The “Glass Ceiling” 1 Running head: The “Glass Ceiling” and “Wage Gap”—debunking the myths
The “Glass Ceiling” and the “Wage Gap”—debunking the myths Joffre J. Miller Wayland Baptist University MGMT 5306—SA 01 – Leadership & Management Development Dr. Robert G. Morris, III, PHD Summer 2009 August 5, 2009
The “Glass Ceiling” 2 Abstract Using selected references, this paper examines the fallacies of the gender victimization myths of the “glass ceiling” and the “wage gap” with primary emphasis on the “glass ceiling” and how it has shaped our cultural views on equality and the ability of women to rise to top corporate positions. It also examines the history of the term “glass ceiling”, including the creation of the Glass Ceiling Commission and the enactment of the Glass Ceiling Act. It looks into the Pipeline Theory and how it has had and continues to have a significant role in the advancement of women in the past and future. It briefly reviews the laws associated with protection of women in the workplace, and how traditional family values conflict with those of the feminist movement. Finally, it examines the art of negotiation and understanding of corporate culture in relation to improving women’s chances for advanced employment.
The “Glass Ceiling” 3 The “Glass Ceiling” and the “Wage Gap”—debunking the myths
Richard Daft wrote: “Diversity is a fact of life for today’s organizations, and many are implementing new recruiting, mentoring, and promotion methods, diversity training programs, tough policies regarding sexual harassment and racial discrimination, and new benefits programs that respond to a more diverse workforce (2004, p. 9). Although there has been drastic improvement in the equality of women in the workplace; throughout history, special interest groups supporting equality of women have continued to focus on the disparities of the number of women in top level corporate positions, and wages and salaries earned by women versus men. More specifically, the focus has been primarily on: (1) The “wage gap” that asserts that there is a giant disparity in pay between men and women; and (2) the “glass ceiling,” which is the belief that women are intentionally denied access to top top-level senior management positions. To qualify their arguments, women’s special interest groups (associated with the feminist movement) have used volumes of manipulated, unexplained data to prove their bias that women are victims of “systematic economic discrimination” (Furchtgott & Stoba, 1999, p. xi). Naomi Lopez, director of both the Center of Enterprise and Opportunity and the Project on Children at the Pacific Research Institutes points out that: “These advocates [women’s special interest groups] presume that unequal outcomes are due to discrimination, ignoring individual choices, preferences, and personal decisions” (1999a, p. 1). As Madden (2000) best put it, “Despite any barriers of prejudice remaining in business and elsewhere, there is no need to invoke conscious (or subconscious) male-led conspiracies designed to deny women opportunities for achievement” (¶ 17).
The “Glass Ceiling” 4 This paper does not attempt to disprove the existence of discrimination in the work place— it does exist. “While discrimination does exist in the workplace, leve ls of education attainment, field of education, and time spent in the workforce place a far greater role in determining women’s pay and promotion (Lopez, 1999b, p. 3).” The fallacies of the gender victimization victimization myths of the “glass ceiling” and the “wage gap” g ap” are easily explained by simply providing a balanced presentation of the facts. The Glass Ceiling
The term "glass ceiling" came from a phrase introduced in a Wall Street Journal report on corporate women, by Carol Hymowitz and Timothy D. Schellhardt (1986, p. 1). Scholars have hav e continued to debate on whether “glass ceiling” really even exists. Others use “glass ceiling” data as empirical proof that women are “…systematically denied access to the upper echelons of professions simply because they are women…” (Furchtgott & Stoba, 199 9, p. 18). The “glass ceiling” is a so-called imaginary barrier preventing women… from advanc ing to top-level positions in business and government. The “glass ceiling” has also been used as a general term to discuss any situation where women are confronted by the “hurdles for advancement” (Yousry, 2006, ¶ 6). Although there has been a common ground on the value of supporting an advocating the equality and advancement of women in the workplace, Yousry You sry asserted that the glass ceiling was created out of anger, with a deep association that was seeded by the feminist movement (2006). Yousry further contended that the feminist movement used the glass ceiling “as an attempt to use immoral means to achieve the top without really understanding what the "top" is all about” (2006, ¶ 14); and a “perception that there is some type of imperceptible barrier preventing [women] from achieving [their] goals” (Yoursry 2006, ¶ 14 ).
