Historically, Mexican American women have had lower labor force participation rates than Anglo or black women. In 1960, only 24.4 percent of Chicanas were employed as compared to 34.5 percent of Anglo women.1 Explanations of these disparities in labor force participation rates have relied on a model of cultural determinism that identified cultural values and norms as the causal factors. Many authors assume that family values alone determine whether Chicanas will enter the labor market, and that Chicanas violate those values when they work outside the home. I call this the familism or explanation. According to this model, Chicano machos prefer that their wives not work, and Chicanas, who value their homemaker roles over taking jobs, thus submit to their husbands' wishes. A corollary notion is that acculturation will occur when Chicanas are gainfully employed and that, consequently, they will lose family values.2 Over the last two decades, however, Chicanas have rapidly entered the labor force. Between 1960 and 1970, for example, married Chicanas entered the labor force nationally at a rate 15 percent higher than their white and black counterparts.3 In 1970, the gap in labor force participation rates had narrowed; 43 percent of all women worked as compared to 36 percent of Chicanas. By 1980, the gap between Chicanas and other women workers had nearly disappeared: 52 percent of all women worked,.while 49 percent of Spanish-origin women were employed.4 At the same time, Chicanas consistently have had higher unemployment rates than Anglo women. In 1970, women of Mexican origin had an unemployment rate of 14 percent compared to 9 percent for all women. By 1980, their percentage of unemployed declined to 10, while that of Anglo women was 8 percent.5 Technically, the unemployed are persons who are actively seeking jobs and are available for work. The official unemployment rate, of course, does not include the many workers-those who have completely given up the search for work. Groups with high unemployment rates usually also have higher numbers of discouraged workers.6 The historically high Chicana unemployment rates, whether official or not, indicate that more Chicanas would work if they could find jobs. In addition, since Chicanas tend to have larger families than Anglo women, the availability of child care facilities may have a greater influence on their ability to remain in the work force. The traditionalist approach neither predicted nor explained these trends. Instead of challenging the traditionalist perspective, adherents of the model merely modified it and claimed that declining family values explain Chicanas' recent entrance into the labor force. Most cultural determinants do not actually examine Chicanas' values and beliefs. A recent empirical study, however, investigated the effect of values on Chicana and Anglo women's labor force participation. Vilma Ortiz and her colleagues found that the cultural argument was not supported; traditional sex-role attitudes did not have a stronger impact on the labor force behavior of Hispanic females.7 In addition, these researchers found that the significant factor influencing Chicanas' commitment to the labor force was women's prior work experience. Women with unskilled, low-paying jobs tend to prefer homemaking, while those who have more stable jobs want to continue working. Ortiz argues that the availability of jobs, not culture, determines whether or not Chicanas are committed to the labor force. 8
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 1987
Elsie G J Moore + 1
Open Access