2013/06/11 by Christine L. Williams · 1 citation
Engineering · Health Professions · Social Sciences · #Class (philosophy) #Employment and Welfare Studies #Engineering #Epistemology #Gender Diversity and Inequality #Gender studies #Glass ceiling #Human sexuality #Inequality #Intersectionality #Law #Political science #Public relations #Race (biology) #Sociology #Work (physics) #Work-Family Balance Challenges
paper · doi:10.1177/0891243213490232
openalex publication_date 2013/06/11 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
When women work in male-dominated professions, they encounter a “glass ceiling” that prevents their ascension into the top jobs. Twenty years ago, I introduced the concept of the “glass escalator,” my term for the advantages that men receive in the so-called women’s professions (nursing, teaching, librarianship, and social work), including the assumption that they are better suited than women for leadership positions. In this article, I revisit my original analysis and identify two major limitations of the concept: (1) it fails to adequately address intersectionality; in particular, it fails to theorize race, sexuality, and class; and (2) it was based on the assumptions of traditional work organizations, which are undergoing rapid transformation in our neoliberal era. The glass escalator assumes stable employment, career ladders, and widespread support for public institutions (e.g., schools and libraries)—which no longer characterize the job market today. Drawing on my studies of the oil and gas industry and the retail industry, I argue that new concepts are needed to understand workplace gender inequality in the 21st century.