The “Glass Ceiling” 5 The Glass Ceiling Act
The Glass Ceiling Act was introduced as part p art of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. With the signing of the 1991 Civil Rights Act came c ame the establishment of a bipartisan twenty-one member Glass Ceiling Commission (Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). The Glass Ceiling Commission was charged with preparing recommendations on the “glass ceiling” issue for the President and corporate leaders (1995). The Glass Ceiling Commission’s report confirmed that inclusion of women at management and decision-making levels would have a positive impact on the longterm success of U.S. businesses (1995, p. 3). Rather than using Glass Ceiling Commission’s conclusions for positive change; a tradition was established to approach the “glass ceiling” as a basis to proving discrimination (Yousry 2006, ¶ 14). The Glass Ceiling Commission’s report was tainted with bias as noted by the italicized quote, “Corporate leaders surveyed, and women…who participated in focus groups, researchers, and government officials, all agree that a glass ceiling exists and that it operates substantially to exclude…women from the top levels of management ” (1995, p.7). Focusing solely on exclusion of women, several other factors
explaining unequal balances and an d pay disparities were completely ignored. The Glass Ceiling Commission report and all its bias allowed further exaggeration and support of the feminist agenda on employment equality. “The commission c ommission in 1995 released a report that has since become gospel to those claiming victim v ictim status for women. It ominously concluded that only 5 percent of senior managers at Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 service companies are women and implied that systematic discrimination was the cause” (Furchtgott & Stoba, 1999, p.18).
The “Glass Ceiling” 6 The problem was not this information as much as the methodology in which it was collected. It was the fact that no other data other than uneven outcomes was taken into account and the fact that no other factors were even considered (Lopez, 1999(1), p. 1). Many coin the term “woman’s movement” as a liberal or Democratic political platform (McNutt, 2002, p. 5). Surprisingly, Senator Bob Dole, former republican presidential candidate and US Senator from Kansas, collaborating with his wife Elizabeth Dole, former Secretary of Labor introduced the 1991 Civil Rights Act. What is further shocking is the Dole’s eager acceptance of this feminist agenda and an d their position without having all the facts. Thanks to the leadership and vision v ision of Secretary Elizabeth Dole—and that of her able ab le successor, Secretary Lynn Martin— the Department of Labor became closely involved in identifying and publicizing the glass ceiling problem, issuing a Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative in 1991. Senator Robert Dole, who introduced the Glass Ceiling Act in 1991, praised Martin’s report, noting that it “confirm(s) what many of us have suspected all along—the existence of invisible, artificial barriers blocking women … from advancing up the corporate ladder to management and executive level positions.” He added: “For this Senator, the issue boils down to ensuring equal access and equal opportunity (Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995, p. iii). Senator Bob Dole’s endorsement by a conservative politician no doubt validated this issue as being worthy of bipartisan support. Looking closer at the Glass Ceiling Commission’s methods, one can quickly see that there is cause for question. First, the qualifications of women were not examined and studied. To qualify for a senior management corporate position, most incumbents possess an MBA and at least twenty-five years of experience. The report did not ask “Out of the group g roup of qualified women, what percentage or number were qualified? By comparing the number of women qualified to hold top executive positions with the number of women actually in those positions, one could make some conclusions about the existence of the glass ceiling ” (Furchtgott & Stoba, 1999, p. 19).
The “Glass Ceiling” 7 Instead, the commission did the exact opposite o pposite by simply highlighting the number of women in the total work force, without regard to other o ther critical factors. Despite all of the commission’s findings it is interesting to note that in 2003, another government office, the U.S General Accounting Office (GAO) had completely opposite conclusions: “Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, an d leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men” (McElroy (2004), p. 1). The Pipeline Theory and the Role of Education
One theory that tends to debunk the “glass ceiling” is the “pipeline theory.” The pipeline theory has asserted that although there have not been many women in top management positions, there are many still in the “pipeline” becoming sufficiently educated and trained to eventually compete for top-level positions as opportunities arise. Opposition to this position has reported that women in the pipeline are being unjustly held back from advancement. However, data reflected that the number of women in professional degree programs in the 1950s or o r 60s reveals that the numbers of women with professional degrees, particularly MBAs, was at an all time low. Women who graduated in the 1950s and 60s should be at the height of their careers today. The reality is that there are very few women from that time p eriod that held the credentials and experience necessary for top-level positions. However, over the years, women’s education levels and experience have improved drastically, and in some academic majors there have been more women than men graduating. This has resulted in a drastic increase in the number of women who have successfully climbed through the corporate ranks at a consistent level.
