Gender Stratification: Unpacking Women’s Subordination Across Social Classes

Women’s position in the labor market has never been simply about work. It has always been about power – who holds it, who is denied it, and how that denial is justified across generations. Gender stratification, the hierarchical ranking of people based on gender, shapes women’s access to resources, economic opportunities, and political voice in ways that cut across every social class. But class itself adds another layer of complexity. A working-class woman navigates the labor market very differently from an upper-class one. Understanding women’s subordination means understanding how gender and class interact – historically, structurally, and politically.

What is gender stratification? 🔗

Gender stratification refers to the unequal distribution of power, privilege, and resources based on gender. In most societies, this has consistently meant male advantage and female subordination – especially in economic, social, and political domains. It is not an isolated phenomenon. It intersects with race, class, caste, and religion to create layered experiences of disadvantage for women at the margins of multiple social hierarchies.

Conflict theory offers one of the most direct explanations for this. Friedrich Engels compared the family structure to the bourgeoisie-proletariat relationship, arguing that women held less power within households because of economic dependency on men. Like any dominant group, men fought to maintain control over political and economic resources – a dynamic that feminist scholars have since elaborated and refined considerably.

The historical roots of women’s subordination in labor 🔗

The story of women’s subordination in the workplace is inseparable from industrialization. The Industrial Revolution reorganized the production process by separating the household from the workplace, triggering a fundamental shift in how women’s labor was valued – or rather, devalued. Before industrialization, women’s work within the household economy was economically visible and socially recognized. After it, that recognition evaporated.

As one historian has observed, the “gender division of labor” that once existed gradually became a “gendered definition of labor”: men earned wages outside the home and that was called “labor,” while women performed unpaid domestic work that was classified as “not labor.” This cultural devaluation masked the continuing, deep-seated economic importance of women’s unpaid contributions. Few working-class male wage-earners earned enough alone, relying on women’s domestic labor to make up the difference.

Women who did enter factories were not treated as equal participants. They labored long hours in harsh conditions, facing lower wages and limited opportunities for advancement compared to their male counterparts, even as their labor was essential to industrial output. The double burden was real: factory shifts during the day, domestic responsibilities at night. Their economic contributions were framed as supplementary – peripheral to the “real” economy dominated by men.

Class and gender: A compounding disadvantage 🔗

Class does not simply sit alongside gender – it multiplies it. Because gender reflects the division of labor in public and private spheres, and the division of labor in both spheres differs by class, the dynamic interplay between gender and class has direct influence on women’s employment beliefs and practices. A woman’s social class shapes where she works, how much she earns, and whether she even enters the formal labor market at all.

Women with post-secondary education, a marker of higher social class, are increasingly more likely to be employed than less-educated women. Yet even this advantage does not translate evenly. Research consistently shows that women from affluent backgrounds benefit from educational investments in ways that lower-class women simply cannot access – whether due to the cost of education, the need to work immediately, or structural barriers in labor markets that filter women into lower-paid, precarious roles.

Women gain and lose status in society in ways that are more complex than their male counterparts, partly because their status has historically been tied to whom they marry, how they manage domestic responsibilities, and how they are perceived within social structures that were not designed with them in mind. Working-class women are doubly marginalized – by their gender and by their economic position – with limited access to the networks, resources, and institutional support that might ease that disadvantage.

Women as peripheral workers: The structural argument 🔗

One of the most persistent features of gender stratification in labor markets is that women have been structurally positioned as peripheral workers. Despite a large influx of women into mainly service sector jobs over the past four decades, women continue to be underrepresented in the labor market and earn less on average than men – gaps almost certainly linked to the greater de facto responsibilities assigned to women in child-rearing and household work.

This peripheral status manifests in several ways. Women are overrepresented in sectors that are socially essential but economically undervalued. According to 2024 data, women remain overrepresented in Healthcare and Care Services (58.5%) and Education (52.9%) – sectors critical to social infrastructure but that often have lower pay and long-term economic scaling potential. Meanwhile, they remain underrepresented in high-paying industries like technology and finance.

Employers have also historically exploited women’s structurally weaker bargaining position. Employers engage in what might be termed “strategic discrimination” – paying women less not necessarily out of overt bias, but because they recognize that women are more likely to accept lower wages due to institutional context. This is not simply individual discrimination; it is a feature of how capitalist labor markets are organized.

Feminist scholars challenge traditional class analysis 🔗

For much of the 20th century, mainstream class analysis – particularly within Marxist sociology – treated class as the primary axis of inequality and women’s subordination as a secondary issue that would resolve itself once capitalism was dismantled. Feminist scholars directly challenged this assumption. They argued that treating gender as derivative of class missed the specific, autonomous mechanisms by which women are subordinated.

Many radical feminists maintained that women’s work is part of a separate patriarchal mode of reproduction that underlies all economic systems of production – not just capitalism – and that men exploit women’s reproductive labor in ways that Marxist analysis had consistently ignored. Socialist feminists, in turn, sought to synthesize these insights, arguing that patriarchy and capitalism are intertwined systems that must be analyzed together.

