Gender Stratification Part 2: Work and Structural Sexism

Gender Stratification: Structural Sexism (Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht)

As most sociologists agree, the social structure underlies and perpetuates much of the sexism in society. Structural sexism, also known as institutional sexism, refers to the ways the organization of society and specifically its institutions subordinate individuals and groups based on their sex classification. Structural sexism has resulted in significant differences in the education and income levels, occupational and political involvement, and civil rights of women and men.

Work and Structural Sexism

According to an International Labour Organization (ILO) report, women made up 40 percent of the world’s total labor force in 2012 (ILO 2012a). In the same year, the gender gap in unemployment rates increased. Globally, the female unemployment rate was 6.4 percent compared to 5.7 percent unemployment for males. The report concludes that women have higher unemployment rates because of differences in educational attainment between men and women, occupational segregation, and higher rates of exiting and reentering the labor force as result of family obligations.

Women are also disproportionately employed in what is called vulnerable employment. Vulnerable employment is characterized by informal working arrangements, little job security, few benefits, and little recourse in the face of an unreasonable demand. Such is the case in developing countries where women are often “contributing family workers,” and in developed countries where women are disproportionately working in low-wage service occupations (ILO 2012a).

Women are also more likely to hold positions of little or no authority within the work environment and to receive lower wages than men (ILO 2012b). No matter what the job, if a woman does it, it is likely to be valued less than if a man does it. For example, in the early 1800s, 90 percent of all clerks were men and being a clerk was a prestigious profession. As the job became more routine, in part because of the advent of the typewriter, the pay and prestige of the job declined and the number of female clerk increased. Today, 92.2 percent of clerk are female (U.S. Census Bureau 2013), and the position is one of relatively low pay and prestige.

The concentration of women in certain occupations and men in other occupations is referred to as occupational sex segregation. Although occupational sex segregation remains high, it has decreased in recent years for some occupations. For example, between 1983 and 2010, the percentage of female physicians and surgeons more than doubled form 16 percent to 36 percent, female dentists increased from 7 percent to 30 percent and female clergy increased from 6 percent to 19 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2009, 2013).

Although the pace is slower, men are increasingly applying for jobs that women traditionally held. Spurred by the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector and the recent economic crisis, many jobs traditionally defined as male (e.g., auto worker, construction worker) have been lost. Thus, over the last 20 years, there has been a significant increase in the number of men in traditionally held female jobs; for example, a 50 percent increase in male telephone operators, 45 percent increase in male tellers, and 40 percent increase in male preschool and kindergarten teachers (Bourin & Blakemore 2008). Some evidence suggests that men in traditionally held female jobs have an advantage in hiring, promotion, and salaries called the glass escalator effect (Williams 2007). For example, secretaries and administrative assistants are overwhelmingly female, 95.3 percent. Yet the average median weekly salary for male secretaries is $803 compared to $665 for female secretaries (Heswisch and Matite, 2013). Despite the increase of men into traditionally held female occupations, women are still heavily represented in low-prestige, low-wage, pink-collar jobs that offer few benefits.

Sex segregation in occupations continues for several reasons. First, cultural beliefs about what is an “appropriate” job for a man or a woman still exists. Snyder and Green’s (2008) analysis of nurses in the United States is a case in point. Using survey date and in-depth interviews, the researchers identified patterns of sex segregation. Over 88 percent of all patient-care nurses were in sex-specific specialties (e.g. intensive care and psychiatry for male nurses, and labor or delivery and outpatient services for female nurses). Interestingly, although women rarely mentioned gender as a reason for their choice of specialty, male nurses frequently did so, acknowledging the “process of gender affirmation that led them to seek out ‘masculine’ positions within what was otherwise construed to be a women’s profession” (p. 291).

Second, opportunity structures for men and women differ. For example, women and men, upon career entry, are often channeled by employers into gender-specific jobs that carry different wages and promotion opportunities. However, even women in higher-paying jobs may be victimized by a glass ceiling, an often invisible barrier that prevents women and other minorities from moving into top corporate positions. For example, women and minorities have different social networks that do white men, which contributes to this barrier. White men in high-paying jobs are more likely to have interpersonal connections with individuals in positions of authority (Padavic & Reskin 2002). In addition, women often find that their opportunities for career advancement are adversely affected after returning from family leave. Female lawyers returning from maternity leave found their career mobility stalled after being reassigned to less prestigious cases (Williams 2000).

There is also evidence that working mothers pay a price for motherhood. Using an experimental design, Correll et al. (2007) report that, even when qualifications, background, and work experience were held constant, “evaluators rated mothers as less competent and committed to paid work than non-mothers” (p. 1,332). Other examples of the “motherhood penalty” include women who feel pressured to choose professions that permit flexible hours and career paths, sometimes known as mommy tracks (Moen & Yu 2000). Thus, women dominate the field of elementary education, which permits them to be home when their children are not in school. Nursing, also dominated by women, often offers flexible hours. Although the type of career pursued may be the woman’s choice, it is a structured choice, meaning a choice among limited options as a result of the structure of society.

Finally, Blau and Kahn (2013) argue that the comparatively low rates of female labor force participation, and female labor force participation growth, is the result of a lack of U.S. worker-friendly, and perhaps more importantly female-friendly, employment policies. An analysis of policy data indicates that “…most other countries have enacted parental leave, part-time work, and child care policies that are more extensive than in the United States, and the gap has grown over time” (p. 4). The authors conclude that such policies make part-time work more attractive, and make it easier for women to “have it all,” i.e. combine work and family life.

Sources

Mooney, Linda, Knox, David, and Schacht, Caroline 2015. Understanding Social Problems. Cengage Learning: Boston, MA.

ILO (International Labour Organization). 2012a (December). Global Employment Trends for Women. Available at www.ilo.org

ILO. 2012b (June 25). “Gender Dimensions of the World of Work in a Globalized Economy.” Gender Rethinking Alternative Paths for Development. Geneva: United Nations. Available at www.ilo.org

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012, 130^th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2008, 128^th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bourin, Lenny, and Bill Blakemore. 2008. “More Men Take Traditionally Female Jobs.” ABC World News, September 1. Available at http://abcnews.go.com

Williams, Christine L. 2007. “The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the ‘Female’ Occupations.” In Men’s Lives, 7^th ed., Michale S. Kimmel and Michael Messner, eds. (pp. 242-255). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hegewisch, Ariane, and Maxwell Matite. 2013 (April) The Gender Wage Gap by Occupation. Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Available at www.iwpr.org

Synder, Karrie Ann, and Adam Isaiah Green, 2008. “Revisiting the Glass Escalator: The Case of Gender Segregation in a Female Dominated Occupation.” Social Problems 55(2):271-299.

Padavic, Irene, and Barbara Reskin. 2002. Men and Women at Work, 2^nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:Pine Forge Press.

Williams, Joan. 2000. Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Correll, Shelly J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112(5):1,297-1,338.

Moen, Phyllis, and Yan Yu. 2000. “Effective Work/Life Strategies: Working Couples, Working Conditions, Gender and Life Quality.” Social Problems 47:291-326.

Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M Kahn. 2013. “Female Labor Supply: Why is the US Falling Behind?” January. NBER Working Paper No. 18702. The National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at www.nber.org