CAP
About CAP
Contact Information
CAP Inquiry
CAP Newsletter
CAP Update
CAP FAQ  
CAP Event Photos
Interesting Cases
New Initiatives
Outreach Events
Committee, Council and Board Updates Update: 8/18/07
Staff Profiles

Publications
ADA - Need to Know
Guide to Disability Rights
Guide to Self Advocacy
Interesting Case Summaries
Job Applicants and the ADA
Unlawful Interview Questions

Article Archives

Links
Working Women

call for entries revealing culture an international juried exhibition by artists with disabilities cul·ture [kuhl-cher] noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing. -noun 1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.   2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.   3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture. 4. development or improvement of the mind by education or training.

Resources for Women Woment and Disability Resources Health Promotion Disability and Feminism Parents with Disabilities National Information Center

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects you against disability
discrimination, if you are employed by a Federal contractor or
by the Executive Branch of the Federal government. This law also
requires Federal contractors to take affirmative action for
people with disabilities.

PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination related to temporary disabilities caused by pregnancy is illegal under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Sex, race, religion, and national origin discrimination are also illegal under Federal law and under many State and local laws. Under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, employers who have at least 15 workers must not discriminate for these reasons in hiring, pay, benefits, promotion, training, terminations or
other employment practices.

AGE DISCRIMINATION

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects women and men, forty years of age and older, from job discrimination based on age.

WHAT CAN YOU DO IF YOU'RE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST?

With the passing of equal opportunity laws, doors that were firmly closed have been pried open by women's, civil rights and disability advocacy groups and others working to ensure fair treatment in the work place for all.

EDUCATION
When it comes to education, women with disabilities are likely to have received less education than both non-disabled women and men with disabilities. Women with disabilities are five times as likely as women without disabilities to have less than eight years of formal education; 17.4 percent of all women with disabilities have less than eight years of formal education as compared to 3.5 percent of non-disabled women. Only 16 percent of all women with disabilities are likely to have any college education compared to 31 percent of non-disabled women and 28 percent of men with disabilities (Bowe, 1984).

Despite the progress toward integrated education, most students with disabilities are still educated in segregation from their non-handicapped peers. Most studies indicate that boys are more likely to be identified as needing special education than girls. While boys count for 51 percent of all students in special education classes (Russo & Jansen, 1988). Researchers have speculated why boys are more readily identified as needing special education. Some authors have suggested that this reflects discrimination against boys with disabilities and deprives them of the benefits of regular education. They suggest that boys are more readily labelled as having a disability and channeled into special education on the grounds of disruptive behaviors. Others have indicated that the overrepresentation of boys in special education reflects the view that educating boys with disabilities is regarded as a priority -- they are seen as in need of special education services in order to develop the skills to be able to support themselves and a family later on (Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, 1983).

Research also indicates that boys labeled as having mental retardation have higher IQs than girls with the same label. Gillespie-Silver and Heshusius (1981) have speculated that the reason for this may be that the stereotypes of a female and a person with mental retardation are very similar -- both are seen as illogical, dependent, emotional, and needing protection. Girls may therefore not be labelled as having mental retardation unless they have significantly low intelligence.

The influence of gender on labeling and special education placement is further complicated by the influence of race and class. It has been documented that children of minority races, especially boys, are grossly over in special education programs, especially boys, are grossly overrepresented in special education programs, especially programs for students with mild mental retardation (Mercer, 1973; Tomlinson, 1982).

While all students, males and females, with and without disabilities are subject to sex-biased assumptions in most schools and curriculum, research seems to indicate that sex-role stereotyping may be even more pervasive when students have disabilities. For example, Gillespie and Fink (1974) found that sex-role stereotyping seemed to be especially pervasive for children who have mental retardation or behavioral problems. They report that these students tended to be taught traditional sex-role modes of behavior because that would supposedly enable them to better adjust to society. The authors also found that schoolbooks for children with disabilities tended to include stories and illustrations that were deliberately sex-role stereotypical in order to foster this adjustment.

EMPLOYMENT
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 percent of men with disabilities are in the labor force (meaning that they either work or are actively seeking work), compared to 24 percent of women. In addition, while more than 30 percent of men with disabilities work full-time jobs, only 12 percent 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 percent of what full-time employed men with disabilities (Bowe, 1984).

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 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, worker's 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.

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 neglected by those who have examined the employment situation of women with disabilities. They 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 characteristics that it makes all 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 ages of 18 and 22, who has been places 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 place consumers" (Kregel & Wehman, 1989; 265).

In an earlier study Hill, et al (1985) found a similar trend among a group of 155 people with mental retardation between the ages 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: 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 percent, while females represented only 34 percent 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, of 70 percent, compared to 55 percent of the females. 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 with mental retardation face the same employment discrimination as other women with disabilities

CONCLUSION
Women with disabilities have historically been neglected by those concerned with issues of disability as well as the feminist movement. It is only within the last decade that serious attempts have been made to identify and understand the forces shaping their lives. These attempts have mainly focused on understanding how being a female and having a disability interacts and how women with disabilities view their experiences. This decade of writing has provided us with rich personal accounts as well as research-based information about the social situation of women with disabilities and a long awaited theoretical framework to understand and interpret their lives and experiences. This new and emerging scholarship is somewhat limited and much remains to be learned about women with disabilities. At the same time, this scholarship provides the basis and the promise for future advances. Women with disabilities are one of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in today's society. We need to develop a better understanding of their lives in order to remove the obstacles that still remain in their way to equality.

References
Bowe, F. (1984). Disabled women in America: A statistical report drawn from census data. Washington, DC: President's Committee On Employment of the Handicapped.

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. (1983). The disabled women's report of survey results. Washington, DC: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

Gillespie, P., & Fink, A. (1974). The influence of sexism on education of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 41(3).

Gillespie, P., & Heshusius, L. (1981). Mental retardation: A double standard for the sexes. Equal Play, Winter/Spring, 1981, 16-18.

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. 1). Richmond, VA: 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.

Mercer, J. R. (1973). Labelling the mentally retarded. Berkeley, CA: University of California 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. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Tomlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Women with Disabilities Entrepreneurship Project

The Women's Bureau is proud of our stars - women with disabilities who have gone through our Women with Disabilities Program to start their own businesses.