Socialist feminist theory established that the importance of labor to understanding gender inequality, and the centrality of gender to understanding the labor market, are now mainstream assumptions in social science – even when feminist origins of those insights go unacknowledged. Before feminist scholars pushed these arguments in the 1970s and 1980s, gender was largely confined to family studies; today, it is impossible to discuss labor markets rigorously without a gender lens.

Marxist feminists see women as a reserve army of cheap labor – available when needed, dismissed when not – whose structural vulnerability is reproduced not just by individual employers, but by the entire organization of capitalist economies that depend on women’s unpaid domestic labor to sustain the workforce. Scholar Silvia Federici argued that women cannot be emancipated until they are free from the burden of unwaged labor, a position that requires institutional changes such as closing the wage gap and implementing workplace childcare programs.

Women’s political struggle for recognition and rights 🔗

Understanding women’s subordination as a structural problem – not just a personal one – naturally leads to collective political action. Women’s movements throughout history have fought to make their labor visible, their rights enforceable, and their voices heard in the institutions that govern economic life.

During the Industrial Revolution, women entering factories in large numbers organized America’s first industrial protests, strikes, and reform groups in response to dangerous working conditions and low pay. However, they were largely excluded from mainstream labor movements that prioritized male workers and a “family wage” ideology that positioned women as dependents rather than earners in their own right.

Over the 20th century, feminist pressure shifted both labor policy and legal frameworks. When federal anti-discrimination laws were introduced in the early 1960s, organized labor, under pressure from the emerging feminist movement, supported sex discrimination prohibitions in both the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These were not simply legislative milestones – they were the result of decades of women organizing for recognition as full economic actors.

Yet political recognition has remained stubbornly unequal. Women make up half the global population but hold just 26.5% of parliamentary seats and 22.9% of ministerial positions worldwide. This political imbalance has direct economic consequences: countries with higher female political representation pass stronger labor policies that close gender gaps faster, including pay transparency laws and gender-equal parental leave.

The gap between law and reality 🔗

Legal progress has outpaced implementation in most countries. A 2024 World Bank report found that when legal differences involving violence and childcare are taken into account, women enjoy fewer than two-thirds the rights of men – far fewer than the previous estimate of 77%. No country provides full equal opportunity for women, including the wealthiest economies.

The implementation gap is stark. While 98 economies have enacted legislation mandating equal pay for work of equal value, only 35 have adopted pay-transparency measures or enforcement mechanisms to address the pay gap. Laws on the books do not automatically translate into material change for women – especially working-class women who lack access to legal resources and are more vulnerable to retaliation for asserting rights.

According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2024, at the current pace of progress, it will take 152 years to reach economic parity between men and women. That figure is not a prediction to accept – it is a measure of how deep structural change needs to go.

Intersectionality: Class, race, and gender together 🔗

Women are not a uniform group, and feminist analysis has increasingly insisted on understanding how multiple axes of inequality overlap. The only way to fully understand women’s position in the labor market is to examine how the disadvantages they face interact with other dimensions of group membership such as race, ethnicity, class, and citizenship.

Intersectionality – first articulated by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw – moves beyond simply adding categories of disadvantage. It shows how race, class, and gender combine to create qualitatively different experiences of subordination. A Black working-class woman does not face “gender discrimination + race discrimination”; she faces a distinct form of structural exclusion shaped by how both systems operate together. The historical effects of racial discrimination exert a strong effect on family income and intergenerational wealth transmission, meaning that gender gaps in the labor market cannot be fully addressed without addressing racial and class inequalities simultaneously.

The evidence suggests that biological differences are not a key driver of gender inequality in labor-market outcomes; social norms and culture – which affect preferences, behavior, and incentives to develop specific skills – are very important. And crucially, social norms are not fixed. They can be shifted through policy, education, and collective action – which is precisely what feminist movements have always argued.

What do you think? If women’s subordination in the labor market is rooted in both structural and cultural factors, which of these is more resistant to change – and why? And given that gender parity in economic participation is still 152 years away at current rates, what would genuinely transformative change actually look like?

References

1. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Courses/Solano_Community_College/SOC_002:_Social_Issues_and_Problems/11:_Gender_Stratification_and_Inequality/11.03:_Sociological_Perspectives_on_Gender_Stratification
2. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-22448-7_3
3. https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25037
4. https://thomas-earnshaw.com/blogs/the-earnshaw-odyssey/womens-role-in-the-industrial-revolution-from-factory-workers-to-reformers
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X17301008
6. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/political-science/gender-and-stratification-effects-social-marginalization
7. https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/dilemma-gender-equality-how-labor-market-regulation-divides-women-class
8. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2025/in-full/labour-markets-political-leadership-and-supporting-frameworks/
9. https://www.epi.org/unequalpower/publications/gender-and-bargaining-in-the-u-s-labor-market/
10. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-class/
11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/marxist-feminist-theory
12. https://www.simplypsychology.org/marxist-feminism.html
13. https://openpress.digital.conncoll.edu/feministtheory/chapter/marxist-social-feminism/
14. https://exhibitions.lib.umd.edu/unions/social/womens-rights
15. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/03/political-power-and-economic-parity-we-need-more-women-leaders-for-the-future-of-jobs/
16. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2024/03/04/new-data-show-massive-wider-than-expected-global-gender-gap
17. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/06/global-gender-gap-2024-what-to-know/
18. https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality-by-gender