The “Glass Ceiling” 8 Data has also reflected that as women’s education levels and experience have risen, their participation in top-level positions has proportionately increased (Furchtgott & Stoba, 1999, p. 19). Ellen D. Wernick, a member of the Glass Ceiling Commission, also acknowledged that the “pipeline theory” was part of the equation: “The development (preparation) of business executives is a long, complicated process. Generally, chief executive officers (CEOs) are in their 50s or 60s when they assume that position and have spent 25-35 years “in the pipeline. Those who hold that …women are working their way up are correct. Greater numbers of women…have begun business careers in the past 20 years” (Wernick, 1994, p. 1). Bernie Milano contended, “More and more women are breaking into management ranks. Statistics from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the number of women with management positions increased 113% from 1983 to 1995” (2000, p. 1). Milano further asserted that firms are actively recruiting women in positions at higher levels (2000, p. 1). He supported the pipeline theory stating, “If only 10% of higher echelon ech elon positions are filled by women, and 47% of the managerial ranks are women, it’s clear that there are many talented women just waiting to be promoted” (Milano, 2000, p. 1). However, until these percentages balance, some groups will continue to claim that “systematic economic discrimination” exists, even if women are steadily filling these positions as they become available. “Some feminists state that this ‘under-representation’ of women at the most rarified heights of business is a result of conscious decisions and overt anti-women prejudice on the part of company CEO's, presidents, and boards of directors” suggesting a widespread conspiracy (Madden, 2000 , ¶7). The Wage Gap
Another statistical indicator often used as evidence of gender discrimination is the “wage gap”. The “wage gap” is used to index the status of women's earnings relative to men's.
The “Glass Ceiling” 9 “The wage gap is expressed as a percentage (e.g., in 2003, women earned 76 percent as much as men) and is calculated by dividing the median annual earnings for women by the median annual earnings for men.” (The Wage Gap, p.1).” Over 40 years ago, during the passing of the Equal Pay Act, women earned 58 cents for each dollar earned by men. By 2003, that rate had increased to 76 cents (The Wage Gap, p.1). Some have argued that progress is much too slow, citing the statistic that showed an improvement of less than half a penny a year. The purpose of the Equal Pay Act is to assure equal pay for women and men. If working women earned the same as men (those who work the same number of hours; have the same education, age, and union status; and live in the same region of the country), they should be paid the same. The 76-cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week (Furchtgott & Stoba, 1999). The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace (Furchtgott & Stoba, 1999). When economists use the proper controls, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing (Furchtgott & Stoba, 1999). Women actually exercise more choices than men to include, work, family, volunteer work, and self-employment. Not all women are geared gea red to the corporate world. If fact some women are opting out. Opting Out
Some of today’s women are not as a s willing to juggle both careers and home life. This is especially true in the high pace world that we are in (Wallis, 2004). Corporate workweeks are rarely 40 hours; in fact they have steadily climbed to 60 to 70 per week on average. Professional women are committed to work (Wallis, 2004).
The “Glass Ceiling” 10 However, many have witnessed and even experienced the devastating consequences that took place as a result of absent parents pa rents during the women’s rise through the employment ranks in the 80s (Wallis, 2004). Women today are trying to correct this trend by dropping out of the work place if necessary, with the intention of eventually returning to the work force (Wallis, 2004). The “have it now” generation gen eration is being replaced by the “have it later” (Wallis, 2004). Women have long valued the raising of children and family—but somehow this trait has been devalued by society (Wallis, 2004 & Madden, 2000). Recently these same values have been reexamined and openly appreciated by professional (even extreme feminists) women who once were destined to rise through the cooperate ranks or climb the corporate ladder and take their rightful place at the top (Wallis, 2004). The number of professional women dropping out of the work place is significant. Census data reported that more women with graduate professional degrees are staying at home. Catalyst reported that 1 in 3 women with MBAs are not working full time, whereas men are reported as only on ly 1 in 20 (Wallis, 2004, p. 2). Economist and author au thor Sylvia Ann Hewlett, who teaches at Columbia University, has asserted that there is brain drain throughout the top 10% of female labor force (those earning more than $55,000). “What we have discovered in looking at this group over the last five years, “she says, “...is that many women who have any kind of choices are opting o pting out (Wallis, 2004, p. 2). Lisa Belkin, author of “Life Works” reported that this trend h as extended to elite professional women who have already made to the very top, some of the highest positions in the corporate world. A good number of these women graduated top of their class from some of the best business schools in the country (2003, p. 1).
