Woman & Work in the CJS

1. Woman & Work in the CJS How do you define (sex) discrimination? Treating people unequally because of personal characteristics that are not related to job performance Gender specification is used to disadvantage one sex. This is a gender neutral definition What is the typical pattern of sex discrimination – who benefits from discrimination? Sex discrimination has historically revolved around the private vs. public spheres of social life

2. Woman & Work in the CJS Historical Legacy of Gender Relations Restricting Women to the Private Sphere Justified by three appeals: Protection of women as a class: Moral (♀ as purer; ♀ as children) Physical (health hazards, esp. to justify exclusion from ♂ jobs) Motherhood: A woman’s place… Essentialist notions of parenting. Emotion work. Public sphere activities threatens the family. 3. Marriage: Historical reality that single women have possessed more freedom Disparate impact of marriage for ♀&♂’s lives ♀ role in the family has been used to successfully defeat lawsuits aimed at promotions policies that restrict ♀

3. Woman & Work in the CJS Basis for Unlawfulness of Discrimination 1964 Civil Rights Act Title 7 outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, and disability Focused on Large Employers (15 plus full-time employees) Covers a range of benefits of employment: Hiring, Job assignment, Discharge, Compensation, etc. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

4. Woman & Work in the CJS Varieties of Sex Discrimination Sexual Harassment Quid pro quo Hostile work environment Statistical Discrimination The idea that women will reduce profits Less productive workers More expensive workers Deference to the Masses Customers Male workers

5. Women & Work in the CJS Legal Approaches to Addressing Discrimination: Formal Equality Laws All persons be treated identically (gender neutral) Assumes that “neutral settings” work the same for both sexes. vs. Compensating Equality Laws Sex-specific in providing advantages to women in addressing historical exclusion Affirmative Action Compensation unintentionally may affirm sex-based stereotypes Protected Classes & Military veterans Dilemma of Difference

6. Women & Work in the CJS What is token status? Insider vs. Outsider status Despite the fact that a job is an Acquired status, Ascribed characteristics tend to be used to make distinctions between insiders/outsiders. The (deviant/outsider) Ascriptive Status becomes a Master Status (Hughes 1945) This is significant because it is about power; it doesn’t necessarily work both ways in a dominant/subordinate status hierarchy. Examples of this in CJS?

7. Working in the CJS: Juries History of exclusion Hoyt v. Florida (1961) Question is a jury of one’s peers All male jury convicts Hoyt of killing husband USSC affirms conviction of Hoyt Overturned in Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) Rape case with male defendant Voire Dire system of jury selection excluded women in a paternalistic way excluded women in a sexist way Women tend to defer to men in juries

8. Working in the CJS: Attorneys Cultural image of the law as a male domain: Law is logical, rational, impartial, etc. Contra image of women Opportunities in law tied to Suffrage (19th Amend.): Prosecutor & Judgeships are frequently elected positions 1970 1980 1998 Law students 8.5% 33.5% ~52% Attorneys 4.7% 12.0% 26% Twice as likely to not practice after law school

9. Working in the CJS: Judges Gender Processes: Networking, Mentoring, Sponsorship Women less likely to be in private practice Sexism more evident in private practice (immune from policy) Sex segregation in tasks, jobs & assignments Historical roots of Western law: Common Law tradition Stare Decisis Reinforces sexism, racism and classism – relations of power

10. Working in the CJS: Judges Readings: Ch. 29 “Overwhelming Evidence” (Schafran) Gender & credibility of ♀ attorneys Consequences of this credibility issue? Ch. 30 “ Women in Black” Toobin Are women more compassionate? What factors explain a judge’s philosophy of jurisprudence? Adversarial or compassionate nature of judges tied to experience (not gender)

11. Working in the CJS: Police ♀ have been in US Policing since 1910 Historical roots tied to social reform movement of the era: focus on saving children and women Women have been assigned to women’s work within the PD: Support roles, Juvenile, Domestic “Matron” coined – what purpose does this term serve? Women officers seen as social workers: Contrary to the traditional images of police work: crime-fighters, tough, aggressive, masculine Police powers hinge on the legitimate use of force/coercion Social connection b/t violence & gender limits ♀ place in policing culture and organizations Women police face a choice: embrace stereotypes or fight them – each path has costs: seductress, mother, or lesbian. How do women negotiate gender in CJS context?

12. Working in the CJS: Police 1968: First ♀ on patrol (standard police assignment) How do women officers compare to men? Job performance measures tend to reify the cultural image of police as “crime-fighters” (the deck is stacked). Question: what constitutes “good” policing? ♀ tend to have better citizen interactions than ♂ ♀ less aggressive style ♀ less likely to use force Recent emphasis on Community Policing: in concept less concerned with crime fighting: more interested in promoting “liveability” of communities (order maintenance tasks key) Advancement in hiring may be tied to political process: more women in local govt. increases hiring in PDs 1998: -♀ are 10.5% of all police - 5.6% of top command jobs -125 police chiefs (of approx 17,000)

