ABSTRACT
What has been demonstrated by this review of the theory and empirical evidence on women's employment? First, that a great many true lies are told about women's employment in modern society. Secondly that the most effective mechanism for subordinating women is neither exclusion from the workforce nor segregation within it, but the ideology of the sexual division of labour in the home, and the ideology of sexual differences. Prisons of the mind are always more effective than prisons of the body. Thirdly, because most women are eager to raise their own children personally, i t is women who are the main propagators, and the main beneficiaries, of the ideology of the sexual division of labour, both by precept and example. How many mothers tell their daughters that they should never many7, never have children, because they w i l l live to regret it bitterly? And how many daughters, faced with a daily demonstration of what marriage and motherhood does to women, recoil in horror to say, 'No! Never! Not I ! ' and rush to enrol at the nearest college to enable themselves to be seK-supporting? Fourthly, social attitude surveys that reveal more positive views on working wives and working mothers are reflecting increasing tolerance in pluralist societies, not necessarily women's personal preferences. Fifthly, the heterogeneity of women's preferences for homemaking or employment careers is pronounced, and seems to be increasing rather than fading. Sixthly, this heterogeneity is the main source of the polarisation in women's labour market behaviour. Seventhly, sex differences and the polarisation of women's employment are larger, and most clearly visible among graduates, and at the top of the occupational structure. Case studies of women in the professions, and in management, show that a minority of women conform to the male employment profile of continuous full-time employment; the majority of women are secondary earners who balance employment wi th family life. As a result, the pay gap is often larger in the professions and in management than in the workforce as a whole, because the rewards for people committed to their careers are substantially greater at this level. Eighthly, paradoxically, it is also at the top of the occupational hierarchy that the potential for sex (and other) discrimination remains the greatest. I t is easily hidden at this level, partly because work tasks and performance are more variable, but also because they are more difficult to measure reliably in a situation where almost every job is unique. In addition, there is minimal information on professional and managerial women, or even on graduates, in national datasets, and a focus on the manufactiiring sector in industrial relations research (Rubery and Fagan, 1995b), so the research spotlight is weak for this group. Ninthly, there is evidence to support all four main theories explaining why women are less likely than men to achieve positions offering wealth, power and status, so that they should be seen as complementary rather than compering, partly because they apply at different points in historical time.
