In recent years, the practice of gender-specific job listings has stirred significant debate and controversy in India and around the world. While gender discrimination in the workplace is nothing new, the overt specification of preferred gender in job postings continues to persist, raising concerns about equality and inclusivity. Despite strides towards gender equality, these listings persist, perpetuating stereotypes and limiting opportunities for both men and women. This article explores why such listings exist, the implications they carry, and the steps needed to address this issue.

Gender-specific job listings are not uncommon in various sectors, including but not limited to hospitality, sales, and domestic work. In India, for instance, it is not unusual to see advertisements for positions like ‘female receptionist’ or ‘male security guard.’ This practice is not confined to India alone; globally, job advertisements often carry similar gender preferences.

All trends towards equalization notwithstanding, gender inequalities in the labour market still exist. Broadly construed, there are two explanations for why this is the case.

First, women are treated differently from men within the same jobs, and second, women and men are sorted into different jobs, with lower earnings and fewer promotion prospects in typically female-dominated jobs.

Several perspectives explain why employers discriminate against women. There are two broader categories: (i) cultural perspectives focusing on social norms and gender stereotypes, and (ii) the economic-rational perspective addressing statistical discrimination.

According to cultural perspectives, employers rely on gender stereotypes and gender-differentiated work expectations. Gender inequality is an inbuilt characteristic of work organizations, Of particular importance is the norm of the ‘ideal worker,’ working full-time without family obligations. As women’s work traditionally has been confined to the domestic sphere, this norm would disadvantage women in hiring situations. Even in large, modern organizations, there is evidence that women are held to other standards than men, which might explain the persistence of the glass ceiling in career promotion. When an organizational culture promotes meritocracy (compared with when it does not), managers in that organization may ironically show greater bias in favour of men over equally performing women in translating employee performance evaluations into rewards and other key career outcomes; we call this the ‘paradox of meritocracy.’

When an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favour a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward. The so-called ‘paradox of meritocracy’ implies that top-down directives oriented towards fairness and efficiency seem incapable of neutralizing discriminatory gender attitudes and may even reinforce the adverse effects of unconscious bias. Thus, despite societal trends towards gender convergence, theories about gendered organizations lead us to expect that men have an advantage over women in virtually all hiring processes.

Due to productivity gains and because hiring in itself is costly, employers can be expected to be looking for stable workers. Given that women are more likely to be absent due to family responsibilities, employers would assess men’s productivity higher and discriminate against women, all else equal.

Also, the stereotype is that people tend to perceive men as competent but not warm, and women as warm but not competent. People also perceive male-dominated jobs as requiring more competence and female-dominated jobs as requiring more warmth. Thus, if it is thought that a caregiving job requires warmth and men are thought not to possess much warmth, individuals may expect that a man will not be successful at a caregiving job. By the same logic, employers would form negative performance expectations of women in — for instance —technical jobs. Thus, employers’ gender stereotypes might steer the process of matching jobs and job applicants.

Photo by Luke Jones on Unsplash

The Root Causes: Several factors contribute to the persistence of gender-specific job listings:

  • Stereotypes and Societal Norms: Gender roles deeply entrenched in societal norms perpetuate such listings. Stereotypes dictate that certain roles are more suited to one gender over the other. For instance, caregiving roles like nursing are often associated with females, while security positions are seen as more appropriate for males.
  • Employer Preferences: Some employers may have preconceived notions about which gender is better suited for a particular role based on stereotypes or past experiences. This bias can lead them to specify gender preferences in job listings.
  • Safety and Comfort Concerns: In some cases, gender-specific job listings may arise from concerns about safety and comfort in the workplace. For instance, employers might prefer female staff for roles involving personal care or intimate interactions, citing the need to respect cultural sensitivities or ensure the safety of employees.

