Feminizing Occupations

[fullwidth background_color=”” background_image=”” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_position=”left top” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_webm=”” video_mp4=”” video_ogv=”” video_preview_image=”” overlay_color=”” overlay_opacity=”0.5″ video_mute=”yes” video_loop=”yes” fade=”no” border_size=”0px” border_color=”” border_style=”” padding_top=”20″ padding_bottom=”20″ padding_left=”” padding_right=”” hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” hide_on_mobile=”no” menu_anchor=”” class=”” id=””][/fullwidth]

The fundamental reason for women’s disproportionate entry into the occupations we studied was a shortage of male workers (Kindle Locations 4144-4145).

Women receive better career opportunities when men are no longer available or simply do not want particular jobs. Only when employers are desperate for employees do they seem to realize that women can do jobs just as well as men. Occupations that do begin welcoming women at a greater rate generate a demand for women workers.

Fostering desegregation in a few of our occupations was the emergence of a sex-specific demand for women. Four phenomena produced such a demand: antidiscrimination regulations and litigation that raised the potential cost of giving men preference; the growth within an occupation of tasks already labeled as women’s work; the growth of a female clientele; and economic exigencies that spurred employers to take advantage of women’s lower labor price (Kindle Locations 4156-4158).

So employees begin to hire women when hiring men puts them at risk of violating laws and/or being sure. Women are hired at greater rates when there is a greater demand to complete tasks that are typically performed by women. Higher rates occur when there is an increase in female clients. This means that all women can impact hiring practices indirectly through concerted consumption. Lastly, women are hired more often when employers need to cut costs.

Despite the prevailing wisdom that liberalized attitudes have opened male jobs to women, we could document an effect only in bartending, where women’s exclusion had been reinforced by public fears that tending bar would corrupt them. In the other feminizing occupations we studied, changing attitudes tudes were unimportant compared with labor shortages or economic pressures (Kindle Locations 4174-4176).

I imagine today a lot of people would say they have no problem with a woman doing any particular job.  Saying that and women actually getting the chance to the jobs are two different things.  Generally,  our attitudes regarding the employment of women have little weight on employer decisions. However,  instead of attempting to influence employers,  the focus should be on legislatures to whom employers must listen .

But men failed to resist women’s entry into many feminizing occupations because the latter were no longer worth preserving as male territory. Here, as elsewhere (Hartmann et al., 1986:60), most of women’s increased numbers in feminizing occupations did not result from their taking jobs away from men (Kindle Locations 4178-4180).

Rarely are women hired in place of men.  More often,  women fill jobs that have abandoned by men who have sought more benefits,  higher wages, and more autonomy.

Women’s increasing share of the labor force and the pools from which employers recruit workers (such as M.B.A.’s) contributed to their movement into some male occupations, but unless circumstances impelled employers to hire women, the increased supply of women would not have been sufficient to feminize these male occupations (Kindle Locations 4180-4182).

More women entering the pools making up potential employees certainly has helped women in some occupations. They are still ignored a lot of times by employers, and their numbers have never threatened to feminize occupations where men make up the majority by a large percentage.

Within desegregating occupations female and male workers were concentrated in different jobs (Kindle Location 4194).

These nominally desegregating occupations remained internally segregated gated for the same reasons that the labor force as a whole has done so: white men’s favored position ensures them the most desirable and most highly rewarded warded jobs and allows most of them to dodge less attractive jobs for which women must settle. This pattern occurs within as well as across occupations (Kindle Locations 4201-4203).

Even when occupations appear to be moving towards gender balance, men and women are still not working the same jobs.

Works cited

What is a dual queueing process?

The most fruitful model sees occupational composition as the result of a dual-queueing process: labor queues order groups of workers in terms of their attractiveness to employers, and job queues rank jobs in terms of their attractiveness to workers (Kindle Locations 426-428).

In whatever field or industry examined, the gender or racial composition of the individuals composing it are a result of labor queues. Everyone involved in the field ranks potential jobs. Let’s take television production.

Job Queues

Anyone with an idea for a show must look at potential channels that will air it. Some channels, like HBO, will rank high on everyone’s list. There is only so much programming that HBO can afford and that they need to comprise their schedule. Thus, there are more people who want their shows on HBO than it needs. HBO can be picky and choose only the best shows that are pitched. The individuals who are rejected by HBO must pitch their shows to another channel that ranked lower (less desirable) on their list of potential channels. The important point about job queues is that they result from the perceptions of potential employees (or show creators) concerning the status of a job (or channel). Everyone perceives Harvard as one of the best colleges in the U.S. Most people will not attempt sending in an application because the chances of being accepted are so slim. Harvard still has more applications than it could possibly admit, and this surplus in applications allows it to be choosy.

Labor Queues

Labor queues are different in that they reflect the perception by employers, organizations, television channels or even colleges of applicants. Back to the television example, HBO has certain criteria that will make it more or less likely to greenlight a show. Does the show creator have experience creating a show? Have they worked in film? Are they well known? What genre would the show be? Would it mesh well with other shows in the schedule? All of these questions determine whether HBO will even hear the pitch.

