306! I Corrections and Prison Practices—Civic Forensics
Glaser (1987) conducted a study on female COs and found that they were not
viewed positively by the male guards. In fact, they found that the male officers' re-
sistance was the greatest problem the female COs faced in male prisons. S. E. Martin
and Junk (1996) found, more specifically, that it is in the area of actual security work
in men's prisons where women are least likely to be included. Women consist of
43% of the total correctional work force, yet they only make up 13% of correctional
officer security in men's prisons. Since their numbers are so low, it is not surprising
that the biggest problem faced by female COs is being recognized and treated as
equals (Szockyj, 1989). Jane's situation captures this problem.
This unequal position of female COs can often begin before they even start
their job. Many do not receive any type of training before their first day of work
(S. E. Martin &Jurik, 1996). They are supposed to receive on-the-job training, yet
their trainers generally are male COs who do not want them there (Zimmer, 1987).
Sometimes, they actively undermine the woman's ability to succeed by withholding
information about how to deal with the inmates (Zimmer, 1987). In Jane's case, the
training officer often refused to answer her questions about the job. S. E. Martin and
furik (1996) also found that male coworkers excluded women COs from training
exercises and even sabotaged them to the point of threatening the women's physical
safety. They also reported that, due to this hostility by the coworkers, the inmates
actually provided the needed information and training.
From their first day, women COs are confronted with the problem of fitting in
with their coworkers. This problem does not always go away with time. Female COs
face steady opposition and sexual harassment from the male guards (Zimmer, 1987).
The opposition can take many different forms. Although male coworkers at times
show overt hostility, they also engage in more subtle \vays of undermining female
COs. They can put pressure on women by constantly questioning or scrutinizing
their performance (S. E. Martin &Jurik, 1996). They sometimes reverse decisions
made by women, thereby undermining women's authority over prisoners (Zimmer,
1987). For women in supervisory positions, their male subordinates engage in subtle
and blatant forms of resistance such as rolling their eyes, inattentiveness, and feigning
an, inability to hear orders. They can also undermine a woman's authority by "going
over her head," thus causing her to lose the respect of her superiors due to ineffective
management (S. E. Martin &Jurik, 1996).
Sexual harassment is another technique male COs use to keep women in an
unequal status. Women become victims of rumors and allegations of sexual mis-
conduct. There are overt propositions by male COs and more subtle behaviors
such as joking, teasing, and name calling (S. E. Martin & Jurik, 1996). In the case
illustration, Jane was propositioned by her coworker and then ridiculed when she
refused his advances. Women COs even report that male officers proposition them
in front of male inmates (Pollock-Byrne, 1990). It seems as if this might encourage
the inmates to behave in a similar manner, yet Home (1985) reported that obsceni-
ties more often came from the male coworkers than from the inmates. In a study of
San Quentin Prison, it was found that women COs were sexually harassed at work