or undervalued disadvantage that could lead to
sex-based discrimination. Those employees who were not connected and
could not rely on “favors” for advancement were qualified and promoted
based solely on their ability and were forced to meet or exceed the stan-
dards set for male coworkers. However, the women felt that the strength of
nepotism usually overshadowed any recognition or consideration of an
employee who had gotten there on her own and who was not bound by
politics and nepotism. An exception was Angela, who was promoted to
union president specifically because she was not related or connected. She
replaced predecessors who had for decades indulged in corrupt union
practices of nepotism and returning of favors between contractors and
union officials.
I don’t have that. Okay, everybody in my family is gainfully employed outside of

the construction industry. So I don’t have palms that I have to grease. Or I don’t
have to massage anybody. You know what I’m saying? There’s none of that.
SUMMARY
The women stayed in blue-collar, traditionally male jobs because of the
challenges, security, and opportunities that the jobs offer. There was no
question that the women wanted to do the job and perform the work. Once
they were doing the job, it was often the security that tied them to the par-
ticular occupation and, moreover, to the particular employer and workplace.
Security included the pay, health care, retirement, seniority, and union rep-
resentation. Security increased with time on the job, since in most cases
the longer a woman worked at that job, the greater the pay, benefits, and
seniority. Opportunities included alternative schedules, education, training,
apprenticeships, promotions, and union membership. These same factors,
when not flexible or sensitive to women workers’ complex and multiple
family, work, and community responsibilities, become reasons that women
leave the jobs.
These women’s greatest concern regarding disparate employer policies

and practices was with regard to promotions. Promotions were tied to train-
ing, tests and standards, job performance, and relationships with supervisors
and coworkers. The women were at a disadvantage as compared to men with
regard to all of these factors. The disadvantages were both subtle and overt,
but nonetheless, they all pointed to the need for affirmative action and per-
sonal advocacy in order to counter the systemic barriers.
Chapter 8
GATEKEEPERS TO OPPORTUNITY
AND PROTECTORS AGAINST
DISCRIMINATION: MANAGEMENT,
SUPERVISORS, AND UNIONS
A bureaucratic hierarchical structure is characteristic of, but not peculiar

to, blue-collar workplaces. Workers do the work and managers or supervi-
sors assign and monitor production of goods and services—work. The
hierarchical structure includes defined chains of command, promotion
procedures, and complaint procedures. As such, some individuals are
employed to perform tasks (i.e., the workers), and others are deployed to
enforce completion of those tasks (i.e., the bosses).
This chapter focuses on these gatekeepers who both formally and infor-
mally assure or deny compensation and opportunity: the managers, the
supervisors, and the union. As policing agents, they are responsible for
protecting employees from and helping them to fight discrimination,
harassment, and abuse experienced at work. Yet these individuals are also
in a position to instigate, ignore, or encourage discrimination and harass-
ment at work. As gatekeepers, they are in a position to assure, promote, or
block women’s access to equal opportunity. These are the persons the
courts hold liable if violations of Title VII occur.
THE SUPERVISOR
According to the occupational handbook, “Blue-collar Worker Supervi-
sor” is a distinct and distinctive job category. The “Blue-collar Worker
Supervisor is responsible for getting the work done. . . . They organize the
workers’ activities and make any necessary adjustments to ensure that
work continues uninterrupted. Supervisors also train new workers and
ensure the existence of a safe work environment” (BLS, 2002).
The women I interviewed indicated that supervisors or “bosses” directly

impacted the employees’ ability to perform the job, enjoy the job, and be
transferred and promoted out of the job. The supervisors controlled exten-
sive components of work, including the assignment of work, allocation and
inspection of the equipment used, distribution of overtime hours, granting
of vacation, approval of time sheets, reimbursement for expenses, and for-
mulation of crew assignments. Because of the bureaucracy, which is based
on a chain of command, the supervisor separated the worker from the upper
management. The supervisor was the wall or doorway between “the com-
pany” and the worker. This shield was at times protective and supportive,
and at other times it was a barrier. This largely depended on the interper-
sonal relationship between the supervisor and the individual woman.
All of the organizations were hierarchical. Company employees not rep-
resented by the union or working in jobs not represented by the union were
referred to as “management.” For most of the women, their boss or direct
supervisor was a member of the union, although some supervisors were
management. Regardless, the boss or supervisor was the direct representa-
tive of the company whom the women answered to and usually dealt with on
a daily basis. The boss was the person who set the tone for the workplace.
The boss has a lot of power. He sets a lot of the tone for what’s going to be toler-
ated and what’s not going to be tolerated. Even if he doesn’t have any direct day-
to-day contact with you, they still have to report administratively to him. So he
still has a lot to do with how our offices are run. It’s just night and day what your
life is like if you’re in an office where they’re pretty much calm.
Women talked about bosses both as people with whom they had to inter-
act on a personal level and as agents of the company. It was often difficult
to separate the two roles; however, there was a distinction. As supervisors
and bosses, they were agents of the company charged with assuring pro-
ductivity and instituting company policies. As people, they were men
complete with prejudices and personal styles that determined the way
company policies and responsibilities were delivered and represented. (All
of the women were supervised by men.)
If the women got along with their supervisors, they excelled at work.
For women whose supervisors had made it clear from the start that they
did not want a woman in the job, it was an uphill battle from the onset of
work, but at least the women could address and deal with the hostility and
adversity from the start. For other women, the supervisor was not as forth-
coming, and the supervisor’s distaste and disregard for women in men’s
jobs was revealed and built over time, usually starting in a matter of a few
days or weeks. Sonja said,
GATEKEEPERS TO OPPORTUNITY 117
I’ve found that there has been constant badgering from almost the second or third
week that I was in the department, until it finally got to a head a few months ago.
Yet for others, the supervisor did not become adversarial until the woman’s
abilities were proven. Once the women demonstrated that they had skill
levels comparable or competitive to the supervisors’ skills, some supervi-
sors curtailed the women’s ability to succeed and achieve on the job,
thereby diminishing the likelihood of promotion or job status that would
make them equal to the supervisor. Regardless of when the supervisors
became problematic, the women described common characteristics of
good and bad supervision.
Good Supervisors
During the interviews the women described qualifications, characteris-
tics, attributes, and skills of good supervisors. Gretchen defined a good
supervisor as one who is skilled and experienced in the job, who knows the
job, and who previously did the job and came up through the same ranks
as have the workers under his supervision.
My boss comes from union. He is skilled. He is an 18-year journeyman machin-

ist. He is unquestionably skilled. I just call him Mr. Blue-Collar America. He
has his finger on the pulse of that whole group of people. He is the archetype of
blue-collar guys. He started at GM and worked there as a machine repairman.
He did a regular full apprenticeship at GM. He even worked the assembly line
for a while. And then he worked for like 12 years at one place as a maintenance
machinist.
Sonja describes a good supervisor as being secure in the fact that he belongs
in the position, as acting from a position of authority, as knowing what he is
doing, and as not being threatened when a worker questions him.
This guy is in a management position. He has authority, knows what the hell
he’s doing, and is very secure in the way he presents himself—he’s not threat-
ened by me questioning him. If you question him, he’ll say, “Oh, let me look
into that.”
For Sally a good supervisor monitors job performance. She describes

good supervision as follows:
If I’m not doing the job right, then take me aside and explain it to me. If I don’t do
it right, or I do something wrong, take me aside and tell [me] if I don’t straighten
up my act, I’m gonna lose my job. But don’t use this as a tool against me.
The most critical role of the supervisor, as explained by the women, was
to approve the quality of the work that was performed. This was a formal
responsibility established through company guidelines and procedures for
performance-based evaluations. However, this formal evaluation built on
and was indicative of the day-to-day informal job-performance evalua-
tions and feedback. The women indicated that because they were women,
the supervisors evaluated their work differently than they did the men’s
work. Joyce decided to be direct and seek gender feedback from her super-
visor regarding her job performance.
My supervisor is a real old fuddy-duddy. And he’s just set in his ways, and most
of the guys are. Their wives are home with the kids. So he really is cautious when
it comes to hiring women, and if it was up to him, I don’t think he would. As much
of a sweetheart as he is, it’s just he thinks you’re going to call in sick all the time
and thinks you’re going to be afraid to walk through the buildings. So actually
about a year and a half after I was here, I finally said to him, “I’ve been here a year
and a half; what do you think?” (At this point I wasn’t sick at all.) I said, “I had to
prove myself, didn’t I?” He didn’t realize I knew what he was thinking. “Well,
yeah, you’ve done good.” And he doesn’t like to give compliments. He said,
“Yeah, we were watching you for awhile.”
Beth described two types of supervisors with good attitudes toward

women: gentlemen and men welcoming of women. She described the
“gentleman supervisor” as follows:
He’s wonderful—perfect gentleman. And he’s a very professional person, and

he works hard and expects us to work hard. And his problem is not so much with
the girls. It’s the ones who don’t do the work, who are a couple of the guys with
the biggest mouths in the office about the girls. I find I’m doing the best I can.
And that’s what I keep saying: “I’m doing my best.” And I find that that’s good
enough for me, and it’s good enough for my two bosses. The reviews that I’ve
had from my supervisors have been not great, not terrible. They’ve been just
very good. And that’s all I’ve ever asked because I’m doing my best. And they
seem to know that. And I think they try to put away all their preconceived
notions about us [women]. I think supervisors have really come around and
given us a fair shot.
She described the “welcoming supervisor” who encouraged and recruited

her into the meter-repair-and-assembly shop.
There weren’t a lot of women . . . He felt that women were his best workers, and
he recruited women. When I was a guard, I found him coming in and saying,
“Have you taken your trig yet? Have you taken your electrical books? Because
I think you’d like this job.” And he said, “Women are my best workers. I have
no problem.” And that was the way he let us know we were welcome there. And
I think that when a supervisor comes through and has that attitude, I find that
filters down.
Good supervisors supported women in the workplace either by tolerat-

ing them and treating them the same as men or by welcoming them and
encouraging them to participate. This is an informal application of the dif-
ference between equal opportunity and affirmative action.
Bad Supervisors
Problem or bad supervisors made a difficult job intolerable. The situa-
tion resulted in frustration, which over time often led the women to leave
the job. The women did not single out any one coworker other than the
supervisor as pivotal in their decisions about whether to continue on the
job. When the women had to face a difficult supervisor, they often did not
even want to go to work the next day. Sonja explained,
If a supervisor knows his limits, then he can really get away with a lot of stuff, and
if that happens, then it’s a very unfortunate situation, and unfortunately I’m in the
damn situation. And it became a battle, and I’m very tired over it. Because now
I’m thinking, “Oh, I have to go back in tomorrow.”
The women perceived that supervisors were more vigilant of the wom-
en’s work than they were of the men’s work. The women were particularly
sensitive to supervisory vigilance over their sick and injury time. They
were concerned that this built on stereotypes of women not being capable
of doing the job and of being weak, being lazy, or preferring to stay home.
Sonja’s supervisor called her at home when she fell on the job and was
home on sick leave.
Last year I fell, and I was home for a couple weeks. Two days after I fell, he called
up and said, “When are you coming back to work?” I said, “I have to go for a test
in a couple days, and I’ll know for sure.” He said, “You know, you get paid to read
meters, not paid to stay home.” I said, “I fell. I hurt myself. I did not do it on pur-
pose. I’m really sorry, and if you’re taking this personally, maybe you should talk
to somebody because this isn’t personal. This is a business.”
Women frequently compared the supervisors’ vigilance of women to

that of men. They cited multiple instances where supervisors called
them at home to check on them, inspected their vehicles and equipment,
or checked on them at work sites more often than they checked on the
women’s male coworkers.
Women felt that bad supervisors generally targeted certain employees.

They were aware that bad supervisors targeted men as well as women,
but the fact that bad supervisors also targeted men did not make their
behavior less offensive or less disturbing. It only made it different.
Regardless of whom else the supervisor targeted and harassed, the
women described the humiliation they experienced as more far-reaching
than the humiliation was for the men. When a woman was the target, it
not only affected her relationship with her supervisor, but it also served
to separate her further from her male coworkers, often making the women
feel ostracized, inadequate, and inferior and opening her up to ridicule
from her coworkers.
Title VII Liability

Employers have a responsibility to know what is happening in their
workplace and to intervene should they become aware of Title VII viola-
tions, regardless of the victim’s desire for reparation. The interviewed
women’s supervisors were responsible for their own behavior, and they
were responsible for the behavior of the people they supervised. The boss
had the power to dictate either a gender-friendly or a gender-hostile work-
place environment. Sonja explained,
Things were bad before. He was picking on little things. He wouldn’t sign meal
tickets. And what happened was a lot of the guys would purposely—not just the
guys, there were two girls at the time in our department too—would ride me, you
know, pick on me for little things, poke fun at me, and things like that in front of
him. And you know why they’re doing it—“let’s jump on his bandwagon and do
the same thing he’s doing, and he’ll know that we’re on his side.”
Beth noticed the influence of supervisors when after years of gender

hostility and harassment of female workers by male coworkers, the intro-
duction of a new supervisor led to quick and dramatic changes.
It was only because Brian Johnson became our boss. He set the tone for, “It’s not
going to happen any more.” The boss we had before didn’t say anything. He was
one of the type of people that just didn’t get it. Brian came in and everything
changed. He was very concerned as to why we felt uncomfortable. He could see it
in our eyes. He could see it in our work because we weren’t progressing as we
should have. And he wanted to get to the bottom if it. I think that is when the men
realized that the girls aren’t going to go anywhere because now they got Brian on
their side. And Brian wasn’t on our side just because we were girls. He was on our
side because we were people, and he didn’t like the way we were being treated.
He set the tone. He treats us all alike. He wants us all to get along and be happy.
It was so refreshing for us to have a new boss that felt this way. We don’t have to
leave now. We’re going to stay.
Supervisors both discriminated against women and sexually harassed

them. The women differed in their opinions as to which of the two was
more tolerable, although they all would have preferred neither. Carol pre-
ferred her boss’s disapproval of her doing a man’s job to quid pro quo
sexual harassment.
My boss came in one day and said, “Don’t you feel bad about taking some man’s
job?” And I said, “Sam, what are you saying to me?” And he said, “Well, you
know there’s some man with a family that doesn’t have a job, and here you are
sitting here doing a man’s job.” I said, “Sam, I have a family, too. Would you
rather me be on welfare than sitting here working for you? Because that’s where
I’d be.” “Well, no,” and he chomped his cigar and turned around and went back in
his office. He really was kind of an old-timer—women should stay home. He just
didn’t understand them all going to work—although his wife worked as a higher-
level executive than he was actually. That’s probably why he felt that way. But in
his favor, it was easier to deal with somebody who was blatantly, “why don’t you
girls stay home” than it was, “ hey honey, let’s go have a drink after work.”
Iris, on the other hand, endured constant, daily sexual harassment by her
supervisor. She tolerated the harassment as long as he appreciated her
presence and performance on the job.
A supervisor was in charge of the entire ship, and there was one that was particu-
larly fond of me. One of the supervisors there really liked me a lot—both from the
standpoint I was useful to have around and also he wanted to have sex with me.
And he never stopped asking me to have sex with him. It’s not like that ever
stopped. But I never took him serious anyway. That didn’t intimidate me; it gave
us something to talk about.
Both Carol and Iris excused their supervisors’ gender bias or disregarded
it and emphasized that the supervisor approved of their job performance.
In keeping with the supervisors’ given responsibility for assuring and
monitoring job performance, discrimination and harassment is less offen-
sive if it does not threaten job security. However, when discrimination and
harassment were linked to conditions of employment it became extremely
threatening, offensive, and intimidating for the women.
Carol said that she was surprised that the supervisor hired her when she
applied for a promotion because the supervisor was known for not putting
up with shenanigans. She explained that this meant that he would not put
up with sexual jokes, and when there were no women, that meant less to
deal with. Whether a supervisor is “good” or “bad,” the presence of women
in a predominantly and traditionally male workplace adds one more

responsibility to the supervisor’s job, the complexity of which cannot be
underestimated.1
Solutions to Supervisory Problems

The women were subject to discriminatory treatment by their supervi-
sors. They did not describe the discriminatory treatment as necessarily
sex-based; more often, they described it as a result of interpersonal con-
flicts. Because the women wanted to continue or advance in their jobs,
they sought solutions to their problems with their supervisors. When faced
with a difficult supervisor, the women cited many different ways to deal
with the situation. Sonja attempted to deal with her problems with her
supervisor by direct confrontation but was not sure this was the best or
appropriate way to change the relationship.
One day my truck broke down. And another meter reader came out, took my
truck, and gave me his truck. The truck was disgusting. That’s because there was
crud all over it—sticky gooey stuff everywhere, bags. It was disgusting. But I
never had time to clean it out because I barely made in by 4:30, 5:00. [I] get in the
next morning. My boss decided to do this spot inspection of the truck. Went right
to my truck and started saying, “Look at this—this is disgusting. I can’t believe
you’re like this,” and started throwing things out and saying, “Don’t ever have
your trucks like this. I don’t want you people to ever have a truck like this. Sonja,
I want you cleaning your truck right now.” And I said, “Time out. I just got this
truck. It was somebody else’s. Lay off.” That was probably stupid on my part
because I was told that this is the kind of guy that just kind of targets people and
rides them and rides them. I don’t think it was a sexual thing. I think he’s done it
with guys, [and] he’s done it with girls, but this is the only problem I’ve really ever
had in the company as far as a supervisor never letting up. And if I see something
wrong, I’ll say it. If I see that there’s been an injustice, like with the truck thing,
I’ll say it. I’ll stick up for myself, or I’ll ask a question.
Nancy was proud too of her multiple ways of dealing with her supervisors.
She used direct confrontation and humor and in some cases precipitated the
termination or removal of supervisors. She saw this as a skill that she had.
My first boss was all set to discredit me. I could tell by the things he did and the
memos that he sent. I said, “You don’t know me, and I don’t really know you, but
by the time I leave here, we’re going to know each other quite well.” And over
time we became very good friends, and to this day we’re good friends. The one
that I have now told someone, “She could fuck up anything.” And word got back
to me almost at the time it was said. He said it when he had a few drinks in him.
And we were going to be working together out of town for a week. So we were at
the bar at the hotel and he said, “Can I buy you a drink?”—that’s the common
thing. That’s the way they rallied, the way they unwind. I said, “Mark, I don’t
know if you want to because I might fuck it up.” He just looked me. I said, “Sweet-
heart, my husband doesn’t talk to me that way or about me that way; what makes
you think you can?” One would say things that were sexist like “I wouldn’t let my
wife do that” or “I’ll have someone walk you to the car.” They assume you can’t
handle yourself. And I was always saying, “We don’t do that anymore.” I got rid
of him—well, let’s say he retired, and he should have retired.
Though the scope of the problem was pervasive and generalized to their
overall work lives, the women would often assert themselves in one calcu-
lated aspect or situation when they were supported by policies, procedures,
and documentation. One solution was to document their work and contest
the situation with written evidence. Sally described her contest over her
time sheet.
I couldn’t do anything right for him. I could not please the man. If I back my truck
up, I should have drove it down. If I drove it down, I should have backed it down.
He told me I took too long going from one spot to the other. First day he told me
that, he said, “You goofed off.” And he cut my time. I didn’t goof off any time.
I said, “I’m not going to discuss it with you. I’ll take it up with the owner.” By the
time I got into the shop, I had the owner right on my case, right out in the middle
of the parking lot. And it’s like, “Wait a minute. I’ve got a time sheet shows
exactly where I was every minute of today. No stops at any convenience stores, no
lunches, and no breaks”—which, number one, as far as I’m concerned, is against
the law. Two days later, I was turned in again to the office. This time the owner
came out. Caught me in the parking lot. Same thing again. I mean, I’m out pump-
ing gas where other people can hear a conversation going on, and he wanted to
know what I’d done today. And I told him and I said, “You can look at my time
sheet.” I said, “This man has done everything in his power to make me look bad
on this job.” I’d never had a problem before and haven’t had a problem since.
After attempting direct resolution to problems with supervisors, women

would devise and attempt methods of avoiding supervisors. Sonja requested
a transfer to another site where she would not have to see her supervisor on
a daily basis. Claire requested painting jobs where she was the only one on
the job, and the supervisor would only be on site every three days. Although
he was critical when he was there and questioned whether she was diligent
in her work, he was happy with the quality and amount of work—just
unsure about whether she was taking too many breaks.
Another solution the women employed was to simply try to understand
the supervisors’ perspective and go on with their work. This involved seeing
the problem as the supervisors’, not as something wrong with them. They
were aware that some supervisors, because of their own personal situation,
attitudes, age, and family situations, would not respect them. They attributed
some of the problem to differences in age that resulted in differences in
socialization as to women’s expected roles. They would also juxtapose what
they knew about the supervisors’ relationships with their wives and how
they treated other women on the job. Based on their assessments, the women
sometimes didn’t take the problem as seriously or personally.
Carol disregarded her supervisor’s disapproval of her not staying at
home to raise her daughter because she knew his wife was an executive.
Sonja supposed that her supervisor treated her poorly because her supervi-
sor’s wife belittled him. Joyce described her supervisor as “an old fuddy-
duddy” when excusing his bias against women on the job. Iris did not take
her supervisor’s constantly asking her to go to bed seriously in part because
“he was old.” But although these factors explained the supervisors’ gender
hostility, they did not make that hostility welcome.
Relationships with supervisors improved slowly and over time for some
women. The women gained approval and respect from their supervisors
over time by finding out what the supervisors valued in employees and by
then meeting or exceeding those standards. This was done by showing up
for work, demonstrating that they could do the job, and being a team
player. Being a team player had two meanings for the women: one mean-
ing was working well with the other men on the crew, and for Gretchen,
being a team player meant showing interest in the leisure activities of her
supervisor, whether this meant attending picnics or going to the shooting
range to learn about his antique rifle hobby. The women had to prove
themselves to the supervisors. In many cases that meant directly defying
the supervisors’ presuppositions by demonstrating skills and abilities or
by verbally confronting the supervisors’ misnomers about women’s ability
to perform the job and be a member of the work crew. In the long run, the
women either accommodated their supervisors’ work style and demands
or removed themselves from the work crew.
UNIONS
Within workplaces, jobs were differentiated as to union and management
jobs. Union jobs were referred to in different organizations as craft jobs or
as represented, shop, or union jobs. Unions are organizations that are inte-
grated into the workplace to represent the needs and interests of the work-
ers. For the women interviewed, when referring to the union, they more
often were referring to the persons who were elected or appointed to repre-
sent them, that advocated for them and that enforced the bargaining agree-
ment. The women’s union representatives, like management, operated at
two levels: (1) they represented the written policies and procedures of the
bargaining agreement, and (2) they functioned as individuals, or coworkers,

