Center on Human Policy
Syracuse University
805 South Crouse Avenue
Syracuse, NY 13244-2280
September 1990
Preparation of this article was supported by a contract awarded to the Center on Human Policy, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation, School of Education, Syracuse University under Cooperative Agreement H133B00003-90, funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education. The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education should be inferred.
INTRODUCTION
Women with disabilities have historically been neglected by disability studies and feminist scholarship alike and issues of importance to women with disabilities have, for the most part, been ignored by the disability rights movement as well as the women’s movement. Almost all research on people with disabilities has assumed the irrelevance of gender as well as other social dimensions such as social class, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
- Having a disability presumably eclipses these dimensions of social experience. Even sensitive students of disability…have focused on disability as a unitary concept and have taken it to be not merely the “master” status, but apparently the exclusive status for disabled people (Asch & Fine, 1988, p. 3).
The field of disability has not yet recognized the combined discrimination of gender and disability experienced by women who have disabilities (Deegan & Brooks, 1985), and policies and practices in the field have not been designed to meet the specific needs of women with disabilities (Fine & Asch, 1981 & 1988; Kutza, 1985; Mudrick, 1988).
While the double discrimination experienced by women with disabilities has profound effects on all major areas of their lives (Traustadottir, 1990) this paper will only address the specific employment barriers facing women with disabilities. The paper demonstrates their unequal access to rehabilitation services, employment, and benefits by comparing them to non-disabled women and men with disabilities.
Comparing Men and Women with Disabilities
While men with disabilities have serious employment problems, women with disabilities are significantly worse off and this seems to be true for all types and levels of disabilities. Men with disabilities are almost twice as likely to have jobs than women with disabilities. Almost 42% of men with disabilities are in the labor force (meaning that they either work or are actively seeking work), compared to 24% of women. In addition, while more than 30% of men with disabilities work full-time jobs, only 12% of women with disabilities have full time employment (Bowe, 1984). Women with disabilities are also significantly poorer than men with disabilities, partly due to the fact that they are more likely to be unemployed and partly due to the fact that when they work they receive considerably lower wages than men with disabilities. Women with disabilities who work full-time earn only 56% of what full- time employed men with disabilities earn (Bowe, 1984).
Gender-Biases in Rehabilitation Services
A handful of studies have been conducted to examine and explain the unequal employment status of women with disabilities as compared to men with disabilities. In a study of gender equity in access to rehabilitation services, Menz et al. (1989), found that nationally, women represent less than one-third of the population in rehabilitation programs. They also found that women were more likely to be “successfully rehabilitated” into part-time jobs or to a homemaker status, while men were more likely to enter full-time jobs in the labor force. The authors suggest that the reasons for these differences are gender-biased assumptions about women, men, and work:
- Women with disabilities face “double jeopardy” based on both their disability and their gender… The stereotypes ascribed to people with disabilities and women, in general, condones passivity, dependence, helplessness and failure (Menz et al., 1989, p. 32).
These attitudes seem to be shared by the general public and rehabilitation counselors, the result being that women with disabilities are less likely to be referred to vocational training; have a harder time gaining access to rehabilitation programs; are less likely to get quality training; and are more likely to be “successfully rehabilitated” into non-employment.
Women with Disabilities and Disability Policy
The impact of disability policy on women with disabilities has been the focus of a small number of studies. For example, Kutza (1985) examined the impact of current U.S. disability policy on women with disabilities. She demonstrates how the major programs designed to assist people with disabilities, such as supplemental security income, disability insurance, workers’ compensation, and vocational rehabilitation, disadvantage women because of their relationship to labor market participation. The study found that not only did women receive fewer benefits than men, they also received lower benefits. Thus, these programs do not protect women with disabilities from the economic threats associated with disability to the same extent they protect men.