13. Figure 12.1 Women and Minority Local Police Officers, 1987, 1990, and 1993 Percent of full-time sworn personnel

14. Table 12.1 Gender of Full-Time Officers inLocal Police Departments, by Size of Population Served, 1993 Population All sworn employees Served Total % Male % Female % All Sizes 100 91.2 8.8 1,000,000 or more 100 85.4 14.6 500,000-999,999 100 87.6 12.4 250,000-499,999 100 88.1 11.9 100,000-249,000 100 91.0 9.0 50,000-99,999 100 93.0 7.0 25,000-49,999 100 94.8 5.2 10,000-24,999 100 95.0 5.0 2,500-9,999 100 95.6 4.4 under 2,500 100 97.2 2.8

15. Table 12.2 Race and Ethnicity of Full Time Officers in Local Departments, by Size of Population Served, 1993 Percent of full-time sworn employees who are: White Black Hispanic Other Population served Total Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female All Sizes 100% 80.9% 75.2% 5.7% 11.3% 9.1% 2.2% 6.2% 5.5% .7% 1.5% 1.4% .1% 1,000,000 or more 100% 69.2% 61.7% 7.5% 17.7% 12.8% 4.9% 12.0% 10.0% 2.0% 1.2% 1.0% .2% 500,000-999,999 100 66.2 60.1 6.1 21.0 16.1 5.0 7.0 6.1 .9 5.8 5.4 .4 250,000-499,999 100 71.9 64.5 7.4 17.7 14.3 3.4 9.0 8.2 .9 1.4 1.2 .4 100,000-249,999 100 80.6 74.2 6.3 12.4 10.4 2.1 5.4 4.9 .4 1.6 1.5 .1 50,000-99,999 100 86.3 80.7 5.5 7.2 6.3 .9 5.1 4.7 .5 1.4 1.3 .1 25,000-49,999 100 89.8 85.1 4.6 5.4 5.0 .5 4.3 4.1 .2 .6 .6 - 10,000-24,999 100 91.6 87.1 4.5 5.1 4.8 .3 2.6 2.5 .1 .6 .6 - 2,500-9,999 100 92.8 88.9 3.9 4.1 3.8 .3 2.6 2.4 .1 .5 .5 - Under 2,500 100 91.7 89.3 2.3 5.3 5.0 .3 1.9 1.8 .1 1.2 1.1 -

16. Table 12.3 Top Five Local Police Departments With Percent of Women andMinority Officers Department # Sworn Officers Percentage Department # Sworn Officers Percentage Women Pittsburgh, PA 1,122 29 Madison, WI 327 28 Washington, DC 3,618 25 Boulder,CO 137 24 Bossier, LA 176 23 Black Washington, DC 3,618 69 East Orange, NJ 285 66 Gary, IN 243 63 Jackson, MS 417 62 Atlanta, GA 1,612 58 Hispanic Laredo, TX 269 100 McAllen, TX 195 90 Brownsville, TX 180 82 El Paso, TX 1,013 66 Santa Fe, NM 117 56 Asian/Pacific Islander Honolulu, HI 1,619 76 San Francisco, CA 2006 14 Berkeley, CA 199 12 Vallejo, CA 141 11 Culver City, CA 119 10 Oakland, CA 617 10 San Jose, CA 1,336 10 American Indian Modesto, CA 248 10 Tulsa, OK 800 6 Long Beach, CA 838 5 Duluth, MN 141 4 Lawrence, KS 110 4

17. Figure 12.2 Percent of Female Officers in Representative Large Police Departments and Percent in Supervision, 1992 % of All Officers % of Supervisors

18. Working in the CJS: Police Police-related Readings: Ch. 31 “Invisible No More: A Social History of ♀in US Policing” (Schulz) Ch. 32 “Current Barriers & Future Promise for ♀ in Policing” (Harrington & Lonsway) Ch. 34 “Interactive Effects of Race & Sex on ♀ Police Officers” (Martin)

19. Comparing Cops & Prison Staff Institutionalized Sexism & Heterosexism A historical objection frequently cited as cause for limiting ♀ has been physical characteristics Ignores that the vast majority of the job does not require physical force Height & weight requirements for employment Struck down in early 1970s for police Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977) for penal staff But held that in some circumstances the BFOQ exception was legal: women staff in men’s prisons Physical Agility Tests replaced physical requirements Implemented in a way that was unrealistic Preference for military veterans (reproduces a heterosexist work environment) Women less likely to be assaulted or injured by prisoners

20. Working in the CJS: Prison Staff Similar History as ♀ Cops: Social Reformers focused on saving wayward women. ♀ uniquely suited to addressing ♀ problems Opportunities for ♀ staff in men’s prisons only become real in 1970s (after Title VII) Women staff face problems of discrimination in men’s prisons for many of the same reasons as ♀ cops Men’s prisons provide opportunities for career advancement Security level of prisons is best predictor of ♀ staff experiences. Ch. 35 “♀ in Conflict” (Belknap)

21. Challenges that Hinder Opportunity Paternalism that is justified as “Preferential Treatment” for women in the CJS Prestige and rewards are reserved for those who get the chance to perform. Paternalism works against women. Higher Expectations for women workers Tokens often forced to represent their entire class Women have to be better qualified and perform better in order to measure up Networking Dilemmas Informal relationships & Socializing are often pivotal to career success. Sexuality important. Sex stereotyping in Job Assignment (Sex segregation)