|
This intention is problematic more for what it masks about gender and change within the workplace that what it says about women and men within the public service. The statistical information provides excellent snapshots of the gender and status patterns over the period under consideration. In particular, the documentation on the first legislated affirmative action program for veterans, following World Wars I and II, is useful in recognizing the origins of a paramilitary subculture within the public service and the increasing dependency of the federal bureaucracy on women, albeit as steno-typists. As well, Morgan demonstrates the deceptiveness of measuring "progress" in the public service by comparing the proportion of female representation to that of men occupying the same senior levels. Such a comparison assumes that equality exists when there are equal numbers of women and men. In comparing data from 1976 to 1985 on the percentage of women and men by level within the hierarchy, Morgan reveals two disturbing trends. The first is that the increase in the percentage of women has been matched by an equal increase in the percentage of men within the executive, senior and middle management ranks. Secondly, over the same time the percentage of men within the non-managerial pool has dropped to be replaced by women. Morgan asks, " Are we heading towards a public service in which the non-management levels will 'belong' to women while the management levels will be divided between men and women, with men always managing to stay one step ahead?" (page 55). Without strong political will and action, the answer is probably yes, given the results of studies by Cynthia Cockburn in Great Britain on gender and changing technology (1). "Human nature" and "blind instinctive opposition" are not adequate explanations of the long-standing historical processes which have sustained the sexual division of labour in all aspects of society and work. As Cockburn notes: "Men have repeatedly proved able to make sideways and upwards moves, re-establishing both horizontal and vertical occupational segregation" (2). , The techniques described by Morgan as used in the 1970s - stonewalling, manipulation of staffing processes, neutralization and intimidation-begin to outline how delaying the progress of women provided scope for regrouping within the male career pyramid. However, the actual practices at work within "creep up" - the term used by Morgan to describe the increasing concentration of men at middle and senior management levels - are not made clear. The "human nature" argument also makes me uncomfortable when it appears to legitimize the sentiments of some men quoted by Morgan. The statements of being "fed up with women" and "making her pay for the others" are not simply the frustrations of demoralized men. They are part of accepted institutionalized behaviour which needs to be named as violence every bit as dangerous as violence in the home. It is also difficult to accept an analysis in which "women" seems to explicitly mean white women only. Morgan calls for changes in the designated group status in which women are a "minority" with other groups: disabled persons, aboriginal people and visible minorities. However "women" can no longer stand in for all women as we learn more about racism within organizations and the double disadvantagement suffered by many. The strength of this book lies in its historical statistical documentation. There are few organizations within Canada that have the quantity of data, as the public service has, which enables us to build our understandings of past and present challenges. Further work needs to be undertaken to more fully draw out the voices and frameworks of analyses. The Equality Game is available in both French and English free of charge from CACSW P.O. Box 1541, Station B, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5R5. Quote report No. 88-S-147. Joan Conway is currently a Ph.D. candidate at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Her thesis is on employment equity.
|
| Back | Contents | Next |