A similar study of the influence of income support on the lives of women with disabilities was conducted by Mudrick (1988). She found that compared to men with disabilities, women with disabilities received less from public income support programs, despite their often greater need. Mudrick demonstrates how crucial income support is to the livelihood of women with disabilities. At the same time, income support is usually both less accessible and smaller for women with disabilities than for men with disabilities. Mudrick suggests the reason for this is partly due to the misfit between women’s work patterns and the design of the programs, and partly rooted in the stereotypical attitudes toward women’s economic roles and women’s family roles, as well as attitudes toward people with disabilities.
Women with Developmental Disabilities
The studies reviewed above have mostly been conducted with women who have physical impairments. Women with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities have traditionally been ignored by those who have examined the employment situation of women with disabilities. The developmental disability field has recently devoted increasing attention to the importance of employment and a new federal initiative, supported employment, has been developed to assist even those with the most severe disabilities to get and hold a job. The newly found emphasis on employment in the field of developmental disabilities recognizes the importance of productive work as a means to achieve social equality and financial independence, and supported employment programs are now being developed across the country. Despite a wealth of recent writings on employment for people with developmental disabilities, the specific barriers women with developmental disabilities face have basically been ignored. It appears as though those who write about employment for people with mental retardation assume that gender, as well as class, race, and other social dimensions, are irrelevant. Having mental retardation is seen as such an overpowering characteristic that it makes all other social dimensions irrelevant. A search through the literature on employment for people with developmental disabilities only brought two resources that mention sex differences. In their study of employment outcomes for young adults with mental retardation Kregel and Wehman (1989) make a passing remark about sex-differences. The study focused on a group of 186 adolescents with mental retardation, between the age of 18 and 22, who had been placed in competitive jobs through supported employment programs. Among other things, they found a “…disproportionate representation of males (68 percent male to 32 percent female) in the population of placed consumers” (Kregel & Wehman, 1989, p. 265). In an earlier study Hill, et al (1985) found a similar trend among a group of 155 people with mental retardation between the age of 16 and 66. This was a long term study of people who had been placed in various competitive jobs by one supported employment program and focused on, “…client and family demographic characteristics in relation to a successful vocational outcome defined as retention in employment six months after the date of first placement” (Hill et al., 1985, p. 69, emphasis in original). Among the findings of the study were that the majority of people being placed through the program were males, or 66%, while females represented only 34% of those who received jobs through the program. The study also showed that males were more likely to reach the successful retention rate of 6 months, or 70%, compared to 55% of the females. A significant number of the 155 people in this study had a secondary handicap, in addition to the label of mental retardation. Thus, 24% are reported to have had behavior disorders; 10% had cerebral palsy; 12% had mobility impairments; 5% had impaired hearing; 10% had visual impairment; nearly 10% had limited use of arms or hands; and 5% had schizophrenia. One of the interesting findings of this study is that, except for the people who were identified as having schizophrenia, the secondary handicap did not seem to influence the retention rate. That is, people with secondary handicaps, in addition to the label of mental retardation, had either the same retention rate, or slightly higher retention rate than the general population of people with mental retardation. These findings seem to indicate that, when it comes to employment of people with mental retardation, being a woman may be a greater handicap than having physical, sensory, or behavioral handicaps. This study is perhaps the only study which has examined gender inequality in employment services for people with developmental disabilities. The findings of the study seem to indicate that women labelled as having mental retardation face the same employment discrimination as other women with disabilities.
Comparing Women With and Without Disabilities
A comparison between women with disabilities and non-disabled women also reveals the disadvantage of women with disabilities. The past few decades have seen a revolutionary increase of women’s participation in the paid labor force. Especially noticeable has been the increased number of working mothers (Berg, 1986; Fox & Hesse-Biber, 1984). In 1970, 45% of non-disabled women were in the labor force, while by 1982, 64% of women participated in the labor force and more than 59% of mothers with preschool children were working (Berg 1986; Russo & Jansen, 1988). Women with disabilities have not been a part of the women’s employment revolution. In 1982 only 20% of women with disabilities had jobs (Bowe, 1984). Employment policies have devoted little attention to the disadvantaged employment status of women with disabilities. This seems to hold true of both the generic state and federal employment policies as well as the employment policies directed specifically towards people with disabilities.
