My Response to the "Velvet Ghetto" and "Glass Ceiling"

Thanks, Sabrina, for sharing the article with a reverse example of a man in a female-dominated profession (nursing). Let me start by defining a velvet ghetto. The term has been traced to a 1978 Business Week magazine article that referred to efforts by organizations to achieve affirmative action goals by creating employment opportunities for women in soft jobs that would enable them to enter the workforce but not compete with men for management positions. The term, along with "glass ceiling," has become a standard way of describing how women are trapped in areas of their profession (ghettos) that have an artificial ceiling, which prevents advancement into senior leadership positions. 

I think we should also consider how cultural norms and stereotypes about roles for men and women in society affect development of velvet ghetto and glass ceiling phenomena. Our beliefs about which jobs might be appropriate from men and women might explain why we in the United States think it's unusual for women to hold senior leadership positions and for men to work in the nursing field. Think about the following research regarding cultural views of gender roles.

According to Dutch scholar Geert Hofstede (2001) in Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations Across Nations (2nd ed.):


“Masculinity stands for a society in which social gender roles are clearly distinct: Men are supposed to be assertive, tough, and focused on material success; women are supposed to be more modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life. Femininity stands for a society in which social gender roles overlap: Both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender, and concerned with the quality of life" (p. 297).

Hofstede (2001) compared, culturally, how different nations view masculinity and feminity. He found that nations with highly-masculine cultures have very distinct views about roles for men and women. Nations with highly-feminine cultures have less-defined role expectations for men and women. Nations like Japan and Australia ranked high in masculinity and low in femininity while Denmark and Chile were high in femininity and low in masculinity. The United States ranked in the middle on masculinity and femininity.

What this means for the man who became a nurse is we might have a masculine view of the nursing field, which stereotypically is a role for women who are caring, nurturing, etc. And how about our view of the public relations field? Professor Yunna Rhee explained it this way from the perspective of the excellence theory in public relations:

"Excellent public relations has 'feminine' characteristics: emphasizing social values over individual values, such as mediating opposing parties, encouraging cooperation, and maintaining relationships. The contrasting low correlation of masculinity with the excellence index (r = .17, ns) also supported this interpretation. However, masculinity did correlate positively, although not significantly, and this suggests that public relations can be excellent in societies with masculine cultures as long as those societies simultaneously hold feminine values. Not surprisingly, femininity correlated moderately with symmetrical purpose of communication (r = .34, p < .05) and with interpersonal communication (r = .28, p < .01)." (Click here for the full text.)

Larissa Grunig, James E. Grunig, and David M. Dozier (2002), in Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations reported, "Given an opportunity to perform at the managerial level, women were effective" (p. 188). However, there were consequences for women who could fill either tactical or managerial roles. A senior communicator who participated in a study conducted by the Grunigs and David Dozier noted: "Women must tread the line between being very confident and able to express their views, but avoid the 'bitch' label" (p. 188).


Hofstede (2001) also found that women could step out of expected roles and perform effectively as managers. Ironically, he suggested that women -- in their roles as mothers -- are often responsible for planting the seed for stereotypes that we adopt as we grow older. 

"Gender-related values and behaviors are programmed into us in subtle ways and at a very early age.... [Differences in attitudes about gender roles] cannot be inborn. It is the result of a mother's conditioning of her child, which differs according to the child's gender and the nationality of the mother" (Click here for the text.)

So, what does all this mean? I pose a few provocative questions to stimulate an active discussion.

• Does the country (and its culture) that we were born in define roles for men and women?
• In the United States, do we have mixed views on roles for men and women?
• Can women perform effectively as managers and, if so, how do they avoid being seen as a "bitch"?
• Are women (mothers) responsible for imprinting role stereotypes on their children? What about fathers?
• If women, through their nurturing of children's attitudes about gender roles, have placed themselves in the velvet ghetto, do they have the ability to raise children who can break this stereotype and shatter the glass ceiling?
• If our views of women and men in public relations roles is programmed into us at an early age, what can we all do to change this for future generations of children, students, and practitioners?

Go for it!

Mark