entrusted to represent workers’ interests in keeping those policies.
Because the companies and jobs were all male-dominated and struc-
tured to meet male standards, so were the unions representing these jobs
and workers. Although not all the women were members of the unions
representing their jobs, all the jobs were union-represented. Temporary
and casual laborers are exempt or excluded in some workplaces from union
membership; however, the parameters of these workers’ employment are
usually spelled out in union contracts, and they receive many if not all of
the protections. Three women in this study were not members of unions:
1. Claire worked for a commercial painting company that did predominantly non-
union jobs; however, she did work on some union jobs for which her employer
contracted. Painters can join the painters union, qualifying them to bid on and
contract for better-paying union jobs. Claire was eligible for her union card
and qualified to work on union jobs but did not purchase her card or union
membership.
2. Cassey was a temporary employee at the nuclear power plant, and as a tempo-
rary employee, she was not a member of the union; however, she performed the
same job as full-time union employees, and the union negotiated her pay and
benefits. She did not pay dues, vote, or receive the protections of the bargain-
ing agreement directly. She could not file a grievance, but she did receive union
wages, and her schedule was set according to the bargaining agreement.
3. Iris provided casual labor for the longshore union. She was hired by the union
and paid by the union but was not a member and did not receive the benefits of
union membership. However, her time in casual labor qualified her for senior-
ity for hiring into full-time positions.
Due to the way that the unions and the companies had structured their
agreements, the women described themselves as either working for the
union or working for the company. When employed by public utilities, the
post office, or the police, the women primarily identified themselves as
working for the company or organization and secondarily identified them-
selves as members of the union. In the cases of the truck driving and long-
shoring, the women were working for the union and were placed with
employers. Some of the women identified their skills as defining their
employability, therefore enabling them to work for either employers or
unions, as in the case of the commercial painter and electrician.
Union Stewards
Within the union structure, the primary representative of the union with
whom the women interacted was the union steward. The union steward
mediates between coworkers, serves as an intermediary between the

worker and the supervisor, and ensures that the workplace adheres to the
bargaining agreement. Two of the women suffered more harassment and
discriminatory treatment from the steward than from any other coworker.
These women were extremely frustrated and felt blocked from any ability
to take advantage of the union benefits they were provided. Cathy com-
plained that her steward verbally harassed her on a daily basis and was the
person who used the most profanity. This forced her into a difficult posi-
tion of choosing between being loyal to the union, and therefore not tak-
ing grievances to management, and appealing to the management’s
responsibility to provide a safe and “welcoming” work environment.
Women credited the unions with advocating for their gender-specific
workplace needs. Particularly, the union provided grievance processes to
address unfair work policies and practices, negotiated maternity leaves
and family leave, and demanded safety and sanitation facilities that made
it convenient or possible for them to perform their jobs. All of the women
were clear that they preferred to be represented by the union and resisted
promotions into management positions where they would lose the protec-
tions afforded by union representation.
SUMMARY
The persons who controlled the women’s benefits, evaluated their per-
formance, and policed interpersonal relations were the supervisors, man-
agers, and union representatives. For these women in traditionally male
blue-collar jobs, the supervisor and union steward were the gatekeepers
and ultimately had the greatest impact over providing equal opportunity
and ameliorating or escalating discrimination and harassment.
The most difficult and complex facet of the workplace for the women to
negotiate was the day-to-day relationship with supervisors. This relation-
ship with supervisors framed the women’s position in the organization
because of supervisors’ control over distribution of pay, assignment of
work, benefits, and performance evaluation. The supervisor, as overseer of
both the men and the women in the work group, is also the person who sets
the tone and standard for what is tolerated and what is not. Supervisors
have the power to dictate whether a workplace is hostile or welcoming on
a day-to-day frontline basis.
The women have stayed or left because of these factors; therefore, super-
visors serve as the gatekeeper and protector regarding retention of women
in traditionally male blue-collar jobs. Supervisors’ roles in the workplace
environment are complicated and problematic because they combine orga-
nizational oversight and interpersonal relationships. Additionally, for
women in blue-collar jobs, unions represent a welcome protection and

organizational alternative to relying solely on supervisors and manage-
ment for assuring equal employment opportunity. The next chapter looks
in-depth at the interpersonal relationships between coworkers that con-
found work regardless of the tasks of the job and the workplace structures
and benefits.
Chapter 9
GOOD GUYS/BAD GUYS:

HOW TO DETERMINE
WHAT IS REASONABLE
The performance of the job tasks, organization of the workplace, and worker
responsibilities contribute to the work experience, and beyond these factors
are the interpersonal relationships with others at work that facilitate, inhibit,
or even prohibit job performance. “Work” does not exist in a vacuum. It is
the day-to-day relationships with coworkers that are the most problematic,
constant, and wearing, creating the hostile environment.
For a situation to constitute a “hostile environment” as interpreted by the
U.S. Supreme Court, there must be a pervasive interference with the
employee’s job performance caused by interpersonal relationships. This
hostility must be sex-based. Differentiating between what is the “normal”
and “usual” way all workers treat each other and what is sex-based hostil-
ity or discrimination is a major challenge in defining the “pervasively hos-
tile environment.” This chapter presents some of the ways that women
make this determination, and it attempts to provide “reasonable woman”
methods for determining whether the workplace is welcoming or hostile
and whether hostility is sex-based.
THE PROBLEM
Being the only woman or one of a few women working with men in a
traditionally male job posed problems for the women and impeded their
ability to do their jobs. They expressed that relationships with coworkers
inhibited, interfered with, or facilitated their work.
Regardless of whether the women were treated well or badly, the work-
place environment was different because of their presence. It was different
for the women, and it was different for the men. As Beth said, “It is just
that they have been together so long—the men.” Sally and Sandy chose
these jobs because they prefer working with men. Similarly, many of the
men chose their jobs because they prefer working with men—and not
women. Some women worked in crews of up to 50 men where they were
the only women. Whether they were the only woman or one of a few
women, they all agreed that they were extremely visible and that this vis-
ibility made the work relationships different.
Why do I walk in here and cause such a big to-do? It’s so big that it’s always there.
These guys have been together for so long. Can’t I just go in the back door, sit at
my desk, and work or learn or function and be not such a big deal? I mean, they
relate to each other fine. Why am I such a big show just because I’m a girl?
GOOD GUYS/BAD GUYS

The women described the men they worked with as fitting into two cat-
egories: the women were quick to differentiate between “good guys” and
“bad guys.” The words used to describe this dichotomy were simple but
varied. As stated by Beth, “Some guys are very helpful. Some guys are very
resistant to having women with them at all.” Sonja simply referred to them
as a “good bunch of guys.” Often there was just one man that was a prob-
lem. During the interviews many women said, “There was this one guy . . .”
Regardless of the words used or numbers involved, the men were perceived
as distinctly positive or negative. After several interviews in which this
dichotomy emerged, I asked Beth whether, if I gave her a list of all the men
she worked with, she could go down the list and just check off and separate
them into the two categories. She said yes without hesitation.
A man was not categorized as bad based on one incident, thus making
these categories characteristically “pervasive.” The women gave examples
of situations with these men and ended their narrations with the following
such statements:
• So he would give me a hard time almost on a daily basis.

• The man doesn’t like women, and he did everything in his power to hassle me
from morning to night.
• He had it out for me for a couple of years thereafter.
The women did indicate that an individual man could categorically shift
from one side to the other side. But there was a distinct point of conversion;
it was not a fluctuating state. For Claire, the old man who had taken her
under his wing and taught her was “good.” However, he changed from good
to bad when she no longer needed his tutorial and when she was able to do
GOOD GUYS/BAD GUYS 131
the job as well as or better than he could. He then started to take credit for
her work when they did a job together. He would not tell her techniques that
would make her job easier. On the other hand, a man Beth worked with
went from bad to good. He refused to train her and had it out for her until
she completed training with the help of another coworker. Beth concluded,
“Now he’s fine because I’ve made it. I’ve made it on my own.”
Good guys are caring, helpful, and nice to the women. They train and
mentor the women. They treat them with respect. Bad guys go out of their
way to make it clear that the women are not welcome or wanted or don’t
belong on the job. Bad guys blame the women when the job goes wrong,
do not recognize the women for doing a good job or being part of the team,
devalue and criticize their skills and abilities, verbally abuse them, tell
offensive jokes, talk about sex, proposition them sexually, place them in
dangerous work situations, and physically or sexually assault them.
COMPARISONS
The women determined whether they were being treated as equals at
work by their coworkers through comparison. Comparisons helped the
women determine if unwelcome treatment was (1) pervasive and (2) sex-
based. The women wanted to know if they were being treated the way they
were because they were women, because they were coworkers, or just
because of personal differences. Comparisons helped to give them this
understanding, and these comparisons included those regarding (1) changes
in treatment over time, (2) how the men treated male coworkers (3) how
men treated other women in the same or similar jobs (4) how men treated
the secretaries, and (5) how the men treated their wives and female cowork-
ers outside of work. The women used these comparisons to formulate their
own standards of “reasonable” treatment of women by men. The women
used comparisons in order to make sense out of the everyday relationships
and behaviors at work.
Comparisons over Time

One way the women determined whether the men were good guys or
bad guys based on personal experience was to consider the experiences
longitudinally. The way the men treated them over time was particularly
helpful in determining the pervasiveness of the treatment. One instance
did not constitute pervasive hostility or deem a man good or bad. There
was no set number of times a behavior had to occur and no set length of
time it had to persist, but the impact of the men’s treatment of the women
was cumulative. The women found that over time the men could change or
confirm the women’s experience. Not only could individual men shift over
time, but also the general workplace treatment environment could change.
Beth described her experience:
Over the five years that I have been here, many of them have come around and
some of them, the one I had so much trouble with, he’s our biggest fan now. You
wonder.
Comparisons to Men
The women compared how male coworkers treated them to how the
male coworkers treated each other. Most of the women worked in groups
composed of 10 to 50 men with one or two women. Comparisons were
made as to (1) the way men talked and behaved with other men when
women were around as opposed to when women weren’t around and
(2) the way men treated women differently than men when they were all
engaged in the same conversation or situation.
When women were around, men sometimes used less offensive lan-
guage, removed pornographic material, did not tell sexual jokes, or did not
use sex-based humor. The women were aware that in their absence this
language and behavior did occur, particularly since it would suddenly stop
when they entered the room. When the behavior did stop because of their
presence, the women considered this a sign of their being respected. Chris
was aware that the men removed pornographic magazines from the truck
when she was on the crew. Sonja knew that the men stopped using profan-
ity and sexual language when she entered the break room. Joyce appreci-
ated being left out of the gossip or discussion of the men’s extramarital
affairs. This behavior, or abstinence from behavior, was welcome.
All the workplaces’ policies, as provided under Title VII protections,
prohibited sexual language; however, the expectation of the women in
these blue-collar workplaces was that they still would be subjected to it
although it was illegal and unwelcome. Good guys were able to restrict
their sex-based language to situations when women were not present. Bad
guys were indiscriminate in their conversations. Regardless, the women
found that the men did understand the differences in and distinguish
between talk that was appropriate among just men and talk that was appro-
priate between the sexes.
The women also compared the way the men worked with men and the
way the men worked with women. This was a comparison between the
amount of assistance and help the men gave each other on the job and
the amount they gave to female coworkers. Many of the women could
directly observe men offering suggestions to each other, accommodating
each other, and even doing each other’s jobs. When the women asked
men for the same help, the women often did not receive it.
These comparisons were direct sex-based differences between the way
that the men treated the men and the way that the men treated the women.
As stated before, in many cases this was only a comparison of one wom-
an’s experiences—hers. If there were differences between the ways mul-
tiple women were treated, or if a woman was the only woman in the
workplace, the women or woman needed to extend the comparisons in
order to determine if the treatment was just personal or if it was sex-based.
In order to understand the situation better, these women expanded the
comparisons to include other women who were similarly related to the
men and to these women’s work experience.
Comparisons to Other Blue-Collar Women

Because many of the women were the only woman or one of a few
women working in the same work group, making comparisons to how men
treated other female coworkers was difficult. In order to make such com-
parisons, the women compared their abilities and the way that they were
treated by the men using standards of (1) the way that other women in their
job were treated, (2) how women who had come before them in that job
were or had been treated, and (3) how women they knew in similar jobs
were treated.
Some of the women did work with other women in their work crew or
group. They had the same male coworkers and supervisors. This allowed
for direct comparisons of individual men’s behavior toward individual
women. The man who routinely dropped his pants and exposed his geni-
tals to Mary on the assembly line did the same thing to another woman
who worked down the line. The men Sonja worked with treated her very
differently than they treated her female coworker “who was blonde and
cute with the guys.” The women attributed the discrepancies to differences
between the women involved. Mary and her coworker had discussed
between themselves and made it clear to the men that the men’s behavior
was unwelcome. They both individually and collectively generated the
same message to the men and received the same treatment. Sonja thought
that the men did not flirt with her because she had made it clear that she did
not want it, whereas her coworker responded to flirting positively and
encouraged it.
Because the men’s behavior seemed to be in response to the actions and
solicitations of other female coworkers, the women in this study were very
critical of their female coworkers. The women had higher expectations of
other women than of men to be nonsexual at work and perform their jobs.
Sandy compared herself to other women she worked with in the police
force and was critical of them. She compared their physical strength (one
woman was not strong enough to shoot a gun), their physical appearance
(some had gained weight and their uniforms were ill-fitting), and their
expecting to be excused from doing the men’s work (they wanted to be
treated like the “Queen of Sheba” and be “dainty,” according to Sandy).
She thought the men treated the women differently because most of the
women were weaker and deserved the treatment. She said that “the women
bring it on themselves” and that the men treat women based on a percep-
tion of women’s intent, purposely acting differently because of the wom-
en’s behavior and intent.
Some of the women were aware of other women who had previously
worked with these men. Although they did not talk directly with these
women, they asked the men for information, or in some cases the men
volunteered information, about how those women were treated and about
their personal attributes. Sonja was aware that she was coming into her
work crew replacing a woman who had held the same job. She compared
herself to that woman. This is her description of that woman and of how
she, Sonja, was different from her predecessor:
When she came in here, she had been married, and she had an affair with one of
the guys here who’s also married. I thought that I was going to be coming in, and
the guys would immediately think I was going to have an affair or be loose or be
looking for a relationship. So I was very worried about them. She was a very hard
worker. She was very nice to work with. However, following on the coattails of
somebody like that, you think, “What are these guys going to think of me? Are
these guys going to think that all the women in this department are like this or all
the women in this company [are] like this?”
She postulated that the men treated the women differently because some
of the women “were always acting cute, had all the right answers, and did
all the right things.” Sonja couldn’t do that. This investigatory method of
determining what was a “reasonable” expectation for men’s treatment and
expectations of women was used by many of the women. They found out
if any other women had worked in their jobs or in a traditionally male job
in that workplace with those men. They then inquired and observed as to
how other women were treated. Finally, by comparing themselves to the
other woman or women who had done or had been doing the job, they
evaluated their situation by comparison, developed an expectation of how
they might be treated, and planned a course of action to protect, take care
of, and assert themselves.
A third way that women assessed how men treated women in nontradi-
tional jobs was by talking with women in other blue-collar jobs in similar
workplaces. Cathy talked with women in other departments in similar jobs

in the same company. She and Beth worked for the same company and
confided in each other, although they did not directly work together or
with the same coworkers. Cathy’s sister worked in the automotive indus-
try, and another relative worked for the telephone company. From all these
women Cathy determined that men were difficult to work with and resis-
tant to women performing blue-collar jobs. She concluded that women
who were assertive like she was got treated like she did. Difficulties she
was having—including harassment, verbal abuse, and men’s refusal to
help train her—were the same problems other women were having in other
similar jobs.
Comparisons to Secretaries
There were indications that the men treated the women differently based
on the fact that the women were in blue-collar nontraditional jobs, doing
traditionally male work. In order to validate this perception, the women
would compare the way the men treated them to the way the men treated
secretaries and office staff in traditionally female positions. This provided
a standard as to how the same men treated women coworkers who were
not doing the same job as the men were. It also provided a comparison of
how men treated women who were performing sex-role stereotypical jobs
as compared to nontraditional jobs. Claire said,
I used to talk to the secretaries. We’d go back and forth about how they don’ t take
women seriously—“typical men.” And they would agree that they got harassed
because they were the sexy leather-skirt type of girls. One day I was standing
around the corner, photocopying something, and a supervisor comes out of the
office and says to the secretary, who’s real sweet, something real filthy. He would
never say anything bad like that to me. He was the gentleman type. But I heard
him around the corner, and she kind of laughs it off and says, “Oh, you’re disgust-
ing.” And I come around the corner and wanted to say something, but then I turned
the corner because I didn’t want to get into it.
Claire explained that the men did not talk filthy around her because she
made it clear that it was not acceptable, whereas the secretaries “almost
encouraged” it. However, the men did not obstruct or make it difficult for the
secretaries to do their jobs as they did for Claire. For pink-collar women it
was a matter of unwelcome behaviors, including domination, gender inap-
propriateness, and sexual advances, with a tendency toward quid pro quo
harassment. This differed from the message to blue-collar women that they
were not welcome; the harassment against them was intended to get them off
the job and included a tendency toward a pervasively hostile environment.
Comparisons to Wives
Another dimension to women’s understanding of the way that the men
treated them involved considering three aspects of treatment related to the
men’s wives: (1) the way the men treated their wives, (2) the way the men
treated the women in front of their wives, and (3) the way the wives treated
the women.
Women were conscious of which men were married or in committed
relationships. Sometimes they knew of the men having extramarital affairs
and relationships. They used this as an indication of the men’s general
respect or disrespect for women sexually. If the men were committed to a
woman and yet having affairs, they were seen as more generally hostile
toward women than just in workplace situations. On the other hand, good
guys were caring and respectful of their wives and did not have affairs.
This allowed the women to accept their condolences and sympathy as car-
ing when the women were upset about personal or work situations.
The most significant or telling comparison regarding the men’s wives
was the way the women were treated by the men in front of their wives as
opposed to in their wives’ absence. At times the women encountered male
coworkers at public places, or they participated in community activities
and company events with the men and their families. They compared the
way the men treated them in public in the presence of their wives to how
the men treated them at work.
The men who had harassed them at work, propositioned them, or dis-
closed extramarital relationships tended to ignore them in public. Sonja
explains it as follows:
The ones having relationships outside the marriage are the guys when you see
them out with their wives, they ignore you. You get that feeling that either their
wives are jealous, or they’ve done something that their wives should be jealous.
You know there’s a difference between those areas and here. Those are the guys
I’m not going to be joking with.
If the men ignored them when they were with their wives, the women
were more likely to interpret sexual joking as unwelcome and intentional
harassing. For Mary her whole understanding of the man who was expos-
ing himself and badgering her for dates at work changed when she saw
him at a shopping mall one evening with his wife.
I had seen a guy that I had worked with in the mall. One of these men that would say,
“You got time to give me a blow job?” Or he would expose himself. I saw him in the
mall one night with his wife, and he looked right through me and did not speak. And
I turned around, and I followed him, and I said, “Hey, Mike, how are you doing?”
and made sure his wife saw me. . . . And I just said to myself, “I’m not crazy, I’m
not crazy. This man out on the street won’t even acknowledge me.” There’s no way
he wanted his wife to know that he worked with me, especially after the things he
said to me. I knew then he knew what he was doing wasn’t right.
Sometimes it was the wives who discriminated against or interfered with

the women’s work and did not want them on the job. Sally worked with men,
was married, and worked for a woman-owned construction company, yet the
wife of one of her coworkers did not want a woman on the job. She described
the following interference by the man’s family regarding her job:
One place I worked didn’t have a lot of trucking for me to do. They built decks and
porches on houses. The owner of the company was a woman, but I was the only
woman out working on the job. So they put me out, when I wasn’t driving, build-
ing decks and porches with the guys. And I tell you, I can saw and I can hammer
a nail just as well as they can. But when one of the wives found out that I was out
on the job, she got highly upset and called the owner and said, “You’re asking for
trouble because you are putting a woman in with men.” It sounded to me like she
can’t trust her husband.
Wives’ treatment of the women and reactions to the women were an

indication of the men’s overall regard for women. The women did not trust
men whose wives did not trust them or men who did not want their wives
to meet their female coworkers. These men’s joking and advances were
interpreted as not just unwelcome, but hostile.
BUT IT’S NOT THAT SIMPLE