Implications of Gender-Specific Job Listings: The practice of gender-specific job listings has significant implications:

  • Reinforcement of Stereotypes: Such listings reinforce gender stereotypes by suggesting that certain jobs are exclusively suited to one gender, thereby limiting individuals’ career choices and perpetuating inequality.
  • Exclusion and Discrimination: Gender-specific job listings can lead to the exclusion and discrimination of qualified candidates based solely on their gender, depriving organizations of diverse talent pools and hindering their ability to thrive in an increasingly competitive landscape.
  • Legal and Ethical Concerns: In many jurisdictions, gender-specific job listings may violate anti-discrimination laws that prohibit hiring based on gender. From an ethical standpoint, they undermine principles of equality and meritocracy.

How to address the Issue: Addressing the issue of gender-specific job listings requires a multi-faceted approach:

  • Awareness and Education: Raising awareness about the detrimental effects of gender-specific job listings and challenging gender stereotypes through education and advocacy are crucial steps towards fostering inclusivity in the workforce.
  • Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Laws: Governments and regulatory bodies must enforce existing anti-discrimination laws rigorously and impose penalties on organizations found guilty of engaging in discriminatory hiring practices.
  • Promotion of Diversity and Inclusion: Employers should prioritize diversity and inclusion initiatives, including unbiased recruitment practices and creating inclusive work environments where individuals of all genders feel valued and empowered. Studies have, however, shown that when men and women work in the same jobs in the same firms, gender differences in earnings are significantly diminished or even eradicated.
  • Encouraging Gender-Neutral Language: Organizations should adopt gender-neutral language in job descriptions and advertisements to attract a diverse range of candidates and signal their commitment to equality.
Photo by Andrew Neel on Unsplash

Despite recent changes, on average, women still have lower earnings and worse career prospects. The reasons could be, first, women and men might sort into different jobs because of their different educational and occupational choices, and their different work–life balance preferences and constraints, all of which accumulate to different employment trajectories and outcomes. This is the supply-side story.

Second, men and women might sort into different jobs because employers discriminate against women, particularly in the best-paid jobs. According to this demand-side explanation, hiring discrimination against women would be an important explanation for women’s labour-market disadvantage.

Gender-specific job listings perpetuate stereotypes, reinforce inequality, and hinder progress towards a more inclusive and diverse workforce. By challenging these norms, promoting awareness, and adopting inclusive practices, we can create a more equitable future where individuals are judged based on their skills and abilities rather than their gender. It is time to dismantle the barriers that restrict opportunities and embrace a truly inclusive approach to recruitment and employment.

References:

  1. “Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Evidence from a Cross-National Harmonized Field Experiment” by Gunn Elisabeth Birkelund, Bram Lancee, Edvard Nergård Larsen, Javier G Polavieja, Jonas Radl, Ruta Yemane
  2. Gendered Organizations in the New Economy: Christine I. Williams, Chandra Muller and Kristine Kilanski
  3. Petersen T., Morgan L. A. (1995). Separate and Unequal: Occupation Establishment Sex-segregation and the Gender Wage Gap, American Journal of Sociology.
  4. The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations: EJ Castilla, S Benard
  5. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: P Glick, ST Fiske – 1996
  6. Cuddy A. J. C., Fiske S. T., Glick P. (2008). Warmth and Competence as Universal Dimensions of Social Perception: the Stereotype Content Model and the BIAS Map, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
  7. Halper L. R., Cowgill C. M., Rios K. (2019). Gender Bias in Caregiving Professions: the Role of Perceived Warmth, Journal of Applied Social Psychology

About the author

Kavitha Pandian

Kavitha Pandian is working in an IT company in the USA as a practice manager. She runs many initiatives including the Save Tamilnadu Farmer, Our Village Our Responsibility, and Adopt a Village and extends financial support and scholarship to underprivileged children for education, and betterment of rural life and has supported the people of Tamil Nadu during major natural disasters including Gaja and Covid. She has received many awards including ‘The Women Achievers Award’ by FeTNA, USA, in 2022. She also was felicitated by the District Collector, Virudhunagar during the 75th Independence Day celebrations, 2022, for her work towards infrastructure.