• Ê
  • Â

5 Ross Definitions

 Å

% Jessie Salfen completed

In his definition of feminization of labor, Ross states women are inherently more likely to take on more work in the white-collar, no-collar, unpaid internship role because the around the clock efforts of these jobs are similar to the work schedule of a housewife. A housewife’s duties generally have no distinction between keeping home (working) and being at home (not working). As the duties of keeping home do not hold the traditional hours of an office, a housewife’s tasks take place both day and night intermingled with every day’s pleasures. So therefore, in attempt to explain feminization of labor, Ross implies that by simply being women they are attuned and inclined to the work-ethic of having no clear distinction between work time and leisure time, compared to their male counterparts. While I personally find this connection to be assumptious and furthering the gendered divide, there is no denying that the majority (77% according to Ross’s research) of unpaid internships are held by women in which their efforts exceed the formal model of a 5-day, 40 hour work week. Perhaps it would be better to examine the reasoning behind the gendered imbalance by interpreting women’s extra efforts in the workplace as striving to disprove discriminating assumptions of being the inferior sex, working harder than male counterparts to dispel gendered inequality but consequently creating a new gendered assumption that women are more readily open to being exploited in their effort and time in the new mobile labor sector.

In addition to the feminization of the creative industries, like those in tech and corporate American unpaid internships, another feminization of labor is taking place in the physical workforces that produce the electronic devices for upon which creative industries utilize. Ross explains that these factories that create devices in countries like China are employed almost fully by rural female teenagers receiving little compensation for long work hours. The remote locations of the factories partnered with little competition of other work and few opportunities for women in general, make possible the exploitation of this class of women.

 Å

% Deborah Markewich completed

Amateur Economy

In the section titled “Computers are not to blame,” Ross discusses the fact that digital media is not the only area where volunteer or “amateur economy” benefits big business. The practice of using free labor as a business model was adopted by the television industry back in the 1980s. When faced with loss of revenue from the competition of cable channels, networks started producing more game shows and reality television. The general public flocked to participate on many of these shows whether it was to win money on shows like “Who Want’s to be a Millionaire?” or to have their 15 minutes of fame on shows like “Big Brother”, however degrading some of the situations were. Networks quickly realized that these shows cost a fraction of what a scripted television show using union writers and actors cost, and these shows began to proliferate on the airwaves. Reality TV shows are so inexpensive to produce that most make their money back after the first showing of an episode. Ross also points out that anyone who watches these shows can see that there actually is a “script” of sorts. What is meant to seem completely spontaneous, is actually quite often practiced, carefully plotted and achieved with multiple takes. But the producers are able to keep from hiring writers by hiding behind the façade that their shows are “real” and there is no writing taking place. Unfortunately, professional actors and writers are the “biggest losers” in the amateur economy, losing jobs as fewer scripted shows are produced.

In the “amateur economy” of the digital age, amateur bloggers, reviewers and commentators work without the expectation of monetary payment. Like the networks and TV producers of reality shows, the websites reap all of the profits while the talent works for free.

 Å

% Natasha Wong completed

In this chapter, Ross touches on the topic of the feminization of labor, which has to do with the fact that certain jobs (mostly low paying or non paying jobs) have been branded as “feminine” jobs in our culture today. He addresses the fact that American culture has seen an increase in unpaid internships within the last few years, and that women make up the majority of these unpaid internships. Ross states “Most trades remain male strongholds and less than 10% of registered apprentices are female, with women dominating the most precarious sectors of white collar and no-collar employment.” He believes that the intern economy is a reflection of the feminization of work, because most of these positions are filled by women. His statistics go on to show that these internships rarely transition into a permanent job placement, which in turn brings to light the inequality that women face in the workplace. Ross states “the sacrifices, trade offs, and humiliations entailed in interning are more redolent of traditional kinds of women’s work, whether at home or in what used to be called the secondary labor market.”

I agree with this assessment because more and more I see positions that are traditionally filled by women (such as secretary or admin jobs) being offered as temp jobs, but rarely,(if ever), do you find a male dominated job position for SVP or Managing Director being offered on a temporary basis. If we do a critical assessment of the jobs that offer unpaid internships or temp jobs, they tend to predominantly target the female population. We come to believe that internships provide the necessary training in order to be qualified for a position, but we do not realize that it is an illusion created by the corporate giants, one that has provided them with the ability to get workers for free.