After categorizing men as good guys and bad guys based on how they
treated women and comparing the way the men treated them to how the
men treated other people, women then identified factors that explained or
complicated their simplified categories and comparisons. The women cited
additional characteristics beyond gender that seemed to make a difference
in how they were treated by men. The key indicators of differential treat-
ment were age of the men, differences in job status, and degree of intimacy
in relationships between women and men on the job.
Age
The age of the women and the age of the men they worked with formed
a matrix in explaining their relationships. Age complicated or influenced
the way that men treated women (1) when men were older than the women
and (2) when women were the same age as the men. One woman discussed
working with a man younger than she was, and she described this situation
as being the same experience as when the men were the same age as the
women.
Joyce was much younger than most of the male security guards she
worked with at the public utility. The men were hired largely after their
retirement from other law-enforcement branches and were in their late 40s
to early 60s. Joyce was in her mid-30s when I interviewed her. She reported
other employees’ reactions to her:
It is nice to see a woman do that job. And younger, too, because for most part it’s
been all older people.
Iris had an easier time working with older men for two reasons. She was
only 18 when she started working on the waterfront. She thought that being
so young meant the men “did not take me being there seriously” and that
therefore, she was less threatening to them. The main difference she described
between older and younger men was whether she found their sexual com-
ments to her offensive or not. She did not take the sexual comments and
invitations of older men seriously. However, her reaction to younger men
“hooting and hollering” was that it was offensive and hostile.
Gretchen and Beth also found the older men easier to work with. They
attributed it to competition for jobs. The older men had been on the job and
were secure in their positions due to skill, accomplishment, and seniority.
Beth and some of the other women indicated that the older men assumed
father roles. The women did not find this offensive, and in most cases it
was beneficial.
Younger men were threatened by the presence of women on the job.
They directly competed for jobs and in some cases had been excluded
from opportunities due to affirmative hiring practices. The women who
were the same age as the men or who had entered the job at the same time
as the men often had less experience. Beth went further to explain that the
younger men were electric planners because it was the best job in the com-
pany. They were planning to retire from the job and would be working
with Beth for the long haul.
Gretchen stated that a male coworker of the same age felt his perfor-
mance was being directly compared to hers. He did not want to be com-
pared to a woman. For some men in blue-collar jobs, when a woman did
the same job, especially if they were the same age, the men felt that they
were being made fun of or that the job was less valuable because a woman
too was doing it.
Claire added another dimension to the consideration of age that initially
confirmed and then contradicted the premise that older men treated women
better than younger men did. She had an experience similar to Beth’s. An
older man had assumed a role of father and mentor. Yet after she had reached
a level of competency in job performance comparable to his, he became
hostile, or a “bad guy.” She attributed this to the fact that both age and sex
were bases for discrimination at their job site. Neither of them was pro-
tected by seniority. As Claire became a threat to the older man’s job secu-
rity, his hostility toward her and his undermining of her work escalated.
Both Claire and Carol attributed older men’s differential treatment of
women in part to socialization. They thought older men believed that
women belonged at home, particularly younger women who were of child-
bearing age, and that they did not belong in blue-collar, traditionally male
jobs. Claire described older men as not wanting to work with women and
younger men as being more open, in part because of the times in which
they had grown up. Younger men may have been educated and socialized
with different values and laws.
I noticed when I worked with men, I had trouble with the older guys, but not the
younger ones. The older guys just didn’t like the fact that women were working.
They hated it. They just didn’t think it was right for a woman, and it was from older
guys that I got this. So they would give me a hard time almost on a daily basis.
Age and gender combine to construct the ways that men treat women at
work. Older men generally assume fatherly roles with the women. The
women take older men’s sexual advances and harassment less seriously.
Younger men typically are more competitive and more hostile in their
harassment of the women because they may have similar occupational
goals based on similarities in age. These goals are to stay on the job for a
long time, develop skills, and accrue the economic rewards. Older men are
established, have seniority, and their goal is marking time and doing the
job until retirement.
Job Level
When a male coworker was in a position of authority or was a represen-
tative of the organization, the women were more threatened by sex-based
discrimination and harassment. They also were less likely to make formal
and informal complaints. Often this was because the person had leverage
over the woman and controlled the woman’s access to higher managers at
other levels in the organization. The women faced the possibility of being
blocked from seeking assistance in resolving sex-based work problems.
Depending on the comparative hierarchical job-level of the men and the
women, men were in a position to affect the women’s job satisfaction, job
performance, and occupational advancement. Men who were the women’s
supervisors, union stewards, and managers, and those men’s roles as agents
for the companies or unions, were discussed more in-depth in the previous
chapter. These men represented the collective bargaining rights, or they
controlled promotions and firing. The women had different standards for
assessing men when they were acting for the company or the union than
for when they were acting as individuals. The main difference, as seen by
the women, between bosses and coworkers with regard to harassment and
how they treated women was that the managers should have known better
than to harass or discriminate against women. The women were more tol-
erant of the hostility from coworkers than they were of hostility from
supervisors and managers.
A second consideration with regard to job level was the differences in the
ways that the men treated the women as the women climbed the job ladder
at their workplace. Although there was often an initial period of “proving
oneself” upon entering the workplace, the women experienced more perva-
sive hostility in higher-level, more skilled jobs than in entry-level jobs.
When Mary was considering the apprenticeship, she was warned that there
would be more fierce hostility and animosity toward her there than on the
assembly line. Joyce said that in entry-level jobs, “the men seem to get
along with the women as much as they get along with the men.” Beth, like
Joyce, noted that when she entered the company as a guard, all the men
greeted her and were welcoming. It was when she became an electric plan-
ner, a job she described as the best job in the company, that the hostility and
competition between the genders became problematic.
Husbands and Boyfriends

The way that the men at work treated the women was different if male
coworkers knew that the women had husbands and boyfriends within the
same company. As discussed in the chapter about hiring and entry, some
of the women applied for their jobs because they had husbands or boy-
friends that worked there. Others began dating men they met at work once
they were on the job. The presence of the women’s husbands and boy-
friends impacted the way that coworkers treated the women, and work
impacted the way that their husbands and boyfriends treated them.
Some women worked directly with men with whom they were intimately
involved; others were involved with men who were employees of the same
company but working in different work groups from the woman. When
husbands and boyfriends were either direct or indirect coworkers, relation-
ships between the women and their male coworkers were different. The
women were accepted more quickly and given more respect when they had
a male partner at work. For Iris, being able to hang out with her boyfriend
on the waterfront at work meant that she was not accused of being a lesbian,
which was a common venue for harassment of women by the men. Further,
it meant that when the men included her boyfriend in lunch and conversa-
tions, they would also include her.
Sally drove a truck in a small company where her husband was the boss.
When Sally’s coworkers learned that her husband was the boss, they stopped
putting her down and degrading her ability as a woman to do the job.
My husband worked at the company where I first drove truck. We did not tell any-
body who I was when I came to work there because I was the only woman other
than a secretary. And when they brought me in, I was just a truck driver. When
I wasn’t driving truck, they brought me in the fabrication department, where they
taught me how to weld. I was there two weeks, and a trucker came into the office
with the secretary. He said, “Gee, who’s the broad out in the shop?” And the secre-
tary said, “Why don’t you ask John? It’s his wife.” My husband was standing
behind him. The guy could have buried himself under the carpet. And he turned
around and looked at John. And John said, “That’s my wife and I’m proud of
her.” . . . And at that time the word spread. The men did not want not to talk to me.
They were afraid that I had been put in there to eavesdrop on their conversation.
Yet they didn’t want to slight me for lunch. I had to eat by myself. My husband
wanted me to filter in and be just another employee.
Many of the women separated and kept secret from coworkers their per-
sonal relationships with boyfriends and husbands. Mary advised keeping
personal relationships a secret because the information might be used
against you if you decided to confront harassment in the future. Mary told
of a fellow woman on the assembly line who had dated a male coworker:
She had had a relationship with a man that worked in the plant, and she was afraid
that if she said anything about the harassment, [the past relationship] would be
used against her. And she would be made out to be a whore, although she was
single and had a right to date whoever she wanted. She felt that she couldn’t say
anything.
However, when coworkers were aware of a relationship, things changed.

Chris’s boyfriend helped her during the hiring process, but soon after she
came to work, they stopped seeing each other. She describes the benefits
of standing up to him at work:
My boyfriend and I had had a rocky breakup. One night he had an assignment he
was supposed to do, and he took a pickup truck, and he went to McDonalds. The
boss came through and saw that job wasn’t being done and started screaming at
another person and me. There was hell to pay for all of us. It was his last straw.
My ex finally came back. He was just standing there with his hand on his hips,
watching all of us working our butts off with our heads bowed and our tails
between our legs. He said to somebody, “You missed a spot,” or something like
that, and I just went off. He and I had a screaming fight in front of everyone. It was
near the end of the day, so the day shift was arriving, and the night shift was still
there. I was teased about that ever since. That was a big joke because I’m hot-
tempered. But if anybody ever started to push me, somebody else would say, “You
better be careful; you don’t want to have a lover’s quarrel with her.”
For women who worked with husbands and boyfriends, it impacted both
their relationships with other coworkers and their relationships with their
partners. For the most part these relationships reduced the amount of
harassment the women experienced and earned the women respect more
quickly from their coworkers. On the other hand, the situations usually
complicated their personal relationships as they worked to differentiate
and separate the two roles. They wanted to ensure that they did not receive
preferential treatment at work and that they did not extend their personal
emotions into work.
SUMMARY
Relationships with male coworkers provide the personal and persistent
context for hostility and discrimination for women working in nontradi-
tional jobs. These women categorized men into a dichotomy of good guys
and bad guys. When the women were asked about it, this dichotomy was
so clear and divisive for them that they were able to classify male cowork-
ers without hesitation into one of the two categories. Good guys were men
who welcomed and supported women in nontraditional jobs. Bad guys
were hostile and prohibited or inhibited women’s job performance. At any
one time, a man was either a good guy or a bad guy; however, over time
and as the women developed skills and relationships with their coworkers,
individual men could shift from one category to the other.
Comparisons made by the women indicate that men are aware, able, and
capable of welcoming and nonoffensive behavior toward women at work.
Comparisons by and among the women demonstrated that women come to
understand men’s behaviors toward them and to identify who is a good guy
and who is a bad guy within the context of gender and work. Categorizing
is complicated, well thought-out, and methodical.
These 17 women devised and set a reasonable-woman standard for deter-
mining if male coworkers were harassing them through a complex process
of comparing how they treated other women coworkers, secretaries, and
women in similar jobs and, when in public, their wives. There exists a dif-
ference in what men find offensive and what women find offensive. The
cumulative results of the comparisons the women made regarding men’s

treatment of both sexes provided an informal and self-devised reasonable-
person or reasonable-woman standard for harassment and sex-based dis-
crimination by male coworkers. These comparisons supported the use of a
reasonable-woman standard.
Chapter 10
HOW MEN TREAT WOMEN:

“WORKING” RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN THE SEXES
As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, “we have yet to determine what is
meant by a hostile environment” in terms of behaviors that unreasonably
interfere with a woman’s ability to perform her job. Defining a “hostile
environment” requires being able not only to describe the behaviors but
also to distinguish what is desirable, acceptable, interfering, harassing, or
dangerous.
This chapter looks at interpersonal relationships at work between women
and men and at what the women found helpful, acceptable, tolerable, and
intolerable. The women described a continuum of ways that men treated
them at work with regard to sex-based harassment. The continuum
presented in this chapter applies to all relationships between women and
the men in the workplace, including managers, supervisors, and coworkers.
This continuum gives us a foundation for defining the sex-based perva-
sively hostile environment with regard to sexual harassment and behaviors
that unreasonably interfere with job performance.
HOW TO TREAT A WOMAN

The manner in which coworkers treat each other occurs on a continuum
of behaviors from bad to good. This continuum as described by the women
flows as follows:
• Assault
• Job Interference
• Verbal Harassment
• Devaluing Competency
• Being Nice, Helpful, and Caring
• Mentoring
• Respect
Assault
Assault includes physical assault and sexual assault. Assault is defined
as a purposeful act of violence. In some cases assault involved direct
physical contact with the women, and in other cases setting up work
situations that threatened a woman’s safety, health, or life constituted
assault. Assault was both covert and overt. At times it was illusive, and
the women were unable to confirm or prove that it was in fact purposive
and perpetrated by coworkers, as opposed to happenstance. Other times
it was blatant and forthright. Iris described such a situation as it occurred
in longshoring:
They’d go out of their way to put us in difficult work situations. This happened on
a number of occasions. They would simply make a point of dropping logs on us.
And that’s not a small thing because if you think about an average log that’s
maybe a couple feet in diameter and 40 feet long, it weighed a heck of a lot and
was more than capable of killing people. Then hoist that log up about 20, 30 feet,
and then release it one end first at somebody. They did this to intimidate us off the
waterfront. It’s real clear. And then they could laugh and hoot and holler as we all
ran for our lives, which of course we did. And the scary part is that not only does
the log come down at you, and you have to scatter, but it comes down with so
much force and the water is shallow enough, it goes down and hits the bottom.
That changes its trajectory, and it comes back up, and you don’t know where it’s
going to come up from. So you could be thinking you’re perfectly safe because
you’re far enough away from where it lands, but then it comes back up and nails
you. And I did see guys get killed down there by accident. I saw guys get killed
due to accidents. It was beyond an intimidation tactic. They could have easily have
killed somebody. It was just a harassment maneuver in hopes it would get us off the
waterfront. They really didn’t like having us there. That was very, very clear.
Mary tolerated sexual harassment on the auto assembly line for years.
Men would routinely walk by, drop their pants, and expose their genitals.
This one just dropped his pants and walked down the main isle all the time . . . There
was this guy who worked across the line from me. We used to see their penis more
than we saw, like when I lived with a man.
HOW MEN TREAT WOMEN 147
She described this as a daily occurrence. However, after years on the

assembly line, this routine harassment escalated to sexual assault by a
coworker. She was assembling a minivan one day, lying on her back under
the dashboard, when a male coworker came up and lay down on top of her,
placing his crotch on her face. This unreported sexual assault resulted in
long-term psychological trauma and mental-health treatment for her.
The women described acts of assault as infrequent but the threat and fear
as being present constantly. The women perceived the men as physically
bigger, stronger, and faster than they were. They were able to ascertain this
as they observed the men performing the same jobs that they were per-
forming. Additionally, because the men knew how to perform the job
safely, they also know how to place coworkers in unsafe, threatening, and
dangerous situations. Assault and the threat of assault was a way for the
men to let the women know that they were vulnerable and unwanted on the
job. Violence was pervasive as both a threat and a reality as these women
sought to perform their jobs and go about business as usual.
Job Interference
Job interference includes coworkers’ actions that “unreasonably interfere
with the women’s ability to perform the job” (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
[1986]; Harris v. Forklift [1993]). Acts of job interference are blatant,
irresponsible, or disrespectful actions toward coworkers. Interference often
places women in dangerous situations with a disregard for their safety, health,
or life. These acts are differentiated from violence and assault in that they
are not intended to harm the other person, although harm may be the result.
Job interference happens at three predominant levels: (1) inadequate,
denied, or incorrect training; (2) inappropriate assignment of work; and
(3) coworkers’ disregard for the capabilities and limitations of others in
performing work.
Because women in blue-collar jobs that are nontraditional for women
characteristically depend on men to work with them in their jobs, job inter-
ference is particularly problematic. For the women I interviewed, this
treatment sometimes made the job difficult or even impossible to do. At
other times, the result of job interference was that the women were placed
in dangerous and threatening situations. Claire described a situation where
the coworker who was senior to her and able to solve the problem refused
to help her.
One time we were working in this really big, really nice house. It had a Jacuzzi
tub, and it was situated under a cathedral ceiling—real high. And I had to get to
the skylight that was in the ceiling. So I got this big, huge stepladder. And I put
drop cloths down. And I’m trying to set it up so I can reach it. I couldn’t figure out
how to set it up. He walks in. I say, “I can’t figure out how to do this. How am I sup-
posed [to] set up the ladder to get to that wall?” And he said, “I don’t know. You’re a
painter; figure it out.” You know, it’s just that kind of stuff on a daily basis. Always
harassing me—trying to get me to quit or something.
Sometimes it was hard to differentiate between behavior intended to

make the women miserable and behavior that crossed the line to create an
unsafe work environment. Regardless, the women were aware that the
motivation was hostility. Chris told me about such a situation from when
she worked on the state road crew:
Oh man, the way they treated me. There were some foremen and some operators
that just treated me horribly. You wouldn’t believe the energy they would spend
strategizing how to ruin my day. Like if the backhoe was on the road, and it came
time for the 9:30 break, if somebody was flagging that they liked, they would pull
the backhoe off the road. But if I was flagging, the foreman and the backhoe
operator would go, “Well, we got this back hoe positioned just exactly the way we
need it, so we’ll have to leave it on the road so you’ll just have to flag standing
alone on the road during the break.”
Coworkers in blue-collar jobs are in a position to either support and

keep their coworkers safe or endanger them. One of the reasons that the
women were attracted to the jobs was that they were challenging and risky;
however, job interference created imposed, unnecessary, and exacerbated
risk. The differences between inadequacy, negligence, and interference are
often very subtle, and the blame in these women’s experiences easily
shifted, with male coworkers’ blaming the victim’s lack of skills and abil-
ity. The women knew the differences, particularly as they compared the
way the men supported and protected each other as compared to the risks
they imposed on the women.
Verbal Harassment
Verbal harassment encompasses spoken messages that let women know
that they are not welcome in the workplace. Much of it is guised in joking,
profanity, euphemisms, and the differential ways men talk to men and men
talk to women. It ranges from blatant to subtle and is interpreted in the
context of the situation, tone, and individuals involved. The results are
hurtful and degrading messages that, over time, wear women down. These
verbal assaults become harassment when, after being asked to stop, the men
persist. Verbal harassment can be a component of or antecedent to other
more destructive workplace hostility such as violence and interference.
Compounding the pervasiveness of harassment, when other coworkers

overhear it, they often join in. Verbally harassing a woman can quickly
become the norm for how she is treated by the overall work group. Com-
ments that these women found offensive were made directly by coworkers,
often as a group, in the presence of the women as well as by coworkers in
private and reported back to the women. Verbal harassment included
requests for dates, invitations to have sex, and being called a lesbian
(whether she was or not), as well as remarks about breasts and other sexu-
alized body parts. Such comments and invitations persisted even after the
men were rebuked or asked to stop. The men used degrading and sexual
names such as “broad,” “baby,” “porcupine,” “dolly,” “queen-bee,” and
“bitch.” Men made comments about how women “hoot, holler, and moan.”
All of these verbal comments and referents were offensive, unwelcome, and
considered intentionally hostile.
Women were often harassed in the presence of other men, or the men
would verbally harass women as a group, thereby increasing the intimida-
tion and hostility experienced. Iris recounted the daily behavior of the men
on the ship toward her and other women:
We’d be walking across a ship or down the gangplank on the waterside, and there’d
be six guys leaning over the rail, whistling and hooting and hollering at the
“dollies” kind of a thing. And that was no fun for any of us.
Sometimes women would join in and emulate the men’s behaviors and
language as a self-preservation strategy, to fit in or reduce their visibility
and vulnerability. This could even lead to women verbally harassing each
other with one particular woman as the object of the workplace abuse.
Not just the guys, there were two girls at the time in our department too, would ride
me, you know, pick on me for little things, poke fun at me, and things like that in
front of him. And you know why they’re doing it—“let’s jump on his bandwagon
and do the same thing he’s doing, and he’ll know that we’re on his side.”
Joking was one verbal communication form that ranged and escalated
from acceptable to unacceptable to harassment to abusive. The critical
determinant was whether the man or men stopped if the women found it
objectionable and said so. The harassment was only considered pervasive
and abusive if the men continued it after being told to stop. The difficulty
was that because of the sheer numbers and the women’s need to blend in,
it was often easier, if not necessary, for the women to say nothing and put
up with it. Joking included telling jokes that degraded women, sexual
“dirty” jokes, or just making fun of women as objects. Unfortunately, the
courts require the women to put the men on notice that it is unacceptable,
and this may make them more vulnerable and put them at risk for more
hostile retaliation—it may not be worth it.
Additionally, many of the jobs involved the women being out on the
road with men. Particularly when in a truck on at a roadside work location,
the men would make fun of women they passed or who passed them and
would sexualize them. These comments were unwelcome and served to
make the women feel uncomfortable and out of place. It not only was
offensive to have to listen to it, but it also put the woman coworker on
notice that the men indiscriminately treated women as sexual objects, that
they felt free to harass women, and that they thought other women should
have to listen to it and not be offended by it. This type of verbal harassment
in many ways was even more difficult to object to, since it was not directed
at the women personally.
Sometimes the men would just outright say they didn’t want women on
the job, sometimes directly to the women. Beth explained,
We hear, “You’ll never make it. You don’t belong here.” They just say, “We can do
better. You shouldn’t be here.” I hear that a lot.
In some cases, verbal harassment became so pervasive that men whom

the women did not even know and might not see again, but who were part
of the same company or workforce (strangers), came up to the women and
verbally harassed or insulted them. The message of other men on the job
was that they did not want women on the job. For Sally, being harassed
about the way she did the job was connected to her being unwelcome by
coworkers she didn’t even know.
Then I had a private trucker come up to me and said, “How does it feel to be a
woman working in a man’s world? Haven’t you got the drift? The man doesn’t
like women.” Now here’s a complete stranger I don’t even know, just driving truck
on the same job site I’m on. Not even one of our employees. And he tells me that.
Two days later, I was turned in again to the office.
Sonja reported that after her supervisor denied her overtime and gave the
overtime instead to other coworkers to complete her backlog of work,
coworkers exacerbated the harassment and humiliation.
And second of all, I had to take heat from this old guy who had no right to say
anything anyway because he was another represented employee.
The women were also aware that the men talked about them when they
were not there. Angela was told that the men were talking over the CB
radio about her behind her back. Beth was aware that the men gossiped
about her when she was not in the office. Nancy heard the men saying,
“That one has very large boobs,” very loudly when she would likely over-
hear but was not in their presence. Peg described the duplicity of the private
comments meant for women’s ears:
They’re very open. They won’t say it to your face but they’re very open. They’ll
say it like in roll call. They’ll say some comment where you can infer what they’re
talking about.
The women did not know if the men wanted the women to hear the
comments directly or hear about the comments. Regardless, the fact that
men talked about the women’s bodies, told sexual jokes, and made it known
that the women did not belong there made going to work and doing a job that
requires team work difficult. Dealing with this was a challenge beyond the
required skills of the job.
The suggestions and the jokes and the little comments, I find that they don’t do it
as much if you make a statement that you don’t like it. When you let people know,
they’re more apt to leave you alone. But to me it’s still such a degrading thing
when it happens. There are men out there that don’t do it, so it’s enjoyable to come
to work. But every few hours or every few days, one just comes across and it’s
like, “I didn’t need that.”
Devaluing Competency
Devaluing competency transpires when a male coworker represents to the
woman or to her coworkers that she can’t do the job or did not do the job she
was supposed to do. It includes (1) not acknowledging when a women says
something, (2) not giving a woman a chance to talk, (3) misrepresenting a
woman’s job performance and abilities, and (4) not acknowledging her
accomplishments, capabilities, and performance. Devaluing competency is
always viewed in the context of whether men are treated the same way—
because to some extent, put-downs are teasing, normal, and not sex-based in
blue-collar culture. It is when men are listened to, encouraged to contribute
to conversations, and commended on a job well done and women are not
that the difference is problematic and contributes to a sex-based hostile work
environment.
The women questioned whether they were competent, capable, or
adequately skilled to perform the jobs, as described in previous chapters.
Ultimately, they feared that they would lose their jobs because of their
inadequacies. The blaming, devaluing, and ignoring built on these doubts
and fears.
He just wouldn’t answer my questions if I asked questions. When I made a

