liberal, structural and post-structural feminism（組織管理中的三種女權主義綜述）

A fact should not be ignored is that all individual either male or female experience social world differently. The last 30 years many researchers studying the world of work attempted to understand and analyze the complex relationship of men, women and organisations. Some argue that significant progress has been done towards gender equality whereas other support that organisations are still characterised by gender inequalities as signs of pay, occupation and seniority difference persist. Despite of the remarkable economic changes in global labour markets and cultural and social changes towards equity between men and women, gender appears to be an increasingly important issue within the organizational context. Following are three main different approaches on gendered organisations，namely， liberal，structural and post-structural perspectives.

1 Liberal perspectives
男女平等。組織無性別。不平等來自舊習和偏見，個人歧視。不平等和壓抑不存在。
According to Halford and Leonard (2001: 1-35) the primary, and perhaps most familiar perspective which promotes gender neutrality is the liberal. Liberal feminists underlining sameness for both sexes support that men and women have equal rights and possess the same proficiency and inherent talent for rational decision-making. From this perspective, organisation is gender-neutral. Gender differences and inequalities exist in individual attitudes, believes, values. Not all men act collectively to uphold their privilege over women. Outmoded beliefs, customs and prejudice against the feminine nature are not a social phenomenon. So, within the liberal view there is no sense of oppression or inequality.
戰略上，要嘛平等機會。要嘛減少不平等by特殊女性照顧。
On this view, change strategies attempt either to minimize gender difference or celebrate and reward difference。Specifically，on the one hand, strategies that focus on principles of sameness and justice will grant the equal access to opportunities for both men and women。On the other hand, Liberal feminists found that there are significant proofs of horizontal and vertical segregation in the workplace. Therefore, their vision towards gender equity is to diminish these dissimilarities. Strategies that emphasize on difference and diversity will enable and support feminine ways of working。 Therefore, HRM practical politics of organizational change towards gender-neutral policies will increase the need for training, job-specific skills and fair guidance on decision-making. It is helpful to maintain gender equity through using legislative framework and collective action with trade union. Moreover, in fact, many organisation initiate to help to improve access for women, enhance 『family friendliness』 and challenge sexism within the organisation. (For example, the evolution of special training programs will not only enhance women’s performance on issues like leadership, assertiveness, presenta¬tion skills and negotiation but also allow women to compete men as equal.) Such strategies are advocated by researchers who consider they have optimistic effects. The strategies based on principle of 『sameness』 treat men and women the same and remove barriers from disadvantaged group.
However, such strategies are critiqued that, they fail to fully reach their goals although some have partial success and they do not alter the fundamentally gendered nature of organizations (Acker, 2000). Liff and Wajcman (1996) argue that such approaches can never adequately take account of problems arising from women's domestic responsibilities or their educational disadvantage. Equal opportunities policies are said, therefore to take an over-simplistic view both of the problem of inequality and its solution. 大衛 and 湯瑪士 (2002b) points out that, there are both theoretical and empirical problems with the 『difference』 perspective. There is a tendency for gender differences to be treated as if they are constant and to ignore the fluctuating nature of female experiences and identities.