The “Glass Ceiling” 11 Wander into any Starbucks in any “Starbucks kind of neighborhood” during hours after a fter the commuters are gone (Belkin, 2003, p. 1). See all those mothers drinking coffee and watching over toddlers at play? If you look past the the Lycra gym clothes and the the Internet-access cell phones, the scene could be the 50s, but for the fact that the coffee is more expensive and the mothers have M.B.A.’s (Belkin, 2003, p. 1). Protection by law
Women have definitely benefited from the protection of the law, especially by allowing women the equal opportunity to occupy occ upy positions traditionally filled by men. With opportunity has come unprecedented freedom of choice (Lopez, 1999, March 30, p. 2). Title VII of 1964 barred discrimination against women because of sex (gender) (Dressler, 2003, p. 38). The Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires equal pay men or women for performing similar jobs (Dressler, 2003, p. 38). The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in employment against pregnant women, or related conditions co nditions (Dressler, 2003, p. 38). Finally, the 1991 Civil Rights Act strengthened and improved Federal Fede ral civil rights laws to provide for damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination (Dressler, 2003, p. 38). Additionally, the act clarified provisions regarding disparate impact actions (Dressler, 2003, p. 38). Howeve r, there is a large difference between equality, opportunity and preference. These laws have only created opportunity. Women have succeeded due to opportunity, even when unequal at times, not by special preferences being offered through government intervention (Lopez, 1999, March 30, p. 2). Naomi Lopez explains: “Women’s drastic gains in aca demia, the workplace, and the political world are cause for celebration.
The “Glass Ceiling” 12 But, as feminist leaders continue to use the “wage gap” and “glass ceiling” as rallying cries for further government action, some have come to believe that, absent gender preferences, women would not have achieved dramatic gains in these areas. Such is not the case” (1999(1), p. 2). In Lopez’s (1999b) “Free Markets, Free Choices Ch oices …” study, she explains that market forces have had a much bigger affect on woman’s advancement in employment than equal rights legislation. She supports her argument by quoting Economist Eco nomist and Nobel laureate Garry Becker: …The growth in employment and earnings of women over time is explained mostly by market forces rather than by civil rights legislation, affirmative action programs, or the women’s movement. Such programs can hardly explain the steady growth in the employment of women prior to 1950, or its accelerated growth during the 1950s and 1960s, since neither civil rights programs nor women’s movements were yet widespread. Nor can equal-pay-for-equal-work legislation alone explain the narrowing earnings gap b etween men and women in the past 15 years. For one thing, the gap also narrowed in countries, such as Italy and Japan, that did not introduce such legislation (Becker, p. 132). The Media and “Bad Spin”
Media has provided the fuel that has continued the glass ceiling myth. Larry Elder, radio talkshow host, reported that the media casts a misguided, negative light on the “glass ceiling” by their choice of words alone (2003). Take for instance the 2002 Catalyst report, which outlined the progress of women in employment. The Dallas Morning News reported: “Women Make Gains in Corporate World, Hold 16 Percent of ‘Clout’ Jobs. First paragraph: (Knight-Ridder). Women have nearly doubled their ‘clout titles’ in corporate America over less than a decade, according to a study to be released Monday to the New York research firm Catalyst” (Elder, 2003, p. 1).