mistake, just before I called the boss, he, like, worked on me. “Oh, you’re in
trouble. You’re this, you’re that.” He was always, like, putting me in a place where
I felt threatened and my job felt threatened.
Being ignored was different for blue-collar women than what is

described for white-collar women. Blue-collar women do get ignored
when in meetings, but they are not in meetings very often. The only
meetings the interviewed women were in were union meetings, and they
did say that they were not called on. (In these instances they usually spoke
up anyway.) But they were ignored on the job site if they suggested ways
to do the job or criticized a male coworker, especially for violating safety
procedures. Additionally, they were ignored in the truck to and from work
sites and during breaks. Chris describes breaks with the work crew:
If I would be with them at the break, they wouldn’t talk to me. They wouldn’t
acknowledge me into the conversation. They would never initiate conversation
with me, and if I tried to work my way into the conversation, they would look
at me like I had three heads. In the truck would be this little silence and
everybody would look away out the window like we can’t talk—she’s going to
talk if we talk.
What this meant for the women was that if they wanted to be accepted,
they always had to prove themselves. When they did prove themselves, it
frequently was not acknowledged, and they often had to sit back while a
male coworker took the credit. When they asked for help, they had to
accept that they would often be ignored and denied the experience of their
coworkers. This meant that the women were constantly being set up to fail.
When they did something wrong, they had to take the blame and face ter-
mination. They were visible and vulnerable to losing their jobs.
The male coworkers knew how to do the job, had been on the job, and
had the ear of the bosses. They knew how to make it look like the women
could not do the job. When there was a problem on the job site, Cathy’s
male coworker requested that the supervisor come to the work site with
him to take a look at the job. The supervisor and coworker went to the job
and discussed solutions. Cathy was not invited to participate. Iris described
her predicament as follows:
They were the ones who were in a position to try and set me up to fail. Trying to
set me up to fall into the water. “Here, give her that end of the load because that’s
the one with the long log on it”—that kind of stuff. They were in the position to
set us up for that.
When possible, the failures would be arranged to occur with an audi-

ence, often in public or under the purview of the supervisor. When Claire
and her male coworker returned to the office after a day of painting, the
coworker boasted of the day’s accomplishments. Claire described her
coworkers’ reaction:
They’d say “Oh, great job, Ed. Great job. You know, you really earned us the
money today.” And I had cut in the whole thing, and he rolled the whole thing,
so we did equal parts of the whole job and he got credit for it. They just figured
I wasn’t doing as much as he was or I wasn’t good as he was. He was constantly
taking credit for my work.
The coworkers congratulated him on a job well done with no regard for or
mention of Claire’s participation.
Devaluing takes place when women are blamed, ignored, or disregarded
by male coworkers for their contributions to the work. Unlike assault and
job interference, devaluing does not risk the woman’s health or safety. It
does restrict women’s job opportunities. It is disconcerting to the women
because it affronts and excludes them from the general camaraderie
between coworkers and from recognition for contributions that result in
promotions, pay raises, and job recognition.
Being Nice, Helpful, and Caring

The women welcomed the help, concern, and consideration of their
coworkers. What was confusing about this welcomed treatment was that it
might come in the same forms as the behaviors and verbiage that were
offensive and considered hostile or harassing. The difference was usually
the perceived intent. Sonja described her coworkers as “a good bunch of
guys.” When asked how she knew, she said,
The way you can joke with people. I joke with them all the time. We’ll joke—
there’re sexual jokes, family jokes. We’re always joking around, kidding. But you
can tell by the way that they talk to you when they know there’s something wrong.
Or case in point, when my aunt was sick, they knew that, and they would come
and put their arms around you—in a nice caring manner!—as opposed to some-
body who puts their arm around you and squeezes you a little bit too tight or you
feel uncomfortable. This would be the fatherly or the brotherly way these guys are
caring. You can feel it, sense that. And I think that here it depends on the way that
you treat them back. I mean they can kid, anybody can kid . . . and you can kid
back. There’s always bantering going on, friendly. And there’s only been maybe
once that someone’s overstepped his or her bounds.
What is confusing is that Sonja welcomes the jokes, the bantering, and the
physical contact. She knows the difference, but the explanation can seem
confusing, particularly if not read in its entirety.
Other women described ways they liked to be treated. Descriptors
included compliments and being called by name. Sally described the
importance of being called by name:
When I pulled up in my truck, when there were three or four trucks together, I felt
strange. I was the new kid on the block. I didn’t know their names. The word
spread very rapidly what my name was [laughs]—and who I was. But they intro-
duced themselves. They told me that if I needed anything, let ’em know.
Just being women in predominantly male workplaces made the women

visible, this calling-by-name was a positive recognition that they were
there and were individual people, not just women. They knew that they
were in male workplaces; thus, overt welcoming and acceptance increased
in importance.
Because the women initially were made to feel clearly not welcome,
nice, caring, and appreciative behaviors were interpreted as conditional or
suspect. The fact that the men were nice and caring did not necessarily
mean that the women were welcome or accepted. It mostly meant that
their jobs were easier and more pleasant. Iris described it as follows:
I mean, even if they enjoyed having me around, and after a point they did enjoy
having me around, it was still only enjoyment based on the fact that they had to
have me there.
Though gossip among the guys and being left out of conversations was
problematic when it was degrading to them as women, being left out of
gossip about and between male coworkers was seen as good and nice.
Joyce appreciated not being privy to gossip and not being drawn into
“nitpicking” between the men. Sally and Joyce cited these as reasons that
they preferred to work with men: they did not have to listen to gossip and
nitpicking. Being left out of the gossip meant that they did not have to be
involved in coworkers’ personal problems.
Part of men’s caring was letting the women know that they were aware
that the workplace was difficult for them just because they were women.
The women appreciated it when men openly acknowledged that the women
were being harassed, targeted, and badgered by supervisors and cowork-
ers. It meant that the hostility in the workplace was not just offensive and
intolerable for a “reasonable woman,” but that it was unacceptable for any
“reasonable person.”
Men also displayed a caring attitude by being sensitive to the personal
problems of the women. Sonja appreciated the men’s concern when her
aunt died. Sonja described a coworker’s empathy for her problems with the
supervisor in this way:
He came in and sat down with me and just put his arms around me. He said, “I wish
I could just beat the shit out of that guy.” He said, “Because I’m really sick of
seeing this kind of thing happen.” He said, “But its not you. It’s not you.” I said,
“Thanks a lot.” But this is the kind of guy I’ve been working with.
Most of the women talked, by name, about one or two men whom they
could confide in and who would ally with them when things got difficult.
These were not the men that mentored them; they were friends and com-
rades. It was this camaraderie that the women sought. When the men were
caring, helpful, and nice, the women felt accepted and like they belonged.
Mentoring
Mentors were coworkers who trained, supported, and assisted the
women. They were coworkers the women could go to if they had questions
or problems with work. They were also coworkers who would volunteer
guidance and solutions. When asked, many of the women said that they
had a mentor at work and that the person was a man. They also wished
there had been women in a position to be their mentors, but that was not
usually the case.
The importance of the mentor underscores the importance of informal
training by coworkers in blue-collar jobs. Because of the nontraditional
status of women in the workplace and the fact that many of the men did not
want them there, to find a mentor was extremely appreciated and esteemed
by the women. Gretchen described her mentor as “patient and always
showing me new stuff.” For the most part they simply gave the women the
same training and insights that the men got. Because women realized that
they came in with fewer skills than the men did, this meant that mentors
had to answer their “dumb questions.”
Mentors were coworkers who had been in the workplace long enough to
know the nuances. Beyond teaching the women the skills, they would
often protect the women from coworkers’ setting them up to fail, taking
advantage of them, or insulting them. Mentors told them what was going
on between the scenes. Chris described her mentor:
On my first day, one of the like, crustiest, old-timers down there took me aside. He
took me under his wing, and he said, “Look, the man in the front office is a really
bad man. He is going to do terrible things to you, and you’re going to have to
watch your back around him—but I’ll show you the ropes.” Well, he taught me the
technical skills I needed to know, because I didn’t know anything. Well, actually
at first, he told me who to go to. He told me to go to men who were friendly people
that were sympathetic to the plight that I was in. And because the engineer
managed by intimidation, there was, like, this whole underground network that
ran itself all around him without him knowing what was going on. And that’s the
way it worked.
The women found their mentors on their own. The assigned trainers were
not always the most helpful. Ironically, sometimes the coworker they might
have been warned about when they came to the job was in fact the most
helpful person in the long run.
Good mentors not only trained the women, but they also allowed the
women to develop and expand their skills and capabilities. They were reas-
suring during the women’s occupational development. They helped the
women to understand the politics and behaviors of male coworkers that made
doing the job difficult. Mentors empowered the women by helping them to
develop skills and confidence. Cathy recalled how her mentor helped her:
I asked, “Well, why are they doing this? Why do I feel I’m being ostracized?” He
said, “Cathy, think about it. How many men are in your local?” I said, “I don’t even
know.” And John said to me, “You’ve threatened them. You could be a big shot in
the union.” It just made me feel like I had more power. Empowerment is a wonderful
thing to feel. John helped plant empowering thoughts in my mind; I can’t tell you
how that lifted me.
However, as discussed earlier, in some cases, once the women became

skilled and capable, the mentors turned from “good guys” to “bad guys.”
The mentors in those cases became worried that the women would get or
had gotten better at the job than they were. Having a mentor was still
valued, but the individual man acting as the mentor would change when he
no longer could or would provide training and guidance toward developing
in the job and company.
Respect
Being treated with respect was what the women aspired to. Being
respected is being recognized as a coworker capable of doing a good job,
not a woman doing a good job. Respect meant being taken seriously.
Some of the men treated me fine, but they didn’t take me seriously. I was just
“girl painter” or whatever. But they treated me nice. They just didn’t take me real
seriously. And I hated that. From the others, I got respect.
Respect was as simple as the men “not talking shit around you” (according
to Claire). It was the absence of sexual harassment. It was not being set up
to fail. Cathy described men who respected women as men who treated
“women as people.” For Sandy respect meant being recognized as a woman
who had “integrity.”
Respect included but did not necessitate the men’s considering the
women as an asset to the work crew. Respect meant that the women could
go one step further than just doing the job and could excel. When respected,
the women felt they had the support of their coworkers, were being recog-
nized as being capable and skilled, and were visible as female coworkers,
not as women.
When men suggested that the women take leadership roles either in the
work group or in the union, women felt they had earned the men’s respect.
The men confided in them and empowered them; the men empowered and
affirmed the women for asserting themselves and standing up to them and
the management.
When men treated the women with respect, the women no longer had to
work in fear of harm, discrimination, harassment, or violence. The work-
place was no longer hostile. They were welcome and secure at work, so
they could just do their jobs.
The women felt that respect was something earned over time. It was
something that the men gave them after they had demonstrated that they
could be trusted not to repeat what the men said about their wives and
other personal secrets. It was given after the women demonstrated that
they were capable of performing the job as well as or better than the male
coworkers. Respect allowed the women to be part of the work crew or
team, yet not dependent on the men to accommodate their personal prob-
lems or skill deficiencies.
SUMMARY
The women described a continuum of positive and negative behaviors
and treatment that they received from male coworkers. The women just
wanted to be able to do their jobs without interference from the men.
Physical and sexual abuse, violence, verbal abuse, and job interference can
create a hostile environment that precludes the women from performing
their jobs. But when men are caring, helpful coworkers and mentors, the
women can do their jobs and develop the same skills as men doing the job.
Ultimately, the women I met aspired to being treated with respect. When
men respect their female coworkers, the workplace offers equal opportu-
nity for compensation and promotion, and most of all men and women
work together as a “team.”
In the final chapters, strategies for mitigating and providing a supportive
workplace for women in nontraditional blue-collar jobs are presented.
Coworkers are only one facet and problem in the larger picture of work-
place hostility experienced by women. When these strategies are not
enough and the workplace becomes intolerable, women leave. The conclu-
sion offers recommendations for women, policy makers, employers,
future researchers, and feminists for remedying the problems these women
experience at work with men.
Chapter 11
NEGOTIATING THE HOSTILE

WORK ENVIRONMENT:
STRATEGIES FOR WOMEN TO
ALLEVIATE EMPLOYMENT
DISCRIMINATION AND SEX-BASED
HARASSMENT
Women attempt to mitigate the hostile environment they experience as a

result of sexual harassment by coworkers through both informal and for-
mal means. This book has worked to define and understand the hostile
work environment from the perspective of women employed in tradition-
ally male blue-collar jobs in the context of Title VII. Pursuing Title VII
protections and equal employment opportunity in the courts is costly (both
in time and money), destructive (to the woman, the coworker, and the
employer), and inaccessible. During the interviews, the women suggested
strategies they used to mitigate discrimination, harassment, and denied
employment opportunities. Most of these strategies are informal and not
connected to exercising legal protections. Exercising these strategies builds
a supportive workplace or allows the women to perform their jobs with
diminished interference. This chapter highlights the strategies suggested
by the women based on their experiences.
DRAWING THE LINE

Women need to determine what male coworker behavior is acceptable
and what behavior is unacceptable, what is reasonable and what is unrea-
sonable. This can be done based on a woman’s own code of conduct
developed in consultation with coworkers or in comparison with the stan-
dards of others. It is probably best to use a combination of determinants:
personally devised determinants and coworkers’ suggested determinants.
Women then need to draw that line and let coworkers know that the line
exists. When the line is crossed, women need to be vocally clear that the
line has been crossed and that the behavior is unwelcome. Direct com-
munication is recommended, but the women who told me their stories
cautioned that drawing the line is not without inherent risks of retaliation
by the confronted.
IGNORING
Many of the women had tried telling men that their behavior was unac-
ceptable, but it persisted. In some cases, drawing the line only made things
worse because the men antagonized them and retaliated. The women were
aware that although the company had sexual harassment policies, those
policies were not enforced, and filing a claim only made things worse. In
these cases, one option was just to ignore the comments and behaviors, no
matter how offensive they were.
We used to see their penis more than we saw, like, when I lived with a man. The
woman who worked across from me, she said, “I have two sons at home I take
care of. I see this guy’s penis more than I do my sons’.” So, we found the best way
deal with it, the best thing to do, is to ignore it. Go about your own business.
The other side of ignoring is that it could be misconstrued, both informally

by coworkers and in Title VII litigation, to mean that the behavior was not
“unwelcome.” This fine line between ignoring and speaking out just rein-
forces the difficult situation women are placed in when they have to pro-
tect themselves both on a day-to-day basis with coworkers and in the long
run if they need to exercise their Title VII rights.
CHANGE OF ATTITUDE
When women changed their attitude, work became more tolerable even
though the men did not change. Much of changing an attitude had to do
with accepting that the men were not necessarily ever going to change,
want them there, or accept them. This often involved changing from an
attitude of anger, victimization, and indignation to one of ignoring and
disregarding discrimination and harassment. Iris explained,
At first I thought, “Who are these men treating me like this?” I was really pissed,
but I realized pretty quickly that being angry only gave them power. It didn’t do
me any good. That the best thing I could do was simply not attach any significance
or power to what they were saying. And then they were throwing words out into
the empty air, and they go nowhere.
NEGOTIATING THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 161
BEING SMART/PLAYING DUMB

Rather than confront or ignore harassing, demeaning, or sex-based com-
ments, some women pretended not to understand them—they played dumb
and naive. This was a calculated, conscious tactic to appear “dumb” when
in fact they understood, were offended, and realized that they were being
harassed. Because feigning naïveté was calculated, they were “being
smart.” It was a way of not engaging or rewarding the harasser’s unwanted,
disparaging comment or behavior. Paradoxically, the women felt empow-
ered and like they had the upper hand because the harassers then became
“the dumb one” since they thought the woman was dumb.
GETTING MAD/BEING UNREASONABLE

The women in this study found that to get angry, raise their voices, use
strong language, and be confrontational to the point where coworkers
found it unreasonable was sometimes the only way to get the attention of
perpetrators of discrimination and harassment. This route of dealing with
the situation was usually preceded by personal stress and feelings of
depression and self-doubt. The effects of the stress are both psychological
and physical. According to Mary,
I felt like I was having chest pains, heart problems. When I went to the clinic for
it, they gave me nitroglycerin, told me to take three, and if they didn’t help, to call
911 and to look at the stress in my life. Now I usually tell [coworkers harassing
me] to fuck off, to stay out of my face.
The danger was that the women might be seen as “moody,” “premen-
strual,” “aggressive,” or even “dangerous.” According to Beth,
Well, you just get so sick of it. And of course, you’re standing there and crying.
You feel like, “Oh no!” Then everyone blames it on PMS, and in a couple days it’s
all over. Either that or they forget what you said or what she stuck up for. Once
you have said something, you can never take it back, so you really got to be care-
ful with what you say and how you say it.
This getting-angry strategy needs to be used with caution; women use it

at the risk of being labeled “aggressive” or “crazy.” For one woman it led
to a security escort out of work because the supervisor deemed her to be
“threatening the safety of a coworker.” However, overall, when women
showed themselves to be a little unpredictable and volatile, men approached
them with caution and even fear that bordered on respect. The challenge
for the women who displayed their anger was to moderate the anger and
act it out in such a way that the company or union did not intervene with a
mental-health evaluation or discharge, while still getting the attention of
coworkers and the employer so that they knew the women were serious
and would not tolerate the abuse and harassment anymore.
DON’T ROCK THE BOAT

Not rocking the boat meant working within the existing system. The
challenge for the women of not rocking the boat was advocating for them-
selves and assuring recognition for doing a good job while not drawing
undue attention to themselves as women. This meant establishing that they
were there as qualified workers doing the job, not as women out to show
that women could do the job. It meant not doing anything that was per-
ceived as “causing trouble.” This might mean that they had to compromise
or endure discrimination and harassment, particularly in the short run.
Not rocking the boat made day-to-day life at work with coworkers easier
and often increased the likelihood of promotions or accommodations. The
women I interviewed recommended this as a beginning strategy for when
women first entered the workplace, but they did not recommend it as a
long-term or final strategy for persistent and personally humiliating dis-
crimination and harassment. This strategy can play a part in women’s
efforts to achieve a balance that enables men to perceive them as reason-
able women who have a right to and deserve the same opportunities as the
men doing the job.
THE ONE-YEAR MARK

During the first year, the women experienced a process of adjusting to the
particular workplace culture while the workplace adjusted to them. They
recommended reserving judgment about the long-term hostility and wait-
ing to make a decision about leaving until a year had transpired. The finan-
cial rewards of enduring this year outweighed the escalated adversity the
women experienced during this time period. Many described the one-year
mark as almost a magical point of passage where they found that the culture
of the workplace had changed toward including or accepting them and that
they had changed and acculturated to the workplace and coworkers.
HUMOR
This was the most common strategy women used to confront and com-
municate the unwelcomeness of coworkers’ hostile behaviors and comments.
It was also the most highly recommended strategy. Although humor was
the medium, the message underlying the humor was strong and assertive.
When using humor it was important not to be mean-spirited or threatening.
Iris described it this way:
Sometimes, I’ll actively put myself in a situation where I can make a fool out of
myself. And that’s really actively rolling over and showing my belly. And then I’ll
just laugh at myself about it. “Ha, ha, look what I did.” I’ll poke fun at them some-
times too. That’s another way, and I can get away with that the vast majority of the
time. Sometimes I’ll say something completely ridiculous, wait for one beat while
they’re trying to figure out what’s going on, and then I’ll crack up. And sometimes
I’ll just poke fun directly at them, wait for a beat again, and crack up. And that
makes it really clear that I’m engaging at the level of humor. That’s my mainstay,
I think. And it worked with those guys.
Humor was a safeguard for the vulnerability and hurt that confronting
discrimination and harassment potentially exposes. Additionally, the
women’s use of humor included being able to laugh at themselves, par-
ticularly if they had trouble performing the job. Humor did not involve
telling sex-based jokes or condoning cruel joking toward coworkers, which
are to be avoided. Humor was a way of letting the harasser or offender
know that the woman was aware that the man was behaving “badly” or
unacceptably but that it was not cause for, and that they would not engage
in, an altercation.
TALKING THE TALK

The women found that it was important to be able to “talk the talk” of
the guys. For many women the first challenge was to be able to name and
discuss the tools and skills of the job, which they were often unfamiliar
with prior to their employment at that workplace. Additionally, talking the
talk included casual conversation about traditionally male topics such as
cars and mechanics, but it did not include responding to flirting or conver-
sations about sex. The women indicated that it clearly did not mean talking
“trash.” In fact this strategy specifically meant not being involved in talk
about sex; it was about establishing that the women could talk about the
things that men talk about with the exception of sex, thus setting a clear
boundary.
EAT, DRINK, AND BE MERRY