2. Structural perspective
男女不平等。男女差異性和社會結構導致的。組織有性別。男性主導。
From a different point of view, structural perspective argues that # gender relation in an organisation is unequal. The cause of inequality and discrimination within organisations is the differentiation of gender and the social need for domination even when there is no sign of conflict.# In this light, Harlow et al (1995) support that the contemporary organisational structures are gendered both formal and informal by generating vertical and horizontal segregation within the labour force. Regardless of the trend towards equality in work activity, it can be seen that men still control disproportionably not only in full-time and permanent employment but also in management and personal finance arrangements (Rubery 1992, in 大衛 and 湯瑪士 2002). This happens because the traditional bureaucratic structures enforce and exert masculinities. Inevitably the masculine dominance creates margins for the female employees that are defined by men and fit totally to their interests. This system of distortion and suppression, known as patriarchy, accepts men as logical, and powerful whereas women as illogical and emotional and neglects any gender-neutrality within organisations (Cockburn, 1983; Walby, 1986; 科林斯on et al., 1990; 科林斯on and Hearn, 1996). Therefore although policies that overtly discriminate against women are illegal, there are still many organisations that still operate in a way that excludes women from certain grades and occupations, e.g. the industries of the IT and manufacturing sectors (Halford et al., 1997; Wajcman, 1998). Also evidence of low paid jobs designed for women and the undervaluing of women’s work..
戰略上，挑戰管理模式。減少歧視性的結構和程序。
Structural perspectives, thus, argue that masculine discourses have been always associated with administrative styles and are all about control, while feminine characteristics with change-oriented styles giving emphasis among others on motivation, interaction, commitment and participation (Rosener 1990). The objective of this approach is to eliminate discriminatory structural and procedural barriers. According to Palmer and Hardy (2000), some feminists aim to not only enact practices and values that provide a counterpoint to male domination inside the organization, but also act as a mode of social and political transformation within the large society. It is suggested that restructuring may offer opportunities for women to exploit the discursive gaps revealed from the unseating of dominant masculinity discourses (Maile, 1995). Rosener (1990) notes that alternative strategies towards equal opportunities, flexible working and fairness can bring changes in performance and evaluation as well as selection procedures and organisational culture in general.
However, considerable debate around the sustainability of these alternative forms of organizing critiques that, if women are disadvantaged because power is embedded in societal structures and meaning, it’s hard to achieve equal opportunities by restructuring the organizations. 大衛 and 湯瑪士’s (2002a) research indicates that the fragmentation of the Civil Service into semi-autonomous units, has threatened many of the equal opportunities initiatives (family friendly policies, nurseries, flexible working and women-only training) due to increased discretion over decision making in these areas (Cunningham et al. 1999 quoted in 大衛 and 湯瑪士, 2002a).

3.Poststructuralist Perspective:
沒有固定的模式。通過時空來理解。
Poststructuralists state that neither liberal nor structural approaches are right. They argue that neither people are all the same nor different. They highlight on the distinctiveness of gender and interpret the relationship between these two by always emphasizing the historical and geographical divergences across different cultures and periods(大衛 and 湯瑪士, 2002; 科林斯on and Hearn, 1994; Brewis and Linstead, 2006). They result to the distinctive conclusion that there is no fixed model of understanding but there might be various choices and symbolisms that determine the context of gendered organisation. In other words as Scott (1988) indicates these discourses are not linked to male clusters and are not viewed as a conscious plan of either male or class interests. Subsequently, male and female are not just simply dominant or oppressed. But, as poststructuralists reveal, power as a mean of subordination and hierarchy is always fluid and depends always on the way we choose to look at it because social world is understood through the differences of language and interpretations. Therefore, as argued by Flax (1987) both men and women are 『prisoners of gender in different ways』.
戰略上，即挑戰男子主導地位 也強調給女人機會。
From a critical point of view, poststructuralists neglecting the former perspectives allege that there is greater diversity towards gendered organizations. Women in organizations are not viewed as simply passive and may engage in a number of strategies to challenge the gendered organizations. Here the emphasis of poststructural strategies is on challenging the cultures that privilege masculine values, norms and behaviors and relate successful workplace identities to masculine identities (Ely and Meyerson, 2000).They also focus on individual resistance and on how this may lead to broader organization change.
However, it is suggested that, the cultures change approach has difficulty to tackle 『masculine』 cultures for many organizations are merely pursuing a defensive approach which centers on language change and modified initiatives rather than new approaches to winning consent (Liff and Cameron, 1997). Resistance approach seems to be problematic as well. Itzen (1995) argues that most of the male employees never challenge the existing sexist attitudes, beliefs and behaviors as the essence of male power is at the heart of the gendered culture and is hard to resist. 3. Overall, poststructural strategies may benefit the diversity of the organizations, but they are considered to be over ambitious to challenge the masculinist nature of management and organizations.

To sum up, the aforementioned approaches of gender inequality linked to the feminisation of management or cultural change failed to portray the real frame of work and of organisations as gender neutral. Undoubtedly, each of these approaches contributes to some point to the complex and paradoxical picture. However, each of these initiatives has its limitations and only focuses on a different definition and symptom of the problem. Thus no single perspective reveals the real frame of gender issue to a significant extent. Trying to map them together in order to form a logical justification is therefore tricky, if not impossible.