The “Glass Ceiling” 13 A more biased negative spin was reported by the New York Times headlines: Number of Women in Upper Ranks Rises a Bit.” First paragraph: “A survey of executive and high-earning corporate women being published today shows percentage gains so small as to seem inconsequential (emphasis added), but for one thing: They were achieved during a recession,
when many businesses were cutting back (Elder, 2003, p. 1). When it comes to the media, perception of progress may be in eye of o f the beholder. One thing for sure, the media has been be en beating the same drum for many years now—nothing has changed and women are victims of “systematic economic discrimination!” Traditional Family versus Feminist Values
The family structure that the boomers grew up in where the husband worked and a nd the wife stayed at home and enjoyed being mother; those women perhaps skipped the working world completely. The family of the past (50s and 60s) 6 0s) is an outdated, archaic family structure to some. Unfortunately a majority of the country has bought off on the feminist ideology that promotions and wages are the only on ly thing that measures success. It is the biased assumption that all women want to work, and the only ones that do not are oppressed and forced to bare children. Many fail to realize is that there are many women who are happy being homemakers homemak ers (with or without an MBA). “If they [sic] [referring to feminists] acknowledged this, it would undermine the whole mission of their cause, which is to prove that women are forced to be homemakers because they can’t land jobs in corporate America” (McNutt, 2002, p. 3). All women deserve be held at high esteem whether they are professionals or stay-at-home moms. That is why Christian organizations such as “Focus on the Family” have worked so hard h ard to support all women, especially those courageous enough to stay at home. So often these women are looked down upon and devalued, solely for choosing a “less traveled road.”
The “Glass Ceiling” 14 According to Dr. Bill Maier of “Focus on the Family”, “The media, the educational establishment, and the radical feminist movement often put down stay-at-home moms and make them feel like they are “less valuable” because they have chosen to dedicate themselves full-time to their kids” (Maier, 2004, p. 1). Madden (2000) points out how unfortunate it is that feminists would rather focus solely on wage and promotion data to gauge how society really values women. “They have no incentive to impute economic importance to a homemaking career. To do so would undermine their case for widespread discrimination. But while material goods are necessary and desirable, they are by no means the sole standard we should use u se in judging someone's worth” (Madden, 2000, ¶ 17). Negotiation and Corporate Culture
Another explanation of why women do not earn as much as men is that they tend not to utilize good negotiation skills when it comes to pay. In one study, eight times as many men as women graduating with master's degrees from college negotiated ne gotiated their salaries. The men who negotiated were able to increase their starting salaries by an average of 7.4 percent, pe rcent, or about $4,000. In the same study, men's starting salaries were about $4,000 higher than the women's on average, suggesting that the gender gap between men and women might have been closed if more of the women had negotiated their starting salaries. “As a result, women in business often watch their male colleagues pull ahead, ahea d, receive better assignments, get promoted more quickly, and earn more money” (Babcok, Gelfand, & Small, 2003, p. 14). According to Carol Frohlinger, Esq., managing partner of The Shadow Negotiation, “The reality is that women aren't negotiating money because most women are reluctant to advocate for themselves" (Lopez, C., p. 1). Some experts suggest formal mentoring programs to women in this area (Mathis & Jackson, 2003, p. 140).
The “Glass Ceiling” 15 Yousry (2006) has suggested that by buying in to the perception that “something has to be broken along the way” in order to make it to top positions draws women’s focus in the wrong direction. Yousry further contends that for many reasons women’s talent, creativity, and leadership potential has barely been tapped (2006). She advises women to us u s their existing power, structure, agreements, alignments, relationships and personalities that they already possess; and that creating value is the only o nly way to secure positions at this level as the corporate c orporate world covets value (Yousry, 2006). Even for many women who do devote their full attention to career issues, many fail adequately to understand how much of the corporate world works. Advancement in the business world frequently is based upon principles most men subconsciously learn as they grow up. It operates in ways emulating team sports and the military chain-of-command. Women who fail to understand the importance of office politics, going through the proper channels, and being able to make decisions quickly put themselves at an automatic disadvantage. Corporate life is a game which is not always fair: for men or women. Being able to take risks without making waves, being a team player who can operate independently when necessary, and participating in after-hours activities may not set well with some women, but for the present, the reality of the situation needs to be acknowledged if it is ever to change (Madden, ¶ 17). Conclusion
The “glass ceiling” and “wage gap” statistics do not prove systematic economic discrimination. Protection of law has offered sufficient opportunity for women to rise through the ranks. As long as women have the infinite amount of choices, more than likely they will never have parity with men in the workplace. Both women of traditional values and professional women will continue their choice to stay at home for a variety of reasons. Others will set their ambitions to lead top corporations—and never stay at home. A large majority will fall somewhere in between. Women have made substantial growth throughout history in the area of corporate employment.