Social interaction, with personally set limits, at breaks and lunch and
outside of work resulted in increasing respect and improved interpersonal
relationships for the women. It was also a venue to learn and understand
the human side of the men. At times, the benefits went further, providing
an opportunity for the women to understand the men’s position and moti-
vation for sex-based hostile behavior, based on how they acted generally in
social situations. The women saw not only how the men treated the women
socially, but also how the men treated the other men they worked with. The
women were also able to see how the men treated restaurant and service
workers in public and just passersby.
Socializing was usually done on the men’s terms and in activities of
interest to men (e.g., eating doughnuts on breaks, having a few beers after
work, sharpshooting, eating or talking in the truck on the way to the site,
or just eating lunch together). It often took weeks, months, or even years
for the women to be invited to join the men on breaks or at meals.
Being invited and included in the social activities of meals and breaks
during work hours was a right of passage. It also included being invited to
join the men after work for happy hour. These were not activities and
events to which the women were invited as dates or for sex-based relation-
ships; the women were invited as peers and coworkers. As noted in previ-
ous chapters, in the early days on the job, many of the women were
subversively or overtly excluded from joining men at meals and for recre-
ational activities. Accepting these invitations led to more increased colle-
giality, support, and camaraderie with coworkers.
CLOTHING AND APPEARANCE

Many employers require workers, including the women, to wear uni-
forms and protective clothing. In other jobs the uniform is optional. The
women’s uniforms usually consisted of attire that was fashioned for men
and that was often unflattering to women. This clothing not only protected
women from job-task hazards, but also serves to reduce their visibility as
a “woman” and sex object. Most women felt that the less feminine the
dress, the less visible they were and the less vulnerable they were to
coworker hostility.
Many of the women suggested wearing the uniforms even if they are
optional. In order to express or establish their femininity through physical
appearance, women might use nail polish or makeup. However, caution
was recommended in any assertion of femininity in physical appearance
while on the job. Moreover, many of the women felt that their femininity
was best asserted through their language and actions, not clothing and
appearance. Many of the women recommended displaying a feminine
physique on weekends and off the job, as a way to leave their work behind
and differentiate themselves in and out of work.
MENTORS
Women benefited from finding and learning from mentors. Mentors can
be either a man or woman. Based on a mentor’s experience within the
workplace, mentors advised women on negotiating the organizational
structure, developing the skills of the job, and dealing with interpersonal
problems with coworkers, including supervisors. Over time and as the
women advanced in their skills and jobs, the mentors had the potential to
and usually did change. A woman may find that she has multiple mentors
who help her understand and negotiate the workplace, including in deter-
mining what is business as usual and what is discrimination or harassment.
Mentors are extremely important for guiding women through the bureau-
cracy and giving them a heads up on the best way to deal with unfamiliar
and difficult coworkers and situations.
SUPPORT FROM OTHER WOMEN

As stated, many women were either hesitant to seek support from other
women or devoid of opportunity. Some of the women recommended seeking
out other women and developing supportive relationships with them. Other
women provided reasonable checks and collective support for doing the job,
negotiating the organization, and dealing with coworker problems. In instances
where women did seek the support of other women, the outcomes were posi-
tive, although at times threatening to the men. Collective support and collec-
tive action were probably the most underdeveloped, disregarded, and
underutilized strategies for intervening with sex-based problems at work.
For some women, this strategy was difficult to enact or not an option;
these women had chosen the jobs they did so they that they would not have
to deal with other women, and they preferred to keep it that way. However,
for these women, paradoxically, they avoided working with women, but
were eager to get support and feedback from other women outside of work.
This was particularly apparent when during the interviews, they were very
focused on how their situations compared to those of the other women I had
interviewed. This points to the need to facilitate and advocate for women
to work together and support each other.
MENTAL-HEALTH THERAPY AND

EMPLOYEE-ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
For personal problems that affect job performance, companies regularly
provide and recommend mental-health counseling and employee-assistance
programs. Many of the women experienced anxiety, depression, post-

traumatic stress reactions, and physical problems that were brought on by
the psychological and social stress of sexual harassment and employment
discrimination. These problems affected their ability to concentrate and
learn the skills required to perform their job. The harassment created “a lot
of insecurities and a lot of self-doubt” in their ability to do the job. These
problems affected the women’s job performance. Beth said,
It’s very distracting. And then it’s hard to focus on your work you’re trying to learn.
I had found that [to be a] very difficult thing to put out of my mind and try to concen-
trate. It’s affected my concentration. And it’s affected my training and my work.
These women sought help through their employee-assistance programs and

mental-health professionals, and most of them found that they were having
normal reactions to extreme or abnormal situations. With the help of pro-
fessionals, the women learned ways to help themselves and deal with the
men and hostility and discrimination at work. One women explained,
I’m getting help and going through therapy and going to a counselor. I think she has
made me see some of the strengths that I didn’t know I had. And having stuck it out
is one of the big strengths that I never even noticed. Just going into work every day
seems to be a big effort, but we do it. I’ve done it. And . . . I guess I’m pretty proud
after all this. You know, it’s quite an accomplishment when you don’t want to be there
sometimes. And to be able to sit is such an effort, and I find it coming easier now, now
that I have a little more self confidence. . . . It’s just that we were so insecure.
The women then learned to move from being victims to sticking up for
themselves. When they did stick up for themselves at work, it was key to
have the therapist to validate their actions and techniques and support them
if there was a backlash. Learning that they were having normal reactions
and that they were not “crazy” was in and of itself healing and empower-
ing. Additionally, the mental-health professionals, if informed, played a
role in helping the women understand what was illegal, what was unjust,
and what was their overreaction to normal interpersonal conflicts. For the
most part they were not overreacting, and work posed hostile and injurious
threats to their mental health and happiness.
LEADERSHIP
Women who assumed leadership roles, both formal and informal, were
personally empowered and earned the respect of their coworkers. The
women took on such leadership roles by becoming mentors to other work-
ers (both male and female), confidantes, union stewards or executive board
members, or representatives to company initiatives and committees. These

were volunteer positions and usually required time and effort outside of the
scheduled work hours. The roles utilized the women’s organizational and
interpersonal skills and, in many cases, their caretaker skills. The entrance
into some leadership roles was as forthright as being elected the union
steward. Other starts to leadership roles were as informal as being asked to
file union grievances and then filing the charges against the company for
violations of the union contract with regard to both men and women.
All of these leadership roles diminished the women’s isolation within
their work groups. The experiences also provided positive or proactive vis-
ibility. Leadership opportunities extended into women’s trades and profes-
sional groups in the community where they could meet, support, and
advocate for workers beyond their own personal workplaces. Formal lead-
ership roles were highly recommended because they not only benefited the
individual woman but also increased the visibility of women as positive
and valuable members of the workforce, members who not only could
perform the job, but also could enhance the workplace for others.
EDUCATION
Continuing formal education empowered the women personally and
professionally. Education included furthering knowledge and skills in the
same trade, acquiring skills in a new occupation, or working toward an
academic degree. Education in this sense refers to furthering knowledge
and working toward accreditations outside of work (as compared to taking
advantage of company or union on-the-job training).
The attainment of education led to occupational choices. In some
instances, it was a way to retrain in another field that the women had real-
ized an interest in because of their experiences in blue-collar workplaces.
For example, Chris went on to earn her master’s in social work after being
the employee-assistance program representative for her workgroup.
For others education was a matter of retraining in a field with similar
compensation, but without the constant blue-collar, sex-based workplace
hostility experienced by the women in this study. Mary explained,
I would leave. I mean, I’m just hoping that I can get my education and get out.
For example, Claire, the painter, went to school to become a dental hygien-
ist. Once she had completed her education, she then felt it was her choice
and decision as to whether to paint or work as a hygienist. She chose to do
both. For these women it was the adversity on the blue-collar jobs that
mobilized them to further their education.
Education was empowering and moved the women from being victims
dependent on the workplace to being independent persons making a choice.
It should be noted that even after completing further education, the women
often choose to continue in the traditionally male job because of the satis-
faction and personal benefits derived from the combined security and chal-
lenge of jobs in the skilled trades\. What was different was that they now
had a choice.
COMPANY TRAINING AND APPRENTICESHIPS

Companies and unions offer training programs and skill-development
opportunities that are particularly advantageous for women who often
enter the jobs with less skills and confidence than their male coworkers.
Particularly when affirmative-action plans advantage their acceptance into
these programs, women enroll and subsequently benefit from participa-
tion. By applying for the program, women established their intent to remain
and advance in the trade. By attending the training, they increased their
skills. By completing the training, they put coworkers and managers on
notice that they had attained and were proficient in their trade.
TAKE NOTES/KEEP RECORDS/DOCUMENT

Keeping records and copies of notes and journaling about experiences
were ways the women documented the experiences and identified ongoing
and pervasive hostility. They recommended that women keep a calendar
and record the who, what, where, and when details of when they experi-
ence discrimination and support at work. Since their companies were doc-
umenting job performance, it was also helpful for these woman to keep a
file with copies of papers that they knew were in their employee files.
A personal journal with narratives of difficult or egregious situations and
personal insights was also helpful. These records became a way for the
women to look back and see the patterns and pervasiveness of problems at
work. It was a way to see and track the pervasiveness and progression or
regression of the hostile environment. Additionally, the women had what
they needed should they ever decide to file an EEO discrimination claim.
LEARN COMPANY POLICIES AND WORKERS’

EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
As stated earlier, the women were aware that what was going on at work
and how they were being treated was “not right.” However, it was through
learning the company policies and their legal rights that they became
empowered and could verbalize and describe their problems as illegal or as

policy violations. Common questions the women asked themselves included
these: “Is he really within his authority?” “Is it grievable?” “Can the union
help with this?” “Is this just me or is it illegal?” Knowing company policies
required knowing more than just EEO polices. Company policies that helped
women mitigate the hostile work environment included job descriptions,
evaluation criteria and procedures, documents on training and promotional
opportunities, and policies on family leave, health care, and disability. Com-
pany policies were often different from federal and state policies.
Knowing what actions were violations and what actions were permissi-
ble in the company according to policy enabled women to show when situ-
ations were wrong and unjust; they could show that the problems were not
just results of the women’s overreacting, having unrealistic expectations,
or being “crazy.” Complaints previously regarded as “whining” or as mere
perceptions became legitimate complaints about wrongful or illegal acts.
The women needed to understand two categories of policies:
employment-discrimination policies and employment policies (including
the union agreement). By knowing company policy inside and out, women
were able to advocate for themselves and demand the benefits of work
with authority and confidence. Knowledge yielded power.
FILING GRIEVANCES/UNION INTERVENTION

Overall, women had a positive experience when they elicited support
through union intervention. The union, although usually male-dominated,
was a protective policing agent of the workplace. The unions were effective
in intervening with both coworkers and the company. In the case of sex-
based harassment and discrimination, filing a grievance was often preferred
over an EEO claim, since it addressed claims of harassment and discrimina-
tion without the “sex-based” label, thus allowing the women to avoid the
stigma of filing a sex-based claim. However, the women warned that this
strategy of turning to union representatives (e.g., the steward) must be
approached with caution, since the good guys–versus–bad guys dilemma
experienced among coworkers applied to peer union reps; union protec-
tions could be compromised or clouded if the union rep is a “bad guy.”
Once a grievance was filed, the woman had to be subjected to the due
process afforded both her and the “alleged” perpetrator. There were no
special protections for victims of sexual offenses like those that have
become customary in sexual-assault cases in public courtrooms. Cathy
described the situation.
But the union, of course, will come with the supervisor. They’ll sit in . . . now
Labor Relations gets in to it. What they do is they come out and they sit you down
together . . . so you have to face the perpetrator. You’re in a room with him. And
basically then, it’s your word . . . You’re saying, “Okay, this guy did this.” And
this guy’s like, “No, I didn’t.” Then, the company’ll say, “Well, prove it.” Or
someone along the line says, “Prove it!”
For the most part, the women recommended dealing with harassment
through the union if there is no charge of a sexual nature. But sexually
based offenses are probably better addressed in the public venue where
there are procedures and experts accustomed to such violations.
FILING EEO CLAIMS

EEO claims could be filed within the company, with state human-rights
commissions, or with the federal EEOC. Most of the women had not even
considered such a filing. Many of the women, after considering filing a claim
as a way to mitigate discrimination or harassment, refused to do so. Many
potential personal costs and benefits had to be weighed. For the women who
did file, the filing placed them in opposition to the company and often to
coworkers. They became threatening. However, they felt like they had done
the right thing and felt esteemed for having stuck up for themselves and
other women who were having the same and similar problems.
Overall and in the long run, filing an EEO claim gave the women a sense
of vindication, social justice, self-advocacy, and personal power. It usually
did not stop discrimination against them or eradicate the hostile environ-
ment. Often, the experience of filing was emotionally debilitating, and it
resulted in the loss of their jobs (constructive discharge) or in their electing
to leave the job voluntarily to move on to a less hostile environment. On
the other hand, for some women, once they had endured one filing, they
felt empowered and were more likely to consider subsequent filings. The
women’s filing, in many cases, did benefit other workers at that workplace
experiencing similar discrimination or harassment or did result in new and
different employment policies and practices.
But filing an EEO claim was to be approached with caution and counsel.
The women filing were instigators of change and advanced equal employ-
ment opportunity and awareness, but at great personal price and with little
or no personal reward. In looking back, they thought they did the right
thing but were not always sure it was worth it or that they would do it again
if the situation presented itself.
LEAVING THE JOB

Ultimately, when the workplace harassment and job interference by
coworkers were too pervasive, when the company was hostile or
unaccommodating, and when equal employment opportunities and

protections were not enforced or accessible, the women left. Mary deter-
mined that,
You might be able to deal with one man in an office of 10 that is going to bother you,
but when you are dealing with 95 percent with that mentality, there is nothing you
can do about it. In my eyes, all you can do is leave.
Of the 17 women involved in this study, five years after the interviews, at
least half had left traditionally male blue-collar occupations to pursue other
careers. Some of them had compromised either for lower pay or for less
occupational satisfaction in order to be subjected to less sex-based hostility.
Others had planned their exit and had become educated or trained in alter-
native occupations that offered similar benefits, pay, and personal challenge
with the expectation of less discrimination and pervasive workplace hostil-
ity. The unfortunate part of this was that most of them still wanted to do the
job and receive the compensation of the blue-collar job they had left
behind—but the personal costs were just too high. According to Claire,
You think it’s gonna get better. You think something will change when you’re in
the midst of it. You just hope it will get better because nobody wants to make the
drastic change of changing their job or having to look for a new job because that’s
very stressful. But then there comes a point where it’s just too much, and it’s
easier to go and get another job and leave the stress. There’s a point where the
stress of living without a job is less than what you’re living with at your job. I think
that’s makes the breaking point, so that when it hits, it’s time to go!
CONCLUSION
None of the women used all of these strategies or endorsed all of these
strategies. In fact, individual women not only found some of these strate-
gies unsuitable, but also found them offensive and objected to their use.
The use of these strategies by individual women (and men) should be the
result of consideration of the culture and environment of the specific work-
place and the values, spirit, and nature of the woman electing to use them.
Although these strategies were employed and suggested by women in
blue-collar, traditionally male jobs, I believe and propose that these same
strategies offer universal options and possibilities for all workers, both at
work and out of work. These strategies are a gift from these women, who
have negotiated adversity on the job daily, to workers in general who expe-
rience adversity on the job and are replete of solutions.
Because these strategies were not the focus of this study, I am proposing
this list as exploratory and not as complete. I suggest further study, explora-
tion, understanding, clarification, expansion, and documentation of these

strategies and their utility, particularly in relation to informal and formal
protections afforded to women workers. A comprehensive handbook for
women workers would be useful and affirming and would serve to inform
workplace relationships for both genders. What is clear is that many options
exist to provide women with the opportunity to continue on the job, do the
job, and get paid the higher wages of traditionally male jobs. These strate-
gies point to the ways individuals can extend equal employment opportu-
nity for themselves.
Chapter 12
MITIGATING THE HOSTILE WORK

ENVIRONMENT: CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Compiling statistics and reviewing court cases does not tell the story or
impact of Title VII. But talking to the workers, particularly the workers
who have challenged the status quo to work in some of the most challeng-
ing, physically demanding, and economically rewarding jobs, gives us
insight into their lives and our own. It allows us to reconsider and extend
equal opportunity in employment both personally and as a society.
These interviews with 17 women in a variety of blue-collar jobs
traditionally held by men show that women endure persistent hostility,
discrimination, and harassment at work. The hostility, discrimination, and
harassment not only come from interactions with coworkers, but also
extend across the workplace and into women’s homes and communities.
The women endure these difficulties in order to obtain pay, benefits,
challenges, and job satisfaction that exceed what they would receive in
comparable traditionally female jobs.
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS
From the interviews with 17 women in traditionally male blue-collar
jobs, prominent and consistent themes emerged to frame and extend an
understanding of work and the workplace. These themes can be summarized
as occupational choice and hiring practices; job performance, training, and
evaluation; employers’ policies, compensation, and supervision; and
interpersonal relationships between the sexes. The following is a brief
summary of the findings from the interviews.
Occupational Choice and Hiring Practices

The decision to enter a male-dominated blue-collar workplace is part
of a complex matrix of social, economic, and personal needs and capa-
bilities. Women’s preparation was limited, support was critical, and
self-determination was crucial. The women’s decisions were based on
their assessment of their ability to do the job and probability of being
hired. It was a long process and the result of a series of life events and
influences.
Preparedness for jobs starts with early socialization (i.e., with the family
and public education), making each woman’s circumstance different. The
women were aware of their families’ role in preparing them for and famil-
iarizing them with job opportunities and their interests in those jobs. Early
preparation for traditionally male occupations included being exposed to
the skills of the job, a general ability to negotiate adversarial relationships
with men, and an orientation to union, management, and labor relations.
The composite message derived from their family, schools, neighborhoods,
and communities ultimately encouraged or discouraged their pursuit of
jobs in male-dominated workplaces.
A woman’s decision to pursue a particular traditionally male blue-collar
job required knowledge that such a job existed, confidence that in some
way or on some level she could do the job, empowerment to apply for the
job, fulfillment of the minimum requirements, and determination. Beyond
these factors, most of the women benefited from affirmative hiring policies
or nepotism and, moreover, from the drive that came from pursuing a
dream to do what they loved most. But each woman had to overcome
obstacles in order to procure the job. Determination was an essential com-
ponent of the hiring process for all the women.
The job-application process usually presented overt and covert obsta-
cles. Women usually only heard about job opportunities from men they
were in contact with (family and friends). In applying and interviewing,
the women often perceived that they were less qualified and less prepared
to perform the job than men. This, coupled with overt and covert attempts
by male employers not to hire women, made it less likely that women
would be hired into traditionally male blue-collar jobs.
The women were aware of and sought out the skills, pay, benefits, and
security afforded workers in traditionally male jobs. The jobs were attrac-
tive to women from the varied socioeconomic, racial, and cultural back-
grounds represented in this study (although there was limited diversity
among the women interviewed). Women chose to enter these occupations
at different stages in life. The commonality was not the demographics of
the women, but the attraction to working in a numerically male-dominated
MITIGATING THE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 175
work group and to the combined job description, skills, and higher com-
pensation and benefits offered.
Some of the women were attracted to the jobs because they would be
entering workplaces where they would be the only women there, because
they were male dominated workplaces. Some wanted to work only with
men and other wanted to be pioneers and pave the way for other women.
As the workplaces changed and women were known to work in tradition-
ally male jobs or work sites, other women were more likely to notice and
apply, thus changing the composition of the workplace.
Examining the reasons for women’s decisions to enter workplaces dom-
inated by men and the factors involved with their entering helps lead to an
understanding of why the number of women in these jobs is so low and
some of the factors that contribute to the pervasiveness of the hostile work
environment. Further, to look at the reasons why these women choose
these jobs is to begin to understand why others might not. The reasons
begin accumulating long before the first day of work and the hostile envi-
ronment surpasses the boundaries of the workplace and spreads into the
family, neighborhood, community and larger society.
Job Performance, Training, and Evaluation

The jobs were physically demanding and required specific job skills.
Training and performance measures used an established male standard.
Work sites were often unsafe and dirty and lacked sanitary facilities and
required specialized clothing and equipment. Job performance involved
the ability to perform tasks and provide services, ensure personal safety,
and manipulate the work environment under challenging and often
adversarial conditions. The acquisition of these three abilities resulted in
women performing jobs that were rewarding both to them personally and
to the employer. The rewards of a job well done included recognition,
compensation, and the satisfaction of the successful production of goods
and services.
Although the required and desired product, service, or outcome of doing
the job is the same for men and women, how that job is done and what
personal assets and accommodations are required is often different for
women than for men when performing traditionally male blue-collar jobs.
This study demonstrates the need for flexibility in accommodating women
at work. Universal standards used to assess job performance, though appar-
ently neutral, were male-based. The women utilized skills of negotiating,
planning, caring, protecting, and assuring safety that were beyond the rec-
ognized skills necessary for the job. Existing measures, particularly of
traditionally male blue-collar jobs, overlooked, devalued, or negated the
strengths, personal qualities, and skills of individual women workers.