Harvard likely has a GPA that all applicants should meet because Harvard has decided that this GPA is indicative of college success. This GPA will drop lower and lower as the prestige of the school drops. All applicants to Harvard below that GPA are likely dismissed from the very beginning unless they have some redeeming attribute that Harvard weighs more than high school performance. Such attributes are being related to an alumnus or being the son or daughter of a U.S. senator. All the applicants who barely meet the GPA requirement are placed at the back of the queue and are the least desirable from Harvard’s perspective. The least desirable to Harvard will likely be seen as very desirable at their state university.

Dual Queues

The final composition of the labor market, television show creators, or college enrollment is the result of the interaction between perceptions of attributes. Queues result when the perceptions do not mesh. Let’s say I have a 2.0 GPA and perceive Harvard as a perfect fit for me. Harvard receives my application, and they perceive me as someone who is not disciplined nor dedicated to my performance in school. I may have worked very very hard for that 2.0 with a very structured study schedule. It won’t matter to Harvard because they don’t see a 2.0 applicant as having a high probability of success if enrolled. They also consider a 2.0 as academically inferior. Accepting my application would reflect poorly on Harvard and “water down” the high concentration of 4.0 students. This “watering down” would then be perceived by society and would be reflected in less qualified applicants perceiving Harvard as a possibility and applying. It would also be reflected in fewer 4.0 applicants wanting to go to Harvard. Harvard is able to maintain its status because it receives many more applications than it can admit, and these applicants are usually pretty well qualified.


Works cited

 Creating Gender Queues

I’m completing my thesis at the University of Mississippi concerning the relationship between gender, genre, and television production. I see no harm in sharing while helping to get my thoughts together.

Barbara Reskin describes how men dominate coveted labor markets at the expense of women. Labor markets become gender queues where women are held back in five ways.

First, sex labels that characterize jobs as “women’s” or “men’s” work influence day-to-day hiring and job assignments by affecting employers’ notions of appropriate and inappropriate workers for particular jobs. The force of custom tends to blind employers to economically irrational decisions, at least until external events galvanize them to change (Kindle Locations 508-510).

One issue facing women is the weight of history where they have been undervalued relative to men. We are not damned to repeat that history,  but generally speaking we will if there are not laws created to force change. Because women have been kept out of many professions until fairly recently, they are untraditional employees which means employers usually will not go that route unless they set out to do so.

Second, employers’ difficulty in identifying productive workers leads them to resort to proxies such as educational attainment, experience, and group membership (Kindle Locations 510-511).

Because employers have a difficult time spotting job candidates who will do well, they tend to rely on shortcuts that discount women. Proxies hurt anyone who do not have an ideal job history (like myself) with periods of unemployment. But each proxy tends to hurt women at a greater rate than men as women are less likely to be given the opportunities that men receive.

Third, some employers worry that male workers’ negative response to female interlopers will reduce productivity or raise labor costs by increasing turnover, or lead men to demand higher wages to compensate them for working with women (Kindle Locations 514-515).

Men are sensitive about their masculinity.  Any threats to the gender composition in a field that could change how it is perceived within society is met with resistance by men. They will go on strike or leave the job if it seems beneath them.

Fourth, some employers are not compelled to minimize wages. The level of competition they face and the share of all costs that wages constitute affect their incentive to find ways to cut wages (Kindle Locations 521-522).

The primary advantage women have in labor markets is that they cost less to employ.  When labor costs are trivial, women job candidates have less of a chance in being hired.

Finally, some employers willingly accept higher wages as the price for favoring men (Kindle Location 527).

To employers, hiring men at higher wages is better than paying less for women to do the job as it protects the job from having its status depreciate, and it legitimizes male dominance elsewhere throughout society. Employers seem willing to pay more to lessen their doubt even though that doubt is based on sexist assumptions regarding the quality of work performed by women.

Works cited

Please Enjoy Michael And Martellus Bennett Roasting The Rest Of The NFL


NFL = “n*ggers for lease” is an accurate description of the league. It’s painful watching what these guys have to do to get ahead in America with no support in retirement.

Failing is an option on Ted radio

I listened to this on the way home to Memphis. It deals with people discussing how they have failed or deal with failures.

Astro Teller for google says something I found important. He says something along the lines of “we fail only when we realize that our current direction is flawed or fruitless and don’t change course. Everything we do after realizing we are going in the wrong direction adds to our shame. Change may feel like failure at the time but everything you did up to that point lead to the realization and can be thought of as learning”.

Tim Harford had a great point. We hate the feeling of failure worse than the actual loss. He advocates trial and error as a way of life as opposed to having a god complex feeling like we should have the answers for everything. It seems obvious, but it is difficult to show vulnerability in our world.

Casey Gerald talked about how he learned to question his beliefs. I was skeptical of him early on, but he was awesome. He talked about the gospel of doubt where it’s okay to believe in things as long as we have an inkling of doubt as to whether this is “correct” belief. Believe in whatever, but recognize that it’s okay to not believe.

The one that hit me the hardest is the last one. It nearly brought me to tears. Lidia Yuknavitch talks about never living up to the narratives of success. She failed at marriage, having a baby, and even being a writer. She came to realize that each failure was like a portal to a new identity she had to create and it was up to her to tell the story that only she could tell. She says it much better, but that’s the gist from the top of my head. Listen to it. Your life will be better.