The “Glass Ceiling” 16 Women have succeeded in all arenas showing drastic gains in academia, business ownership, and politics—this is cause for celebration. In the future, the “pipeline” will provide to recruiters a substantial pool of women candidates to fill top-level exe cutive positions. Federal law offers sufficient protection from discrimination against women, without the need of a dding additional laws or regulations. The press continues to put a bad spin on women’s employment statistics. This learner believes that the art of negotiation neg otiation and the understanding of corporate culture as it relates women securing high level positions can be better learned and facilitated by internships and mentoring and networking programs. These programs should be made available way before women enter the workplace. No one knows for certain what the future holds for women’s employment. However, their future looks brighter every day!
The “Glass Ceiling” 17
References Babcok, L., Laschever S., Gelfand M., and Small, D. (2003). Nice Girls Don't Ask. Havard Business Review, 81(10), 14-16.
Becker, G., & Becker, N. (1997). The Economics of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill. Belkin, Lisa (2003) The Opt-Out Revolution, The New York Times, p. 42, column 1. Daft, Richard L. (2004). Organizational Theory, 8th Edition. United States: Thompson SouthWestern.
Dessler, G. (2003). Human Resource Management . 9th Edition. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Elder, Larry. (2002, Dec 12). The 'glass ceiling': the bad spin. Word Net Daily, Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29965. Furchtgott-Roth, D., & Stolba, C. (1999). Women's Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America. : Washington, DC: American Enterprise
Institute for Public Policy; Arlington, VA: The Independent Women's Forum. Glass Ceiling Commission (March 1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of Nation’s Human Capital. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T. D. (1986). The Glass Ceiling. The Wall Street Journal . Special Report on Corporate Woman. Lopez, Naomi (1999a). Why Pay Equity Day is Out of Date. The Contrarian: News & Comments on Women’s Issue, Vol. 3, No. 5. Retrieved August 1, 2009, from
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/con/1999/99-03-30.html.
The “Glass Ceiling” 18 Lopez, Naomi (1999b). Free Markets, Free Choices: Smashing the Wage Gap and Glass Ceiling Myths. Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. Lopez, C. (2006). How Salary Negotiation Contributes to the Wage Gap | Monster. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/negotiationhttp://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/negotiationtips/salary-negotiation-gender-wage-gap/article.aspx. Madden, Russell. (2000) "Shattering the Glass Ceiling," (Originally published online in SpinTech, 3-12-00.) http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/Shattering_the Glass_Ceili.htm. Mathis, Robert L., & Jackson, John H. (2006) Human Resource Management. 11th ed. United States: Thomson South-western. Milano, Bernie (2000). Smartpros Ltd, Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling, from: http://accounting.smartpros.com/x12203.xml. Maier, Bill, Dr (2004), Encouragement for the Working Mother, Weekend Magazine> Ask Dr. Bill, family.org: A Web site of Focus on the Family, Retrieved on Jul 22, 2009, from http://www.family.org/fmedia/askdrbill/a0036331.cfm. "The Wage Gap." (2005) Infoplease. Pearson Education publishing as Infoplease. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html NOTE: Original Source: National Law Center. McNutt, Lindsay (2002). The Glass Ceiling: It can’t be shattered if it doesn’t exist, ifeminists.com, Retrieved July 13, 2009, from http://www.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2002/1217c.html. McElroy, Wendy (2004). Wage Gap Reflects Women’s Priories, ifeminists.com, Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://www.ifeminist.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0922.html http://www.ifeminist.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0922.html
The “Glass Ceiling” 19
Yousry, Mona (2006). "The Glass Ceiling - Isn't Glass." Business Renaissance Quarterly. Business Renaissance Institute. 2006. HighBeam Research. 4 Aug. 2009 . Wallis, Claudia (2004), The Case For Staying Home. Time Magazine Wernick, Ellen D. (1994). Preparedness, Career Advancement, and the Glass Ceiling (Draft), U.S. Department of Labor.
