The most recent issue of Gender and Society, the top sociology of gender journal, has and article by Paula England and Su Li1that examines trends in gender segregation of college majors. On a positive note, the study indicates that during the overall time period gender segregation decreased dramatically, but the study also found that the pace of gender desegregation stalled in the later years of the study (It covers 1971-2001).
The data the authors’ use points to the “devaluation of the feminine” argument. This argument posits that the pace of desegregation is driven by women entering male fields; however, men do not reciprocate by entering females fields since these fields are considered a “step down.” Thus, the process of change is asymmetrical–women are changing dramatically and men are not changing much.
The authors summarize their findings in this way:
Baccalaureate degree recipients have gone from 44 to 58 percent women from 1971 to 2002. Women’s representation increased most rapidly in the first decade. Indeed, although the fact that women are getting more college degrees than men has just recently surfaced in the popular press, women’s numbers passed men’s in 1982 and have remained higher ever since. During these three decades, the gender segregation of fields of undergraduate study has declined, but the largest decline was in the first half of the period. During that period, successive cohorts of women changed their field choices quite dramatically toward fields dominated by men—out of fields dominated by women such as education and English and especially into business-related fields. Virtually none of the desegregation came from more men choosing fields traditional for women in significantly greater numbers. In the latter half of the period, women’s probabilities of choosing the historically male-dominated majors failed to continue their upward trek, and their probabilities of choosing fields traditional for women (such as English and elementary education), which had been falling, stopped their fall. This is a large part of why desegregation has stalled. Desegregation was also stalled by the fact that, as fields feminized, men eschewed the fields, especially in the more recent period, as our regression results show. Whether this still-somewhat-segregated equilibrium is temporary or will hold for the long term remains to be seen.
Our interpretation of these patterns draws on two theoretical perspectives with implications for change. The devaluation perspective helps us to understand why gender-related change is deeply asymmetric. While desegregation could come from women’s abandoning predominantly female for predominantly male fields or from men’s abandoning predominantly male for predominantly female fields, almost all the change was of the former type. We believe that this is because any field associated with women has been culturally devalued, so that women have more to gain than men in status and rewards from majoring in fields nontraditional for their gender. Devaluation also explains our regression-based findings that feminization of fields deters men from entering.
The authors also say that this trend is consistent with other trends in gender inequality in recent years. Over the 1990s the indicators of gender inequality such as the pay gap, occupational segregation, and egalitarian attitudes have not changed much. (The authors cite a study by Cotter, Hermsen and Vanneman.)2 for the pay gap and occupational segregation. I have a feeling the the 1990s and 2000s are going to be for gender what the 1970s and 1980s were for race–the point at which major progress towards ending inequality stalls. Of course, this is just me speculating.
On of the things that this study suggests is that after a certain point, gender desegregation is really contingent on men’s choices and behaviors. This also leads me to wonder what we can do to get more men to enter fields like nursing or education, since women have been entering fields like engineering and physics in larger numbers.
Pingback: a bird and a bottle
Do these data partially explain the growing shortage of nurses and educators?
This also leads me to wonder what we can do to get more men to enter fields like nursing or education
Change the human genome, and reverse the feminization of educational values that’s occurred slowly over the last century, respectively. Otherwise you could see some marginal gains but no substantive changes.
I don’t doubt that “devaluation of the feminine” is a cause, but I suspect that, since a lot of propblem now is men not entering “women’s” fields, homophobia is also a big issue. (Think of the male nurse stereotype.) Of course, there is probably also a lot of overlap between those two causes.
Rosemary, I’d bet it plays into it. A lot of women who would have been forced into nursing fifty years ago have instead chosen to become doctors.
Rachel, the big changes in women’s choices have been to enter higher-paying positions and/or fields. If nurses or teachers were paid what men think they should be paid, I think the stigma of the feminine would fade.
I suspect that we may have more nurses, but I think there are other factors related to the nursing shortage. In particular, the expectation for greater health maintence and prevention and the aging population have created a greater demand for nurses.
I also think the discussion of homophobia (and femiphobia–my word there) could make an interesting argument. It would be nice to conduct interviews with college students who are chosing their majors, and see what they claim attracts them to an occupation.
Kaethe, The devaluation argument would argue that these occupations are paid less because they are mostly women. For example, in Russia most doctors are women, but doctors are not paid particularly well. So they would argue that the feminization of an occupation is correlated with the pay of an occupation.
Robert, You can’t actually believe that career choices are biological. You really can’t believe that can you?
I think somebody slipped something in your brownies dude.
I think the homophobia involved in males entering female-dominated fields is simply a manifestation of the devaluation of women. Males aren’t worried that being nurses will make them seem gay; they are worried it will make them seem less masculine. Being labeled “gay” in this case is simply a method of enforcing gender roles, not sexuality. Therefore I wouldn’t spend to much time looking at homophobia here – it hides the larger issue of femiphobia (hope you don’t mind if I steal that!)
Michele said, “Being labeled “gay” in this case is simply a method of enforcing gender roles, not sexuality. Therefore I wouldn’t spend to much time looking at homophobia here – it hides the larger issue of femiphobia (hope you don’t mind if I steal that!)”
I would say it is both, but I do tend to agree that the femiphobia (which I will gladly share with everybody LOL!!) preceeds the homophobia.
Just as a general point to everybody–Keep in mind that by femiphobia I mean fear of femininity or being perceived as feminine. However, there is another definition of homophobia advanced by Michael Kimmel. That definition of homophobia references men’s fear of other men. I suspect that type of homophobia is a big deal here–men being afraid of what other men think about them being nurses teachers etc. Then on top of that, they are also afraid of being labled feminine.