In many instances, these assets increased job productivity, making them an
appropriate consideration for evaluating overall job performance.
Promotions, training opportunities, and compensation were tied to being
able to perform the jobs as the men did. When women divulged creative or
different methods of performing jobs to coworkers or supervisors, they
opened themselves to ridicule or even devaluation. Women often had to
exceed the performance levels of male coworkers in order to counter the
preconceived expectations of coworkers and supervisors that women were
not as capable as men of performing the required tasks. Ultimately, the
women had to fit in and perform as the men, meeting both the written and
the unwritten male-based traditional expectations for job performance, in
order to receive the compensatory and promotional rewards of work.
Employers’ Policies, Compensation, and Supervision

Blue-collar, traditionally male jobs offer women pay, benefits, security,
and opportunities that often exceed those available to women in tradition-
ally female jobs. These benefits result in retention of women workers, who
strive to improve and excel in performing the work. Desirable employment
benefits cited by the women included pay, health care, retirement, senior-
ity, and union representation. Attractive employment opportunities
included alternative schedules, education, training, apprenticeships, pro-
motions, and union protections. These same factors, when not sensitive or
responsive to the life cycles and personal needs and aspirations of women,
become the reasons women leave such jobs.
The women interviewed entered their jobs with limited training and in
entry-level positions. They took advantage of many employer-offered ben-
efits that allowed them to develop more advanced work skills and obtain
promotions and increased pay. Education, training, affirmative action, and
union protections provided opportunities to mitigate and rise above dis-
crimination and barriers to equal employment opportunity. Formal written
employment policies helped reduce sex-based employment discrimination
and served as markers and guides for women determined to remain on the
job and advance in the organization—the policies were a road map.
For the most part, the existing employment policies and benefits of tra-
ditionally male blue-collar jobs supported women’s personal, social, and
economic needs. The jobs offered the women more pay, benefits, and secu-
rity than traditionally female jobs—and often more than the women’s hus-
bands or partners received from their jobs. One of the only downsides of
traditionally male jobs as compared to some traditionally female jobs cited
by the women was that the jobs requiring rotating shifts or spontaneous
overtime did not accommodate responsibilities for small children. How-

ever, child-care for many of the women was a shared responsibility with
the child’s father, making this a family’s, not a woman’s, employment
problem.
Most of all, the advantages and disadvantages of policies varied from
woman to woman because each woman had her own personal, family,
career, and social needs and individual aspirations and responsibilities.
Policies that were problems for some women were attractive policies to
other women. The impact of employment policies varies more according
to individuals’ life-cycle stages than according to the sex of the worker.
The workplaces were structured so that women’s access to promotions
and seniority and even her ability to remain on the job were dependent on
the women’s relationships with their supervisors. Supervisors were the
first line of management representing the company and enforcing com-
pany policy. Supervisors affected women’s pay in that they controlled
distribution of overtime, they affected women’s access to promotions and
training because they evaluated job performance and submitted recom-
mendations, and they policed job interference among the coworkers who
were facilitating or encumbering women’s ability to perform their jobs.
Because the supervisor had power over the women’s access to sought-
after compensation, benefits, and promotions, an adversarial supervisory
relationship had the double impact of the interpersonal problems of a
hostile male-female relationship and the issues inherent in a hierarchical
power-based gatekeeper relationship.
Negotiating work relationships with supervisors was often difficult and
challenging. Supervisory relationships involved the simultaneous negotia-
tion of a relationship with the supervisor as the representative of the orga-
nization (as an institution) and a relationship with the supervisor as a
coworker (as an individual), making the relationships with supervisors
important, complex, and at times problematic. Supervisors were the gate-
keepers of available benefits, compensation, and opportunities; they were
responsible for policing coworker harassment and interference; and more-
over, their personal treatment of the female employees significantly
impacted the women’s workplace environment; supervisors set the tone
for the workplace environment. Their tolerance of harassment dictated
whether coworkers and the general atmosphere would be hostile, neutral,
or friendly and welcoming to women.
Interpersonal Relationships at Work between the Sexes

Relationships with male coworkers were the overriding contributing
factor to these women’s day-to-day personal and persistent hostile work
environments. The women categorized men into a dichotomy of good guys

and bad guys. This dichotomy was so clear and divisive for the women that
they were able to classify male coworkers without hesitation into one of
the two categories. Good guys were men who welcomed and supported
women in nontraditional jobs. Bad guys were hostile and prohibited or
inhibited women’s job performance. A man is either a good guy or a bad
guy at any one time; however, over time and as the women develop skills
and relationships with individual male coworkers, those male coworkers
can shift from one category to the other.
Among the most pervasively hostile situations were those in which the
women worked in isolated, small work groups where male coworkers directly
supported or interfered with the women’s ability to perform their jobs. In set-
tings such as these, the men who threaten, harass, and jeopardize the safety of
the women go undetected. These 17 women’s experiences indicate that men
are aware and capable of welcoming and nonoffensive behavior toward
women at work and that women come to understand men’s behaviors toward
them and identify who is a good guy and who is a bad guy.
The women determined whether they were dealing with sex-based
harassment and discrimination by comparing the way they were treated by
male coworkers to how male coworkers treated the following people: other
male coworkers, other women in the same jobs in the same company, sec-
retaries in the same company, women in similar jobs in the same company,
women in similar jobs in other companies, the men’s own wives. From
these comparisons the women derived their own understanding of how a
“reasonable woman,” as compared to a “reasonable person,” was treated in
that workplace. The women used both the reasonable-woman and the
reasonable-person standard to determine whether behavior was pervasively
hostile.
The women described a continuum of positive and negative behaviors
and treatment that they received from male coworkers. Negative treatment
included the range of hostile behaviors of assault, job interference, verbal
harassment, and devaluing competency. Welcoming behaviors included
mentoring; being nice, helping, and caring; and showing respect. At work
the women were always on guard for threatening and hostile actions by
male coworkers. Bad guys displayed negative behaviors. Good guys were
attributed with welcoming behaviors.
The women’s stories show that, in many cases, when women work in
traditionally male workplaces they encounter assault, harassment and job
interference, all of which can represent physical harm or the threat of
physical harm. Although still unwelcome and hurtful, they often accept
devaluing of their competency and verbal harassment (either as individuals
or workers) by coworkers because the treatment no longer places them at
risk for direct physical harm.
Women who are supported, mentored, and respected by coworkers are

often able to overcome the obstacles, discrimination, and adversity they
encounter. They are satisfied with being treated nicely and are able to con-
centrate on their job performance. Mentors provide support and guidance
for the women to develop skills and integrate into the work group. With
this support women are able to perform the jobs and comply with company
policies and procedures. This results in a welcoming workplace.
It is at the point of respect that the workplace is no longer sex-based.
When the women are treated with respect, they are accepted into the work
group based on their job performance and not on their sex. The women
aspire to be treated with respect, although it is not their expectation.
The women interviewed suggested strategies that they used to mitigate dis-
crimination, harassment, and denied employment opportunities. These strate-
gies can help build a supportive workplace and allow women to perform their
jobs with diminished interference. The women interviewed recommended
many solutions and strategies for dealing with (1) employers’ discriminatory
practices and policies and (2) coworkers who interfere with job performance.
The benefit of these strategies is that they enable the women to negotiate a
work environment for themselves that is tolerable, if not welcoming, to the
point that they can perform their jobs, pursue promotion, and receive com-
pensation. Conceptually, the women are financing their personal enforcement
of equal opportunity in employment when they are compensated by being
able to remain on the job and perform the job over the long haul.
Strategies suggested by the women based on their experiences included
the following: set clear limits with coworkers; change attitudes; use humor;
be smart while playing dumb; talk the talk of the men; socialize with the
men; adapt male or neutral clothing and appearance; find and use mentors;
file grievance and utilize union protections; seek and develop support from
other women; get mad or be “unreasonable”; assume positions of leader-
ship; pursue further education; take advantage of company training and
apprenticeships; allow one year to assess, adapt, and adopt the workplace
culture; file EEO claims; and finally, leave the job. None of these strategies
were recommended by all the women. The use of one strategy or another
must take into account personal choice, personal style, assessment of the
possible consequences and benefits, and the feasibility of the strategy
mitigating the problem under the specific circumstances.
TITLE VII AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY
Analysis of the perspectives and experiences of the women interviewed
generated three key findings in response to the issues raised by Title VII
case law.
1. The pervasively hostile work environment that exists for women exceeds the
limited case-law definition of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2. The use and development of a reasonable-woman standard based on women’s
performance of the job and women’s assessment of sex-based hostile behavior
and policies results in improved and increased worker productivity, efficiency,
and effectiveness.
3. In order for women to have equal employment opportunity, employment poli-
cies and practices must exceed the passive protections inherent in standing
equal-rights legislation and policy.
The Hostile Work Environment

“Hostile environment” as referenced in Title VII protections is a term
referring to the sexual harassment of employees. Using “hostile environ-
ment” to refer only to sexual harassment artificially bounds and limits con-
sideration of experiences of female workers. The term only refers to a
small and limited range of the behaviors that create a pervasively hostile
environment for women at work. When a person or a class of people are
capable of doing a job, seek to do that job because it offers compensation
in excess of the compensation offered by the jobs that they traditionally
perform, and are deterred from those higher-paying jobs because of
employment policies and coworkers’ actions, a pervasively hostile envi-
ronment results that violates the protections of Title VII.
The hostile environment experienced by these interviewed women at
work overshadowed the personal satisfaction and welcome challenges
offered by traditionally male blue-collar jobs. Such environments are a
result of employment policies that disregard women’s competing per-
sonal responsibilities imposed by their dual labor role as family caretak-
ers and employees or paid workers; employers’ failure to recognize
women’s alternative abilities to perform the job; employers’ or cowork-
ers’ denial of opportunities to women for occupational development and
promotion; harassment and discrimination imposed by coworkers and
reinforced by supervisors and employers; and community and family
disregard and discouragement of the women’s pursuit and capabilities to
perform these jobs. The extent of this pervasiveness is evidenced not
only through the interviews but also by the fact that after more than
40 years and despite EEO policies, additional legislation and endless
litigation, the number of women employed in nontraditional jobs remains
low and the wage gap between male and female workers remains. Women
have made little representative advancement as workers in nontradition-
ally male blue-collar jobs and generally are disadvantaged in the
workplace in general.
Employment discrimination is a pervasive social problem. The sex-

based hostile work environment is not confined to the workplace but spans
women’s life experiences including within family, education, legislature,
and communities. The overriding social message is that women do not
belong and cannot succeed in traditionally male blue-collar jobs. In order
to counter this message, proactive affirmative actions and policies need to
be implemented and enforced. Women need messages, support, and
encouragement that span our society in order to mediate the prevailing
sex-based hostile environment of employment.
The Reasonable-Woman Standard

In Harris v. Forklift (1993) the Supreme Court held the reasonable-person
standard in determining employment discrimination and more particularly
sexual harassment. This book has considered employment opportunity and
discrimination in the context of the reasonable-woman standard as
described in Ellis v. Brady (1991). As with “the pervasively hostile envi-
ronment,” the reasonable-woman standard must be extended from applica-
tion to sexual harassment to the broader context of job performance and
employment discrimination, both in disparate treatment and impact.
The perspectives of the women interviewed reveal that women per-
form work differently, value the rewards differently, and have different
expectations of coworkers than men do. Based on the findings of this
book and the perspectives of the women interviewed, I support the
reasonable-woman standard over the reasonable-person standard for
evaluating and determining the existence of job interference and employ-
ment discrimination. The use of the reasonable-woman standard not only
benefits the victims, but also benefits the employers and coworkers by
offering insights for alternative and improved work conditions, practices,
and policies.
Considering job performance and the context of work from women’s
perspective points to the need for employers to be flexible in evaluating,
defining, compensating, and developing policy. Flexibility does not mean
diminishing the quality or quantity of work performed. It does not mean
defining work in such a way that jeopardizes the completion of the tasks
and production of the goods and services. It does not mean that employers
need to sacrifice efficiency or profitability in order for women to work in
traditionally male jobs. Rather, such shifts allow women to bring skills and
abilities that are comparable, compensatory, and complementary to the
skills and performance of the men while at the same time allowing work-
ers to respond to and meet their multiple, and often competing, personal
and work responsibilities.
Women’s standards and understandings of workplace discrimination

and harassment have (1) offered suggestions for accommodations to many
workers with other abilities and (2) resulted in workplaces that reduce the
risk of all workers to unsafe and hazardous situations. Many of these solu-
tions accommodate not only women’s but also men’s physical and mental
abilities, particularly as imposed by divergent age, size, or physical
disability.
As was demonstrated in this book, female workers will compensate,
persevere, and push personal limits in order to perform the job and meet
evaluative criteria; however, in order to meet the established male stan-
dards and avoid embarrassment and ridicule, women often hide their cre-
ative strategies. The reasonable-woman standards described in this book
particularly address the value that women place on caring for customers,
employing coworkers’ assistance in physically strenuous tasks, and adher-
ing to safety procedures. This book has pointed to the value of difference
and the perils and limitations of rigid standards and doing work as it has
traditionally been done by men doing “men’s work.” Resistance to a
“woman’s standard” denies employers the benefits of increased productiv-
ity and improved safety that result from modifying work procedures to
incorporate women’s strategies and skills.
A reasonable-woman standard would require that workers’ performance
on the job be evaluated using multiple measures, including comparison to
written standards, coworkers’ performance, coworkers’ feedback, supervi-
sors’ feedback, and self-assessment, based on noted improvements over
time. No single evaluation is sufficient.
Employers and organizations can design workplaces that meet the needs
of women and that welcome capable and qualified women. Through incen-
tives, compensation, promotional opportunities, training, collective
bargaining, and good supervision, employers can assure women’s job per-
formance and longevity. However, the policies and structures that have been
designed for men doing the job must be reconsidered, not just applied to
women. Retention of women workers is significantly impacted by employ-
ment policies that accommodate dual family and work demands. Though
these responsibilities are not unique to women workers, they are often an
overriding concern of women. These accommodations are not sought at the
expense of job performance but rather are requested in order to enhance and
ensure job performance.
Further, just as there are differences between the men and women, this
study found that there were differences among the women as to the mean-
ings that women ascribe to seemingly similar behaviors among men and as
to what different women found acceptable and unacceptable. As stated by
Henrietta Moore, there is no “universal” category of women. Extensive
and further exploration, using feminist qualitative methods, into what

different women find “reasonable” is recommended to understand the
meaning of behaviors among and within the genders. The very nature of
the phrase “reasonable standard” is problematic in that it implies that a
person who does not conform and adhere to that standard is unreasonable.
It diminishes, if not negates, the relevance of context and the impact of
pervasive hostility on the reaction of individuals to offensive and discrimi-
natory situations.
As attorneys compile evidence and structure their cases and arguments,
they should not only use a gender-first lens, but should also avoid universal
standards and form a matrix of difference and discrimination in experience
(Collins, 1991). Key individual differences to be considered are race, class,
age, ethnicity, and familial status. Additionally, the cultures and norms of
individual workplaces should be investigated. What is expected, usual,
hurtful, destructive, and beneficial must be understood to vary at each
workplace. However, this workplace specific culture should not and can
not be misconstrued to excuse or allow treatment, policies, or practices
that deny employment or lead to a hostile environment for workers. These
are the questions that need to be answered: why do workers stay, and why
do workers leave? Are these reasons different with regard to categorical
groups? The defining of “reasonable” would benefit from incorporating
standpoint theory, inductive analysis, symbolic interaction (exploring
meanings, not just events), participant observation, and feminist in-depth
interviewing. Although this is an extensive undertaking, most litigation
takes years and the costs are prohibitive. A qualitative investigation of an
individual case or workplace would be efficient and effective in compari-
son. The findings might result in worker retention, expedient out-of-court
settlements, and mediation.
Expanding Equal Employment Opportunity

Policy and Practice
From work, women seek (1) to maximize pay and compensation by
(2) performing challenging and achievable jobs that are (3) free from inter-
ference and obstructions by employers and coworkers. Though the work-
place provides the arena, the hostile environment that supports or limits
the opportunity extends beyond the workplace into the family and com-
munity. Strategies and interventions to mitigate the hostility are available
at all levels of society. As demonstrated in the functional policy analysis of
Title VII, pursuing equal employment opportunity in the courts is costly
both in time and in money; is destructive to the woman, the coworker, and
the employer; and is inaccessible.
Women in this study were aware of the basic rights afforded them by
Title VII. However, discrimination and opportunity were addressed through
a much broader context including, but not limited to, the ancillary legisla-
tion reviewed in chapter 3. Equal employment opportunity must be consid-
ered in a broader policy context. Reliance on additional employment
policies for challenging discrimination (1) expanded opportunities to under-
stand, contextualize, and confront discrimination and (2) moved the focus
from sex-based to worker-based discrimination. This was illustrated by
women’s being able to file harassment grievances with the union against
supervisors under the provisions of NLRA and negotiated bargaining agree-
ments, rather than file Title VII violations that require evidence of sexual
harassment and sex-based discrimination. Though the predominant policy
and case-law findings center on Title VII at this time, there are multiple
policies that protect women workers. These policies need to be integrated
and understood as part of comprehensive equal employment opportunity.
As protective policies of the early twentieth century demonstrated,
women’s employment policy must be considered with a critical eye since
seemly well-intentioned policies may in fact limit instead of extend oppor-
tunity for employment. This study points to the value of analyzing and
evaluating the impact of the policies based on the experiences of the
women. Functional policy analysis may provide an objective delineation
of the policy and its provisions, but through the descriptive analysis pro-
vided by qualitative study, we can assess and modify policy by adding the
human factors of experience and meaning. Policy needs to be continually
reanalyzed, and our understanding of that policy needs to be continually
reconstructed from the understandings and experiences of the persons the
policy is designed to serve.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXPANDING EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN
Policy Implications and Recommendations

Sex-based discrimination and harassment at work have little to do
with blatant or physical sexual behavior but instead are about the denial
of economic opportunity through behaviors, words, and policies directly
and implicitly predicated on male dominance over women in the
workplace. Employment policy that provides for equal employment
opportunity has opened doors for women’s entry into nontraditional
jobs. However, as indicated by the findings of this study, affirmative
action and other proactive training and employment policies are neces-
sary in order to counter the adversarial situations and discrimination
that women encounter in the hiring, performance, and promotional

processes of work.
This study affirms the positive benefits of affirmative action. Affirmative
action as policy extends the passive provision of equal employment oppor-
tunity by including the preferential hiring, training, and promotion of
underrepresented classes. This study indicates that this preferential
treatment in many cases only tips the scale toward equal opportunity.
Women are discouraged both directly by employers and coworkers and
indirectly through socialization and the larger community from pursuing
these jobs and promotions. With affirmative action, a publicly provided
policy with ramifications for denial, women begin to consider contesting
previously foreboding employment positions and situations.
Equal should not and can not be confused with, misconstrued as, or
limited to meaning “same.” Comparable worth allows us to move forward
to consider and quantify truly equal pay for work of equal value. Although
Title VII and the Equal Pay Act were clearly not intended to legislate
equality, as clarified and reinforced by the courts, this study supports the
standard that focuses on individual effort, capability, skill, and perfor-
mance as a standard for equal pay, not just a comparison of two individuals
performing the same job. This study supports making two standards for
equal pay: (1) the individual as central to the test comparing two jobs and
(2) the job as central comparing two individuals. One standard is myopic
and further disadvantages women workers. Sex-based discrimination in
employment can not be eradicated until we construct and use a standard of
comparable worth as the standard for equal pay.
Further, these interviews revealed that many women were employed and
trained in traditionally female jobs but that the pay and compensation for
these jobs was less than the pay and compensation for male occupations. In
some cases, the women indicated that if they could receive the same pay for
female occupations, they would undoubtedly work in female occupations,
diminishing the day-to-day aggravation they experienced working with men.
This truth is further validated by the fact that so many of the women were
pursuing education and training in order to qualify them for jobs with com-
parable pay that were not blue-collar and that were more typically female
(e.g., social work, human resources, dental assistance, and sociology).
The women in this study shifted between female jobs and male jobs.
They chose traditionally male jobs that provided significantly greater
income and benefits without having to obtain any additional skills in most
cases. When hired, they received the same compensation and same job
evaluations as the men through protections in union agreements. These
women demonstrated that women are capable of doing the work and can
perform in either male or female jobs.
These women are comparable individuals (a comparison can be made of

the same woman between when she is working one job and when she is
working another) without comparable worth because the same person
receives starkly different pay in different jobs. By comparing the individu-
als and their perceived abilities and preparedness, we can rethink and
reconceptualize value and compensation. We can investigate because we
are able to control for cultural messages, institutional discrimination,
effects of history, and other extraneous influences that maintain job segre-
gation and the gender wage-gap. These women provided proof that there
is no equal pay without consideration of comparable worth.
Much of the attention regarding women’s employment discrimination has
focused on sexual harassment. Recent court decisions of notoriety include
Harris v. Forklift (1993) and Oncale v. Sundowner (1998). Women in non-
traditional jobs negotiate hostile actions from coworkers on a daily basis.
They do this to attain the economic rewards of jobs that include dealing with
the harassment, and there is a level of acceptance of this as business as usual
and as an obstacle to overcome. It is when these actions cause physical harm
through direct violence or unsafe work conditions or when they restrict
women’s ability to perform or achieve in the workplace that women no lon-
ger feel the behavior is acceptable. As stated, women prefer to be treated
with respect but often are satisfied with being treated nicely or just being
allowed to do their jobs. Policy that holds employers accountable and focuses
on harassment that either covertly or overtly interferes with job performance
would diminish employment discrimination. I suggest policies that couple
employer liability with a broadly defined standard of “job interference” to
mitigate work-site interpersonal harassment.
Presence of equal employment opportunity is not the result of one
employment policy, legislative act, or court decision. The composite of
policies and legislation cited in the functional social-policy analysis
addresses the prominent discriminatory and threatening sex-based employ-
ment problems that women working in traditionally male blue-collar jobs
face. Women’s work experiences demonstrate the need for policy that pro-
tects workers of both sexes from unsafe, violent, and oppressive work-
places that deny them the economic and social rewards of work. This kind
of policy is needed because of the pervasiveness of sex-based employment
discrimination and because the protections for women benefit workers of
both sexes and other negatively impacted classes of workers (e.g., workers
of certain races, ethnicities, ages, and disabilities).
Because of the multiple and competing problems and responsibilities
of women workers, proactive and protective employment policies that
mitigate the pervasive hostility of discrimination against women are
required. These policies include safety, benefits, family leave, employer
liability, fair-labor standards, collective bargaining, and equal employment

opportunity. Particularly salient are policies that consider and extend
affirmative action (E.O. 11246), training programs (WANTO), comparable
worth considerations, and prohibitions on discrimination in education
(e.g., Title IX). The composite effect of the legislation cited in the functional
policy analysis frames the opportunities, problems, and discrimination faced
by women working in traditionally male blue-collar jobs.
Litigation
This study affirms most of the case-law findings as described in the pol-
icy analysis. I particularly affirm that employment discrimination includes
practices of disparate impact and disparate treatment and advocate that
employers be held responsible for policing their workplace. One contradic-
tion of existing case law is this study’s finding that the reasonable-woman
standard is the more appropriate test for discrimination and harassment.
Once policies are in effect to protect and provide for women’s employment
opportunities, the problem of access to enforcement and remedies surfaces.
The women in this study were often aware that they had experienced illegal
discrimination, but there was little indication that they ever intended to pur-
sue it in the courts. Women have the legal opportunity to speak out in the
courts because of rights to equal employment opportunity and the other work-
ers’ rights and protections afforded them. But seeking legal redress requires
lawyers who can work within the established “male” framework and legal
system of the courts and synthesize the sex-based discrimination experiences
of women through a gender-first lens. In interviewing clients, collecting evi-
dence, and structuring arguments, lawyers should apply many of the feminist
interviewing techniques described in the methods of this study.
Further, I would like to point to the fact that there is a schism between the
legal language and the way women protected by the policy talk. At no time
during the interviews did the women use the words “hostile,” “reasonable
woman,” or “victim.” The women described experiences reflective of all these
concepts, and their combined experiences have provided definition for this
policy analysis; however, the courts’ and legislatures’ language is not their
language. There is a need to conduct studies and analysis that bridge this gap
between the policy makers and the targeted populations. Sally described her
reading of a legal employment-discrimination claim she was filing this way:
It just didn’t sound like what I said, but I was told that that was how it had to be
written, so I went along with it.
I recommend that lawyers expand their filings to include multiple legis-

lations, as many as may be implicated in the denial of EEO, and that the
evidence collected be broad with particular attention to the broad nature of

the hostile environment and insidious nature of “pervasive.” This book can
serve to open conversation and help women reconsider the workplace in
deciding whether their situations are “unjust” or “illegal.” It can help them
to articulate their experiences based on similarities and differences between
their situations and the situations of the women interviewed in this book.
Filing of Title VII claims depends on accessibility of EEOC. Federal
agencies that enforce the provisions of employment legislation, particularly
the EEOC, are not adequately funded, staffed, aggressive, or geographi-
cally accessible to represent the women whose civil rights are violated.
Further, many women have been the victims of multiple illegal employ-
ment practices that violate multiple laws. There is not one place where they
can go to sort through and file suit. Workers need to be informed of all their
rights and need to investigate the expanse of possible violations.
Pursuing a Title VII case is usually beyond women’s financial means.
Women experiencing discrimination start incurring not only the costs of
litigation, but also quite likely reduction in pay and benefits for work,
brought on by the consequences of speaking out and perusing their rights.
Funding for women seeking to invoke their rights needs to include monies
for payment of all out-of-pocket expenses and legal costs of the litigation.
Having to wait until the case is settled for monetary reparation limits—and
in many cases makes impossible—enforcement of Title VII.
Employers’ Responsibilities and Opportunities