The evidence available to date leads to the conclusion that the economy in general, and the specialized services in particular, restrict the employment opportunities and lives of women with disabilities.
Women, Work, and Mental Health
The increase in women’s labor force participation, and especially the dramatic increase of working mothers, has led to some speculation about the possible negative effect on women’s mental health because of the added stress employment may bring to women who already have the primary responsibility for childrearing and other demands within the family. In a study of the relationship between women’s work and women’s mental health, Sales and Frieze (1984) found that the influence of women’s increased employment participation is primarily positive and very few negative effects have been found. Their study indicates that work is a source of self-esteem and satisfaction for most women and, as a central contributor to adult adjustment, participation in the labor force may be health enhancing for women. They also report that the group of women who is most at risk of having mental health problems are non-white, non-married, non-employed women, and women who live in social isolation with limited social roles. This suggests that women with disabilities may be at greater risk than most other women of having mental health problems as a result of their social isolation and the limited social roles available to them, including their limited access to labor force participation.
CONCLUSION
People with disabilities face many obstacles in their struggle for equality. The importance of work as a means of achieving social equality and financial independence is increasingly being recognized as a crucial component of community participation. Although men and women with disabilities are subject to work discrimination because of their disabilities, women with disabilities are at a further disadvantage because of the combined discrimination based on gender and discrimination based on disability. The research which has informed disability policies and practices has typically ignored sex as an important variable and gender differences in employment have, for the most part, been invisible. As a result, disability policies aimed to ensure employment of people with disabilities have not recognized the specific employment barriers experienced by women with disabilities, and practices within the field have not been designed to meet the needs of women with disabilities.
It is only within the last decade that serious attempts have been made to understand the forces that shape the lives of women with disabilities. These attempts have revealed women with disabilities as one of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in today’s society. The existing information on the employment of women with disabilities suggests that until we develop a better understanding of the double discrimination against women with disabilities, and develop policies and practices that will meet their specific needs, they will continue to occupy the very margin of our society.
REFERENCES
Asch, A., & Fine, M. (1988). Introduction: Beyond pedestals. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics (pp. 1-37). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Berg, B. J. (1986). The crisis of the working mother: Resolving the conflict between family and work. New York: Summit Books.
Bowe, F. (1984). Disabled women in America: A statistical report drawn from census data. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Employment of the Handicapped.
Deegan, M. J., & Brooks, N. A. (Eds.). (1985). Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1981). Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8(2), 233-248.
Fine, M., & Asch, A. (Eds.). (1988). Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Fox, M. F., & Hesse-Biber, S. (1984). Women at work. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Hill, J. W., Hill, M., Wehman, P., Banks, P. D., Pendleton, P., & Britt, C. (1985). Demographic analysis related to successful job retention for competitively employed persons who are mentally retarded. In P. Wehman & J. W. Hill (Eds.), Competitive employment for persons with mental retardation: From research to practice (Vol. I). Richmond: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Virginia Commonwealth University.
Kregel, J., & Wehman, P. (1989). An analysis of the employment outcomes of young adults with mental retardation. In P. Wehman & J. Kregel (Eds.), Supported employment for persons with disabilities: Focus on excellence. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press.
Kutza, E. A. (1985). Benefits for the disabled: How beneficial for women? In M. J. Deegan & N. A. Brooks (Eds.), Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Menz, F. E., Hansen, G., Smith, H., Brown, C., Ford, M., & McCrowey, G. (1989). Gender equity in access, services and benefits from vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation, January/February/March, 31-40.
Mudrick, N. A. (1988). Disabled women and public policies for income support. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics (pp. 245-268). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Russo, N. F., & Jansen, M. A. (1988). Women, work, and disability: Opportunities and challenges. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics (pp. 229-244). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Sales, E., & Frieze, I. H. (1984). Women and work: Implications for mental health. In L. E. Walker (Ed.), Women and mental health policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Traustadottir, R. (1990). Obstacles to equality: The double discrimination of women with disabilities. In R. Traustadottir, Women with disabilities: Issues, resources, connections. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University.