It seems to me that if men feared other men they would go into an area where men AREN’T. Like nursing. I mean, if I had a morbid fear of bridges, I probably wouldn’t get a job working on bridges.
But the most flipped out theory is: Maybe a lot of men don’t want to be nurses. It doesn’t interest them for whatever reason.
If that’s the case, I’m not sure what good there is in trying to force more men into that position.
JG said, “It seems to me that if men feared other men they would go into an area where men AREN’T.”
According to Kimmel, what men fear is how other men will label of treat them if they violate the norms of masculinity. For example, most men would be more insulted to be called a wimp by another man, opposed to a woman.
JG said, “But the most flipped out theory is: Maybe a lot of men don’t want to be nurses. It doesn’t interest them for whatever reason. ”
Well, why not? Propose a theory.
“Well, why not? Propose a theory.”
The interaction of men and women in society, meaning that men know that they have to at least act like the big-producer types in the courting dance (at least they don’t have to bob their tailfeathers in a rhythmic way)?
Some difference like a tilt towards better spatial visualization ability and maybe a desire to go in that direction?
An orientation towards things and not people?
Maybe some of it is inborn and maybe some is trained by society (men AND women in society)?
That’s the way things are and I don’t know why it should bother anyone until we find out more about how the world works?
Those are just some guesses.
Now what’s the “right answer”, Rachel? Don’t leave me in suspense.
JG said, “That’s the way things are and I don’t know why it should bother anyone until we find out more about how the world works? ”
I’m not sure that you do want to find out how the world works. It sounds to me like you’re just going along with stereotypes rather than trying to look at actual research.
“I’m not sure that you do want to find out how the world works. It sounds to me like you’re just going along with stereotypes rather than trying to look at actual research.”
I’m honestly interested in the truth. The problem is that there just isn’t enough information yet on issues like whether there IS a statistical difference between men and women’s brains, for instance, that would tend to push genders in different directions.
Or maybe there is no difference (remember all you need is a statistical difference, not an absolute difference, to produce statistical results – some men ARE nurses).
You completely dismissed any biological basis above. I don’t think THAT’S a desire to know the truth. I think it is simple repetition of the theory that everything is trained in society.
In other words: I’m not advocating a particular theory, I just think there isn’t enough information yet to determine that – not by far.
I realize that’s a different issue (what really happens) than the issue of promoting a political point of view or stance.
You can’t actually believe that career choices are biological. You really can’t believe that can you?
Not as a general rule. I wouldn’t think there are many careers where the biological differences between men and women will translate into a substantial difference in whether people will be interested in the job.
Nursing, however, would seem to one such career. A huge chunk of the job boils down to bedside manner – nurturing and caring. What’s more, the nursing jobs where that isn’t so much the case are jobs that you get later in a career or after extensive training; they aren’t where you start out. If you don’t like nurturing other people, you’re not going to enjoy a nursing career.
Most men don’t like nurturing other people. Lots of exceptions, of course – there are plenty of male nurses, just not anywhere close to 50%. And of course, there is a big socialization and conditioning backstory to that “we don’t like to do this” statement; no argument there. But I’m pretty sure that a lot of that socialization and conditioning is a rational response to a limited human population; “this is an area where men’s performance sucks so let’s encourage them to develop strengths elsewhere and get the best use of their talents.”
Like JG, I’m not married to this idea. Perhaps forty years from now nursing will be a male-dominated job and we’ll be doing it well; no idea. It just doesn’t align with my observations of the world to date. I trust my observations of the world over any particular academic theory about gender difference; every gender theory I’ve read so far (whether from your lot or from fundies wanting justification for keeping the womenfolk in the kitchen) has been 99% wishful thinking and swamp gas.
Increasing pay would move the needle a bit, I think, but at the ugly cost of rewarding men just for showing up.
This is likely unworkable, but in my experience hospitals are full of low skill having, invaribaly colored men who work as orderlies and such who I imagine could be enticed into nursing’s higher pay and (in some places) union membership. The problem would be, of course, figuring out how to train them.
Re: bedside manner, that is not so much bunk as a red herring. Both my parents were lab technicians, so in order to save on medical bills they would draw me and my sister’s blood before we went to the doctor and present him with all the workups already done. My father, who was kind of fearsomely and stereotypically male, was a painless, magically unintrusive blood drawer, whereas my mom could basically pin your arm down with her knee and jab the needle into you like she was trying to nail you to the tabletop. (I exaggerate, but you get the point.)
My dad put a premium on fast and painless draws, my mother just on fast. This suggests to me that the experience of bedside manner on the part of the patient is less dependent on gender than one might assume it is.
Pingback: a bird and a bottle
For this to work, it would have to be true that gender differences were invariable and greater than differences within either gender. It would also have to be true that there were a limited human population, instead of the rapidly expanding one we actually have. Furthermore, it would have to be the case that nursing as a profession was indistinguishable from nursing in the sense of caring. And yet, no. Nursing as a profession only goes back to the Crimean War, whereas caring is a trait shared by every social animal.
Sure, it’s possible that all career choices are informed by some as yet undiscovered and as yet undetectable difference between the sexes. But we know 1) that women pursue higher-paying positions from which they were formerly excluded arbitrarily just as soon as they can 2) that “the feminine” is undervalued in our society and underpaid 3) that most people do not shop downward for employment. If you’re interested in healthcare as a profession, you choose the highest level you think it worthwhile to attempt to attain.
The problem is not how to train male orderlies without college education to make them into nurses (we know how to do that, we call it nursing school). The problem is to make nursing a profession with some authority and some decision-making and pay appropriate to the education and schedules required. Talk to a nurse: it sucks.