The workplace, through policies and actions of employers and employ-
ees, is the pivotal location for delivery of equal employment opportunity
for women. Employers set the workplace policies, practices, and tone that
are the hinge pins for equal employment opportunity for women. Consistent
with the Supreme Court findings, this study finds that the employer is the
party responsible for providing and enforcing Title VII protections and
that enforcement or perceived enforcement results in welcoming, produc-
tive workplaces.
Not only can employers protect and preserve women’s rights, but
through the adoption and implementation of policies and practices respon-
sive to the needs of women, workers in general can also operate in a more
effective, efficient, and mutually accommodating manner. The following
suggestions, based on the findings of this study, are recommended for
employers:
• Employers need to model, require, and enforce equal opportunity and welcoming
workplaces for women. This includes enforcing policies against both blatant
sex-based discrimination and sexual harassment. Supervisors in particular need

to be held responsible. As demonstrated by Beth’s change of supervisor, a zero-
tolerance policy can quickly ameliorate coworker hostility and improve worker
productivity.
• Employers who allow for flexible and innovative ways of performing jobs and
work can maximize the individual skills and qualities of workers for all employ-
ees, not exclusively women. Moreover, these accommodations, when applied to
all workers, acknowledge and draw on the benefits of individuals’ limitations
and variations in work style.
• Employers and workers would benefit from application of a strengths-based
model for designing and assigning work. Rather than viewing differences as
deficits, this model operates by looking beyond gender and other constructed
categories of workers. It involves moving away from universal standards to
flexibility and accommodation aimed at efficiency, increased productivity,
and increased job satisfaction for workers. In implementing this strengths-
based model, supervisors and employers need not compromise either
requirements that workers perform the job or the safety of coworkers, and
this manner of handling work should result in increased productivity and
worker safety.
Women Workers
Ultimately, it is up to the women to negotiate and mitigate the sex-based
hostility of the workplace if they want to do the job and receive the eco-
nomic rewards of that work. The protections provided through public pol-
icy and workplace policy provide a framework for determining reasonable
expectations of how much interference and hostility is tolerable. Through
accessing collective action, education and training programs, and leader-
ship opportunities and by employing multiple mitigating strategies, women
can negotiate and perform even in jobs where they are blatantly unwel-
come. Though workplace behavior and policies that demonstrate or imply
that women are unwelcome are illegal and unjust, such situations are often
the reality.
The assertion and negotiation of workers’ rights is often confusing,
overwhelming, of great personal cost, and even dangerous. Becoming
informed about legal protections and talking with other women in the same
or similar situations enable women to define their situations as contribut-
ing to the illegal, pervasively hostile environment as opposed to being just
personally unfair. Networking with similarly situated women allows them
to draw on other’s experiences. Finding a mentor at work, getting support
from other women, learning company policy, and knowing their work-
place rights are ways for women to empower themselves and build personal
foundations for mitigating the hostility.
FINAL WORDS
After more than 40 years, we are only beginning to experience the
impact of Title VII. It is possible and probable that the court is done with
much, if not most, of its contribution to clarifying the intent of the act. The
major work now is that of employees asserting their rights and demanding
equal opportunity in welcoming and productive workplaces, which can
result shifts in the social, economic, and labor-force opportunities for
women workers.
Blue-collar women in traditionally male jobs provide language,
examples, definition, and solutions for thinking about equal employment
opportunity. They expose the painful, cruel, and abusive side of work.
They tell us what and who are supportive.
Title VII benefits both women and men, both employers and workers.
For the most part the provisions of the policy and the subsequent court
decisions support women workers’ opportunities, advancement, and secu-
rity at work, factors that extend to affect the women’s families and com-
munities. However, women continue to experience both subtle and overt
discrimination. Day-to-day work life is difficult, and the workplace is hos-
tile and discriminatory to them socially and economically. They continue to
earn less, and women are segregated into lower-paying jobs than men.
The day-to-day problems experienced by individual women workers go
beyond the existing definitions and understandings of employment
discrimination and equal opportunity, as clearly shown in human terms in
these compelling stories and insights of the women employed in the most
pervasively hostile and discriminatory workplaces. Their experiences offer
strategies for mitigating and alleviating discrimination, for increasing
opportunity, and for making the workplace more welcoming and produc-
tive overall.
Although we have made strides, we still have a long way to go in achiev-
ing equal opportunity in employment for women. Each of us has a role to
play. Each of us can contribute as individuals or act collectively. Ultimately,
each of us can contribute to making the workplace more welcoming and
productive.
APPENDIX : NONTRADITIONAL
OCCUPATIONS FOR
WOMEN IN 2001 1
(DOL, 2004)
Employed Employed Percent
Occupations Both Sexes Women Women
Metalworkers and plastic workers, all other 423 103 24.3
Dishwashers 267 64 24
Chief executives 1,680 392 23.3
Security guards and gaming surveillance 798 181 22.7
officers
Dentists 167 37 22.2
Announcers 54 12 22.2
Chiropractors 73 16 21.9
Network systems and data communications 312 68 21.8
analysts
Job printers 65 14 21.5
Supervisors, protective service workers, all 89 19 21.3
other
First-line supervisors/managers of police 133 28 21.0
and detectives
Detectives and criminal investigators 121 25 20.7
Precision instrument and equipment 53 11 20.7
repairers
Network and computer systems administrators 190 39 20.5
Helpers—production workers 64 13 20.3
Farm, ranch, and other agricultural managers 199 40 20.1
(Continued)
1
Nontraditional occupations are those in which women comprise 25 percent or less
of total employed.
191
Crushing, grinding, polishing, mixing, and 111 22 19.8
blending workers
Engineering technicians, except drafters 416 82 19.7
Butchers and other meat, poultry, and fish 304 60 19.7
processing workers
Printing machine operators 195 38 19.5
Chefs and head cooks 299 57 19.1
Barbers 101 19 18.8
Paper goods machine setters, operators, and 53 10 18.9
tenders
Industrial engineers, including health and 177 33 18.6
safety
Supervisors, transportation and material 220 39 17.7
moving workers
Baggage porters, bellhops, and concierges 70 12 17.1
Coin, vending, and amusement machine 54 9 16.7
servicers, and repairers
Laborers and freight, stock, and material 1,797 290 16.1
movers, hand
Chief engineers 63 10 15.9
Motor vehicle operators, all others 57 9 15.9
Transportation, storage, and distribution 241 36 14.9
managers
Couriers and messengers 293 43 14.7
Chemical processing machine setters, 63 9 14.3
operators, and tenders
Radio and telecommunications equipment 235 32 13.6
and installers repairers
Police and sheriff’s patrol officers 664 88 13.2
Painting workers 191 25 13.1
Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 277 36 13.0
Parking lot attendants 77 10 13.0
Material moving workers, all other 55 7 12.7
Construction and building inspectors 104 13 12.5
Computer hardware engineers 96 12 12.5
Surveying and mapping technicians 80 10 12.5
Parts salespersons 147 18 12.2
Cleaners of vehicles and equipment 316 38 12.0
Broadcast and sound engineering techni- 92 11 12.0
cians and radio operators
Computer, automated teller, and office 369 44 11.9
machine repairers
First-line supervisors/managers of farming, 59 7 11.9
fishing, and forestry workers
(Continued)
192
Civil engineers 293 34 11.6
Refuse and recyclable material collectors 81 7 8.6
Service station attendants 120 10 8.3
Engineers, all others 283 23 8.1
Electrical and electronics engineers 343 27 7.9
First-line supervisors/managers of 227 18 7.9
landscaping, lawn service, and grading
Industrial truck and tractor operators 530 40 7.5
Sales engineers 41 3 7.3
Grounds maintenance workers 1,280 91 7.1
Other installation, maintenance, and repair 239 17 7.1
workers
mechanics, installers, and repairers
Railroad conductors and yardmasters 58 4 6.9
Pest control workers 75 5 6.7
Construction managers 851 54 6.3
Painters, construction and maintenance 719 42 5.8
Mechanical engineers 311 18 5.8
Engineering managers 106 6 5.7
Water and liquid waste treatment plant and 56 3 5.3
systems operators
Fire fighters 268 14 5.2
Aircraft pilots and flight engineers 118 6 5.1
Helpers, construction trades 121 6 5.0
Welding, soldering, and brazing workers 572 28 4.9
Telecommunications line installers and 142 7 4.9
repairers
Cabinetmakers and bench carpenters 86 4 4.6
Security and fire alarm systems installers 65 3 4.6
Crane and tower operators 65 3 4.6
Driver/sales workers and truck drivers 3,276 147 4.5
Machinists 445 20 4.5
Maintenance and repair workers, general 300 12 4.0
Sheet metal workers 152 6 3.9
Industrial and refractory machinery 434 16 3.7
mechanics
Aircraft mechanics and service technicians 135 5 3.7
Electric motor, power tool, and related 56 2 3.6
repairers
Millwrights 59 2 3.9
Tool and die makers 86 3 3.5
Logging occupations 92 3 3.3
Construction laborers 1,234 40 3.2
(Continued)
193
Highway maintenance workers 96 3 3.1
Electronic home entertainment equipment 68 2 2.9
installers and repairers
Automotive body and related repairers 169 4 2.4
construction trades and extraction
workers
Electricians 781 765 2.0
Carpenters 1,764 33 1.9
Carpet, floor, and tile installers and 268 5 1.9
finishers
Structural iron and steel workers 66 1 1.5
Heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration 351 5 1.4
mechanics and installers
Automotive service technicians and 936 12 1.3
mechanics
Operating engineers and other construction 367 4 1.1
equipment
Roofers 269 3 1.1
Pipelayers, plumbers, pipefitters, and 635 6 0.9
steamfitters
Drywall installers, ceiling tile installers, 213 2 0.9
and tapers
Stationary engineers and boiler operators 105 1 0.9
Brickmasons, blockmasons, and 239 2 0.8
stonemasons
Electrical power-line installers and repairers 120 1 0.8
Bus and truck mechanics and diesel engine 325 2 0.6
specialists
Cement masons, concrete finishers, and 115 0 0
terrazzo workers
Miscellaneous vehicle and mobile 91 0 0
equipment mechanics,and installers
Dredge, excavating, and loading machine 80 0 0
operators
Small engine mechanics 58 0 0
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unpublished data,

Annual Averages 2004, Current Population Survey.
NOTES
CHAPTER 1: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

FOR WOMEN
1. Contradicting the Ellison v. Brady (1991) reasonable-woman standard, in
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993) the U.S. Supreme Court
reverted to the reasonable-person standard.
2. Sixteen of the 17 women were white and of European descent. There was
one African American woman. Two women held dual northern European and
United States citizenship. Four women described themselves as being of Italian
descent, two as being of Irish descent.
3. Judicial analysis and case law interpret policy based on the experience of
one person or one class of people (as in a class action). Judges, courtrooms, and
the legal process are often intimidating and inaccessible to socially, politically,
and economically disadvantaged persons, particularly women. The judicial pro-
cess is deductive in that a plaintiff files a suit based on a claim of a violation of
rights, and then the prosecution and defense work to prove the allegations valid or
invalid. The process requires the plaintiff to identify as a victim, and it subjects
women (and their families) to public visibility and scrutiny. Although women in
traditionally male blue-collar jobs have played an active role in informing employ-
ment policy through the courts, including by filing litigation that has resulted in
standing case law, cases are won and lost at great financial, occupational, time,
and personal costs to both employer and employee.
CHAPTER 3: UNITED STATES

EMPLOYMENT-DISCRIMINATION LAW
1. Children are defined as being under the age of 16, or age 18 when working
hazardous jobs.
196 NOTES
2. The labor force is defined as all persons age 16 and over working or looking
for work. A person is employed if he or she is working for pay; working in his or
her own business or profession or on his or her own farm; or working 15 hours or
more per week as an unpaid worker in a family-operated enterprise (DOL, http://
www.dol.gov/wb/stats/main.htm, accessed April 3, 2005).
3. In response to this issue of equality versus equity, affirmative action was
implemented (E.O. 11246, section 202).
4. As a result, the Pregnancy Disability Amendment to Title VII was passed,
mandating that women affected by pregnancy and childbirth be treated the same
as workers with any other medical disability.
5. Comparable worth is equal pay for work of equal value. It addresses the
gap in wages between sex-segregated jobs and works towards quantifying compa-
rability of value in different jobs (e.g., maintenance workers and secretaries). For
a more complete discussion of comparable worth, please refer to Remick (1984)
and Acker (1989).
6. The Supreme Court, although not required to, has tended to endorse the
standards established by 1980 EEOC guidelines.
7. Considering a review of the available studies, this wide range appears to be
more a result of divergent definitions and methods of determining prevalence than
a result of differences in women’s experiences. For the purposes of this qualitative
inductive study, prevalence will be neither debated nor determined at this time.
8. All of the women interviewed in this study cited violations of the provi-
sions of Title VII, yet they avoided navigating and pursuing their rights through
this delivery system.
9. Title VII established the EEOC to administer the provisions of the act. This
administrative federal agency serves a gatekeeping function for Title VII and
other employment-discrimination violations. EEOC operates 50 field offices
across the United States with the number of full-time employees ranging from a
high of 3,390 in 1980 to 2,544 at the end of fiscal year 1998. EEOC sets policies,
reviews complaints, and provides technical assistance and outreach education,
and per the 1972 Amendment of Title VII, it can file lawsuits against suspect
employers. The gatekeeping function is further expanded by the fact that com-
plainants cannot sue in court without a right-to-sue letter issued by the EEOC.
The guidelines for filing complaints are specific and time-limited. Individuals
who do not comply lose their rights to pursue litigation.
10. EEOC is responsible for processing complaints for all charges filed under
Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Age
Discrimination Act. Of the 79,591 charges filed in the fiscal year 1998, Title VII
sex-based complaints accounted for 30.7 percent, and complaints under the Equal
Pay Act accounted for 1.3 percent (EEOC, 12/29/98).
CHAPTER 4: PATHWAYS TO EMPLOYMENT

1. Even the requirement of a high school education must be necessary for job
performance as determined by the courts (Griggs v. Duke Power Co. [1971]).
NOTES 197
CHAPTER 5: THE HIRING PROCESS

1. Nepotism is defined as preferential hiring, compensation, and promotion
practices based on familial relationships. It must be noted that for this purpose,
family is defined in the sense of traditional and legally recognized family relation-
ships. In the case of male-dominated jobs, this has often been defined even more
specifically to mean male-to-male relationships, or passing on of privilege par-
ticularly to subsequent generations (e.g., fathers to sons, uncles to nephews, and
so on).
CHAPTER 6: ON THE JOB, DOING THE JOB

1. That the handbook considers the occupations held by these women to be
traditionally male jobs is further evidenced by a review of the photographs of
workers performing their jobs in the Occupational Outlook Handbook. Photo-
graphs of men at work represent all the jobs held by the women in this study.
2. The acquisition of skills on the job through informal on-the-job training
and apprenticeship is characteristic of blue-collar jobs.
CHAPTER 8: GATEKEEPERS TO OPPORTUNITY

AND PROTECTORS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
1. I did not talk with supervisors about their responsibilities and vulnerabilities
in a workplace where sexual harassment was likely if women were introduced.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acker, J. (1989). Doing comparable worth: Gender, class, and pay equity.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Anderson, M. L., & Collins, P. H. (1998). Reconstructing knowledge: Toward
inclusive thinking. In M. L. Anderson & P. H. Collins (Eds.), Race, class,
and gender: An anthology (pp. 1–5). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An intro-
duction to theory and methods. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Occupational outlook handbook (Bulletin
2500). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). Women in the labor force: A data book. Retrieved
February 6, 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook.2005.pdf.
Cherry, F., McIntyre, N., & Jaggernathsingh, D. (1991). The experiences of Canadian
women in trades and technology. Women’s Studies International Forum,
14(1/2), 15–26.
Collins, P. H. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the
politics of empowerment (pp. 221–238). London: Harper-Collins.
Department of Labor (DOL). (2004). Nontraditional occupations for women in
2004. Retrieved February 6, 2006 from http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/
nontrad2004.htm.
DeVault, M. L. (1990). Talking and listening from women’s standpoint: Feminist
strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problems, 37(1), 96–116.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1980). Uniform guidelines on
employee selection procedures.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1992). Employer information
report EEO-1.
Gates, M. J. (1976). Occupational segregation and the law. Signs, 1(3, Pt. 2), 61–74.
200 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gelb, J., & Palley, M. L. (1996). Women and public policies: Reassessing gender
politics. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Gilbert, N., & Terrell, P. (2002). Dimensions of social welfare policy. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Gutek, B. A., & O’Connor, M. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable
woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), 151–166.
Harding, S. (1992a). After the neutrality ideal: Science, politics, and “strong
objectivity.” Social Research, 59(3), 567–587.
Harding, S. (1992b). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objec-
tivity?” Centennial Review, 437–470.
Harkness, S., & Warren, C. A. B. (1993). The social relations of intensive interview-
ing: Constellations of strangeness and science. Sociological Methods &
Research, 21(3), 317–339.
Hartmann, H. I. (1976). Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs,
1(3, Pt. 2), 137–169.
Hartsock, N. C. M. (1985). Money, sex, and power: Toward a feminist historical
materialism. Ann Arbor, MI: Northeastern University Press.
Hill, A. C. (1979). Protection of women workers and the courts: A legal case his-
tory. Feminist Studies, 5(2), 247–273.
Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2005, August). The gender wage ratio:
Women’s and men’s earnings (fact sheet). Washington DC: Institute for
Women’s Policy Research.
Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. (2nd ed.). New York:
Basic Books.
Kissman, K. (1990). Women in blue-collar occupations: An exploration of con-
straints and facilitators. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 17(3):
139–149.
Lambert, S. J., & Hopkins, K. (1995). Occupational conditions and workers’ sense
of community: Variations by gender and race. American Journal of Com-
munity Psychology, 23(2), 151–179.
Ledvinka, J., & Scarpello, V. G. (1992). Federal regulation of personnel and
human resource management. (3rd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent.
Lee, R. D., & Greenlaw, P. S. (1995). The legal evolution of sexual harassment.
Public Administration Review, 55(4), 357–364.
Lenhart, S. A., & Shrier, D. K. (1996). Potential costs and benefits of sexual
harassment litigation. Psychiatric Annals, 26(3), 132–138.
Lillydahl, J. H. (1986). Women and traditionally male blue-collar jobs. Work and
Occupations, 13(3), 307–323.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex
discrimination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1991). Reflections on sex equality under law. In L. S. Kauffman
(Ed.), American feminist thought at century’s end: A reader (pp. 367–424).
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Mansfield, P. K., Koch, P. B., Henderson, J., Vicary, J. R., Cohn, M., & Young, E. W.
(1991). The job climate for women in traditionally male blue-collar occu-
pations. Sex Roles, 25(1/2), 63–79.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 201
McCarthy, M. M. (1986). Comparable worth: Recent legal developments. Educa-

tional Horizons, 64(3), 109–111.
McIlwee, J. S. (1981). Women’s survival in nontraditional blue-collar occupa-
tions. Frontiers, 6(1/2), 30–38.
Paetzold, R. L., & Shaw, B. (1994). A postmodern feminist view of “reasonable-
ness” in hostile environment sexual harassment. Journal of Business Eth-
ics, 13, 681–691.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social science research. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Scott, J. W. (1990). Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of
poststructuralist theory for feminism. In M. Hirsch & E. F. Keller (Eds.),
Conflicts in feminism (pp. 134–148). New York: Routledge.
Scott, J. W. (1991). Experience. Critical Inquiry, 17(Summer), 773–797.
Scott, J. W. (1993). Women’s history. In L. S. Kauffman (Ed.), American femi-
nist thought at century’s end: A reader (pp. 234–257). Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Tropman, J. E. (1989). American values and social welfare: Cultural contradic-
tions in the welfare state. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Webster’s seventh new collegiate dictionary. (1969). Springfield, MA: G & C
Merriam.
INDEX
Affirmative Action, 62–63, 109–10, Assault, physical and sexual, 146–47,

176, 184–85. See also Executive 178
Order 11246 Autonomy, on the job, 83–85
African Americans, 12, 32, 104 Awards. See Recognition
AFSCME v. State, 34
Age: aging process, 46; coworker Benefits: definition of, 95; discrimina-
relationships, factor in, 137–38; tion in, 95; education, 97–99;
discrimination, 46–47 health care, 60, 96–97; men,
Aid to Families with Dependent compared to, 95; retirement, 99
Children and Job Opportunities Bennett amendment, 34
Act, 24 Bennett v. Corroon & Black Corp, 34
Americans with Disabilities Act, 2, 20 Beth (electric planner), 6, 9–10; on
Angela (construction-union president), age, and deferential treatment, 138;
6, 13; age of, when entering labor age of, when entering labor force,
force, 46; on alternative schedules, 46; on alternative schedules, coping
coping with, 100, 101; on applica- with, 101; on customer interaction,
tion/interview process, 66; on 85–86; on education/training, 98,
education/training, 104; on family’s 103, 104; on environment of
influence, 42, 43; occupational tract workplace, 130; on getting mad/
of, 50; on promotions, earning, 88; being unreasonable, 161; on good
on verbal harassment, 150 guys/bad guys, 131; on harassment,
Application process, 65–66, 174 and job performance, 166; on
Apprenticeship programs, 103–4 independence, 84; on job descrip-
Arizona Governing Committee for tion, 71; on job level of women,
Tax Deferred Annuity & Deferred hostility towards, 140; on nepo-
Compensation Plan v. Norris, 33 tism, 64; occupational tract of, 49;
204 INDEX
on promotions, earning, 105, 106; status of, 47; on mental acuity,

on supervisors’ attitude/influence, 77–78; occupational tract of, 50; on
118–21; on treatment of women pay/benefits, 60–61; on year of
compared to men, over time, 132; birth, influence on, 46
on union seniority system, 108; on Cathy (public utility customer-
verbal harassment, 150–51; on service representative), 6, 11; age
women’s influence on work of, when entering labor force, 46;
environment, 130 on assessment of treatment by
BFOQ. See Bona fide occupational men, 135; on devaluing compe-
qualifications tency, 152; education/training of,
Blue-collar jobs: characteristics of, 1, 52, 98, 104; family’s influence on,
54–55, 60, 69, 70–71, 72, 85, 176; 44; on health insurance, 96; on
economic inequality in, 24–26; mentors, 156; occupational tract
social inequality in, 25–26; women of, 50; on promotions/transfers,
as minorities in, 4, 5 105; on retirement, 99; on union
Bona fide occupational qualifications, stewards, 126
31–32, 33, 46 Chris (state highway-maintenance
Bureau of Labor Statistics. See U.S. crew): 6, 15; on affirmative action,
Bureau of Labor Statistics 62; age of, when entering labor
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, force, 46; alternative schedules,
34 coping with, 101; on boyfriend and
coworker relationships, influence
Carol (postal worker), 6, 17; on age, on, 141–42; on clothing/physical
and deferential treatment, 139; age appearance, 81, 82; on devaluing
of, when entering labor force, 46; competency, 152; education/
alternative schedules, coping with, training of, 51, 53, 103, 167; on
100; on clothing/physical appear- health care, 96; on job description,
ance, 81; on de-skilling, 59; 71; on job interference, 148;
education/training of, 52; on marital status of, 48; on mentoring,
family’s influence, 43–44; on 155–56; on nepotism, 64; occupa-
independence and autonomy, 84–85; tional tract of, 50; on pay/benefits,
on job interference, 147–48; on 60; on physical strength, 75; on
leads for employment, 58; marital treatment of women compared to
status of, 47; occupational tract of, men, over time, 132
49–50; on pay/benefits, 61, 96; on City of Los Angeles Department of
promotions, being warned away Water & Power v. Manhart, 33
from, 105–06; on safety assurance, Civil Rights Act (1991), 2, 20, 22, 33
79; on supervisors’ attitude/ Claire (commercial painter), 6, 15; on
influence, 121–22, 124; on year of age and deferential treatment,
birth, influence on, 46 138–39; age of, when entering
Cassey (nuclear firewatch), 6, 15–16; labor force, 46; on application/
age of, when entering labor force, interview process, 65–66; on
46; on job description, 71; on leads clothing/physical appearance, 77;
for employment, 58–59; marital on comparisons to secretaries, 135;
INDEX 205
on devaluing competency, 153; Disparate treatment, 32, 187

education/training of, 53, 98, 167; DOL. See U.S. Department of Labor
on good guys/bad guys, 130–31; on (DOL)
independence, 84; on leads for
employment, 58, 64; on leaving the Earnings. See Pay
job, 171; on mental acuity, 77; on Education, 50–52, 167–68, 176.
nepotism, 64–65; on promotions, See also Title IX, Educational
earning, 87, 88; on safety assur- Amendments of 1972
ance, 78–79; sexual orientation of, EEO. See Equal Employment
47–48; on supervisor’s attitude/ Opportunity (EEO)
influence, 123 EEOC. See Equal Employment
Compensation. See Benefits; Pay Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Congressional Record, 27 EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 28–29
Connecticut v. Teall, 30 Ellison v. Brady, 3, 5, 34–35, 181
Coping strategies: anger, allowing for, Employee, defined, 29
161–62, 179; assessment, 162, 179; Employee-assistance programs,
attitude, changing, 160–61, 179; 165–66
company policy, learning, 168–69, Employer: defined, 30; responsibility
179; don’t rock the boat, 162, 179; of, 28, 36–37, 115, 120–22, 188–89
drawing the line, 159–60, 179; Employment laws, 20–24. See also
education/training, obtaining, individual listings
167–68, 179; EEO claims, filing, Environment: hostile vs. abusive,
170, 179; employee-assistance 3–4, 35; Occupational Safety and
programs, 165–66; grievances, Health Act (1970), 2, 20, 21–22,
filing, 169–70, 179; humor, 80; pervasively hostile, 3, 26, 34,
162–63, 179; ignoring comments 35, 40, 129, 180–81, 183; wom-
and behavior, 160; leadership, en’s visibility in, influence on,
assuming role of, 166–67, 179; 129–30
mental-health therapy, 165–66; E.O. 11246. See Executive Order
mentoring, 165, 179; playing 11246
dumb, 161, 179; quitting, 170–71, EPA. See Equal Pay Act (EPA)
179; recording experiences, 168; Equal Employment Opportunity
socialize, 163–64, 179; support, Commission (EEOC), 36, 37, 38,
seeking from other women, 165, 188; EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck &
179; talk-the-talk, 163, 179 Co., 28–29; Guidelines for
County of Washington v. Gunther, 34 Employers, 30
Coworkers: good vs. bad, 130–42, Equal Employment Opportunity
178; husbands/boyfriends as, (EEO): filing claims, 170; legisla-
140–41; as mentors, 155–56 tion, 29; purpose of, 1, 2; social
values of, 27–28
Devaluing competency, 151–52, 178 Equal Pay Act (EPA), 2, 20, 21, 27,
Discrimination, sex-based employ- 32, 34, 94, 185
ment. See Harassment, sexual Equal Rights Act, 27
Disparate impact, 32–33, 187 Equal vs. Equality, 28–29, 185
206 INDEX
Evaluation, job performance, 86–90, VII, as a violation of, 34. See also
118 Coping strategies
Executive Order 11246, 2, 20, 21, 62, Harassment, verbal, 148–50, 178
187 Harper v. Trans World Airlines, 33
Harris v. Forklift, 3–4, 5, 35, 40, 147,
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 2, 181, 186
20–21, 32 Hazelwood School District v. United
Family influence, 41–45, 54, 174 States, 33
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Health care, 60, 96–97
2, 20, 23, 99 Hiring process, 57, 174
FEPAs. See State Fair Employment Hishon v. King & Spalding, 30
Practices Administrations (FEPAs) History, personal placement in, 45–46
FLSA. See Fair Labor Standards Act Holthaus v. Compton & Sons, Inc., 33
(FLSA)
FMLA. See Family Medical Leave Independence, on the job, 83–85
Act (FMLA) Individualism, 29
Interpersonal-relationship skills,
Gates, M. J., 37 85–86
Gender composition, 89 Interview process, 65–66, 174
Glass Ceiling Commission, 22 Interviews, of women, 5–8, 173. See
The Good-Old-Boy Network. See also individual name listings
Nepotism Iris (longshore worker/commercial
Gretchen (laborer/carpenter), 6, 17–18; fisher), 6, 16–17; on age and
on affirmative action, 62, 63; on age deferential treatment, 138; age of,
and deferential treatment, 138; age when entering labor force, 46;
of, when entering labor force, 46; application/interview process of,
alternative schedules, coping with, 65; on assault, 146; on attitude
100–01; application/interview changes, 160; on boyfriend and
process of, 65; on clothing/physical coworker relationships, influence
appearance, 82; education/training on, 140–41; on devaluing compe-
of, 53, 98; on leads for employ- tency, 152; education/training of,
ment, 58; on mentors, 155; on pay/ 52; family’s influences on, 44; on
benefits, 61; on physical strength, job skills, 73; on leads for employ-
74–75; on supervisor’s attitude/ ment, 58, 59; marital status of, 47;
influence, 117, 124 on nepotism, 64; occupational tract
Griggs et al. v. Duke Power Co., 32 of, 48–49; on supervisor’s attitude/
Gutek and O’Connor, 35 influence, 121, 124; on verbal
harassment, 149; on welcomed
Harassment, sexual: effects, on treatment, 154
women, 6; examples of, 6; perva-
sively hostile environment, 3, 26, Jobs: descriptions of, 69–72, 176;
34, 35, 40, 129, 180–81, 183; quid interference, 147–48, 178; open-
pro quo, 3, 34, 35; reasonable- ings, learning of, 57–60, 174
person vs. reasonable-woman Joyce (security guard), 6, 10; on
standards, 3, 4–5, 143, 181; Title affirmative action, 62; on age and
INDEX 207
deferential treatment, 138; age of, McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Trans-

when entering labor force, 46; on portation Co., 32
alternative schedules, coping with, Medical staff, company, 96–97
102; on job level of women, Mental acuity, 75–78
hostility towards, 140; on mental Mental health counseling, 165–66
acuity, 77–78; on promotions/ Mentors, 155–56, 165, 179
transfers, 105; on supervisor’s Meritor Saving Bank v. Vinson, 3, 34,
attitude/influence, 118, 124; on 46, 147
treatment of, compared to men, Monotony, 77–78
132; on welcomed treatment, 154 Moore, Henrietta, 182
Nancy (industrial hygienist), 6, 16;

Labor force, defined, 28
age of, when entering labor force,
Labor laws. See individual listings
46; education/training of, 53, 98;
Labor Unions. See Unions
on safety assurance, 79; on
Leave of absence, 101; FMLA, 2, 20,
supervisor’s attitude/influence,
23, 99
122–23; on verbal harassment, 151;
on year of birth, influence on, 45
Management, defined, 116 National Labor Relations Act (1935),
Mansfield, Koch, Henderson, Vicary, 2, 20, 32, 108, 184
Cohn & Young, 4 Nepotism, 63–65, 110–12
Marital status, 47–48 NLRA. See National Labor Relations
Mary (automotive assembly-line Act (1935)
worker), 6, 14; on affirmative Nontraditional occupation, defined,
action, 110; age of, when entering 24
labor force, 46; application/
interview process of, 65; on Occupational Outlook Handbook, 70–
assault, 146–47; on clothing/ 71, 85, 87, 115
physical appearance, 81; education/ Occupational Safety and Health Act
training of, 97–98, 103–04; on (1970), 2, 20, 21–22, 80
employment leads, 59–60; on Occupational tract, 48–50
family’s influence, 42–43, 44; on Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore
getting mad/being unreasonable, Services, 35, 108, 186
161; on husbands/boyfriends and OSHA. See Occupational Safety and
coworker relationships, influence Health Act (1970)
on, 141; on job description, 72; on Overtime: cost of vs. benefit from,
job level of women, hostility 100; discriminatory distribution of,
towards, 140; on married cowork- 94; mandatory, 100
ers, harassment by, 136–37; on
nepotism, 64; occupational tract of, Pay: blue-collar job, in a, 60; compa-
49; sexual orientation of, 47; on rable worth vs. pay, 33–34, 185–86;
treatment of, compared to men, EPA, 2, 20, 21, 27, 32, 34, 94, 185;
133; on union seniority system, husbands, compared to, 95; men,
108; on year of birth, influence on, compared to, 24–25, 61, 94–95,
45–46 185
208 INDEX
Peg (police officer), 6, 11–12; on status of, 48; on mental acuity, 77,
affirmative action, 62; age of, when 78; on physical strength, 75; on
entering labor force, 46; on supervisor’s attitude/influence, 117,
alternative schedules, coping with, 123; on verbal harassment, 150; on
101; on family’s influence, 44; welcomed treatment, 154; on
marital status of, 47; on mental wives’ discrimination, 137
acuity, 76; on nepotism, 64, 111; Sandy (community police officer), 6,
occupational tract of, 50; on 12–13; age of, when entering labor
promotion/transfer, 89, 106, 107; force, 46; on alternative schedules,
on representing the company, 85; coping with, 102; on clothing/phys-
on verbal harassment, 151 ical appearance, 82, 83; on compar-
Personal Responsibility and Work isons to female coworkers, 134;
Opportunity Act (1996), 24 education/training of, 51, 52; on
Physical strength, 73–75, 80 family’s influence, 45; on nepo-
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 2, 20 tism, 111; occupational tract of, 50;
Promotions and transfers, 105–07, on physical strength, 75; promo-
113 tion/transfer, 105; on representing
Protective legislation, 26 the company, 85, 86; on union
Public-relations skills, 85–86 seniority system, 108–9
Scalia, Antonin, 3–4
Quid pro quo, 3, 34, 35 Schedules, alternative, 99–102
Seasonal work, 100–101
Reasonable-person standard, 3, 34–35, Segregation, occupational, 24–26, 33,
143, 178, 181 180
Reasonable-woman standard, 3, 4–5, Seniority system, union, 108–09
34–35, 129, 142, 178, 180–83, 187 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, 22
Recognition, 88–89 Sex, as a protected class, 27
Respect, 156–57, 179 Sexual harassment. See Harassment,
Restroom facilities, 80 sexual
Retirement, 99 Sexual orientation, 47–48
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 35 Skills, job, 72–73
Rotating shifts, 102 Smith, Howard W., 27
Socialization, 139
Safety, 78–80 Social policy, defined, 19
Salary. See Pay Sonja (meter reader), 6, 10–11; age
Sally (truck driver), 6, 13; on age, of, when entering labor force, 46;
influence on accomplishments, 47; on alternative schedules, coping
age of, when entering labor force, with, 94; on comparisons to female
46; on alternative schedules, coping coworkers, 133, 134; education/
with, 100; education/training of, training of, 51–52, 98; on evalua-
52, 53–54, 98–99; on employment tions, 89–90; on job description,
leads, 58; on family’s influence, 43; 72; on married coworkers, harass-
on husband’s influence on ment by, 136; on mental acuity,
coworker relationships, 141; on 76–77; on promotion, earning, 88;
independence, 83–84; marital on supervisor’s attitude/influence,
INDEX 209
117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124; on process, 107–08, 126, 169;
treatment of, compared to men, 132; influence of, 80, 126, 169; NLRA,
on union seniority system, 108, 109; 2, 20, 32, 108, 184; representatives,
on verbal harassment, 150; on role of, 124–26; seniority system,
welcomed treatment, 153–55 108–09; stewards, 125–26; Title
Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 33 VII, restrictions on, 31–32
State Fair Employment Practices United Steelworkers of America v.
Administrations (FEPAs), 36 Weber, 32
States’ fair employment practice laws, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 70
23 U.S. Census Bureau, 28
Supervisors: good/bad, characteristics U.S. Department of Labor (DOL),
of, 117–20; problems with, 20, 24
solutions, 122–24; relationship U.S. House of Representatives, 27
with, 107, 111–12, 126, 177; role U.S. Supreme Court, 37, 73–74, 145.
of, defined, 115–16, 118; work- See also individual case listings
place environment, influence on, Usery v. Tamaimi Trail Tours, Inc., 46
120–22, 126, 177
Valerie (electrician), 6, 14; age of,
Teamsters v. United States, 20 when entering labor force, 46;
Title VII, of the Civil Rights Act of education/training of, 52; on
1964: amendments to, 22, 27, 30; nepotism, 64
complaint guidelines, 30, 37; VAWA. See Violence Against
exceptions to, 31–32, 109; financing Women’s Act (VAWA)
and costs, 38, 159, 188; historical Violence Against Women’s Act
development of, 26–27; protections (VAWA), 2, 20, 22–23
for women, 33–36; provisions of, 1,
2, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 190; WANTO. See Women in Apprentice-
remedy benefits, 35–37; restrictions, ship and Nontraditional Occupa-
30–31; service delivery, 36–37 tions Act (WANTO)
Title IX, Educational Amendments of Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio,
1972, 22, 187 33
Title 29, of the Equal Pay Act, 32 Women in Apprenticeship and
Training: formal, 103–4, 168; Nontraditional Occupations Act
informal, 52–54, 103, 110; (WANTO), 22, 187
self-taught, 104–5 Women’s rights at work, summary of,
Tuition reimbursement, 97–99 39
Workers’ Compensation, 23
Uniforms, 80–83, 164–65 World War II, 45
Unions: bargaining agreement, 107,
124, 126; defined, 124; grievance Yellow Freight System v. Donnelly, 37
About the Author
JEANIE AHEARN GREENE is founder of Ahearn Greene Associates, a

social science research and consulting firm, specializing in social welfare
issues, policy, and advocacy. Previously serving as a process evaluator for
the Montgomery County Homeless Families Initiative and as a Faculty
Research Associate at the University of Maryland’s Bureau of Govern-
mental Research, she has conducted numerous studies and promoted pro-
grams in substance abuse treatment and health care policy, with a particular
emphasis on disenfranchised groups, including women and children. She
has published her research in a wide variety of reports and journals.

(Jeanie Ahearn Greene) Blue-Collar Women at Work W (BookFi)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Jeanie Ahearn Greene) Blue-Collar Women at Work W (BookFi)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Blue-Collar Women at

Work with Men:

Jeanie Ahearn Greene

Negotiating the Hostile Environment

Jeanie Ahearn Greene

The paper used in this book complies with the

1. Equal Employment Opportunity for Women:

11.Negotiating the Hostile Work Environment:

Appendix: Nontraditional Occupations for Women in 2001 191

opportunity and reduce discrimination and harassment, and these changes

As employment discrimination against women has been litigated, the defini-

We believe that in evaluating the severity and pervasiveness of sexual harassment,

The findings of this study are based on interviews with 17 women in a

“We have yet to define what is meant by a hostile environment” (Harris v.

1. What is a hostile environment, and what differentiates a hostile from a wel-

In order to shed light on these two questions, I interviewed women work-

BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN IN TRADITIONALLY

Women in traditionally male occupations encountered significantly more adverse

By focusing on the perspective of these women, we “reconstruct knowl-

from policy discussions. “‘Reconstructing knowledge’ requires a shift in

SEVENTEEN BLUE-COLLAR WOMEN

experience the most pervasively hostile workplace discrimination—women

OCCUPATIONAL DESCRIPTIONS OF WOMEN INTERVIEWED

These interviews began in the mid-1990s with continuous contact through

backgrounds, but in this study their family backgrounds, physical attri-

Seventeen women working in traditionally male blue-collar jobs sat down

BETH (ELECTRIC PLANNER)

JOYCE (SECURITY GUARD)

SONJA (METER READER)

CATHY (PUBLIC UTILITY CUSTOMER-SERVICE

PEG (POLICE OFFICER)

SANDY (COMMUNITY POLICE OFFICER)

ANGELA (CONSTRUCTION-UNION PRESIDENT)

SALLY (TRUCK DRIVER)

MARY (AUTOMOTIVE ASSEMBLY-LINE WORKER)

CHRIS (STATE HIGHWAY-MAINTENANCE CREW)

CLAIRE (COMMERCIAL PAINTER)

CASSEY (NUCLEAR FIREWATCH)

scheduling. Cassey wanted to be interviewed. Like many of the women,

NANCY (INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST)

IRIS (LONGSHORE WORKER/COMMERCIAL

CAROL (POSTAL WORKER)

UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT-

In addition to Title VII protections, women are protected against employ-

ANCILLARY CONTEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT

between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees of the

duty includes a responsibility to recognize and abate hazards of workplace vio-

as a victim of domestic violence, assault, battery, sexual assault, or stalking,

• Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (1996)—this act replaced

TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

The Problem: Lower Pay and Job Segregation for Women

Table 1. 2002 EEO Occupational Employment for Private Industry by Sex

Source: EEOC, 2004, Employer Information Report EEO-1.

qualifications and their needs regarding safety, hours, and scheduling

Historical and Legislative Development of Title VII

employment rights and opportunities afforded to women. Three policy ini-

Underlying Values and Assumptions: Equal, Employment,

1. employment as embodied in the value for work;

A discussion of these three underlying values serves to provide a founda-

Equal versus Equality

occupations may be the result of individual choices, not denial of opportunity.

Opportunity versus Individual Choice

TITLE VII RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS