Roskin and Roo begin by talking about women’s progress into positions generally occupied by men. While women did make gains in these fields, this was overstated in the media. Looking back, most gains were made during the 70’s during the women’s movement. Roskin and Roo also explain that occupational segregation happens with race as well as sex. In general, the hierarchy goes like this: (1) white men, (2) white women, (3) black men, and (4) black women.
Next, the authors talk about a dual-queuing process (labor queues and job queues). This to me is just a fancy and elaborate way to explain the hiring process. First, it says that blacks experience more unemployment than whites because employers ranked them below whites in the labor queue. Then it goes on to say (3 times in one page at least) that the best jobs go to the most preferred workers; lowest-ranked white workers are chosen over the best black worker many times; when labor is scarce in top ranked groups, employers must be less choosy; women and minorities acquire “men’s” jobs when there is war, but men take most of them back over on their return; when the number of positions open to a higher ranked group shrink, they begin to take over jobs normally held by the less preferred; etc…. The book says more, but it is all the same really. It all boils down to the dominance of white males over the workforce, no matter what occupation it is. If it is a mixed sex occupation, men will get paid more. If it is a separate occupation, men will be the preferred employee, unless the employer has no other choice to hire a female or minority.
I am not trying to say the authors were incorrect, but I do believe that they repeatedly said the same information. If it wasn’t the exact same thing, it was reversed to talk about the second group of people in the first statement, but with the same outcome. What there wasn’t a lot of though, was reasons for this occupational sex segregation. It just stated what employers do and how they hire, but only gave descriptions towards the end when talking about reasons paying men more benefited employers more than hiring a woman for less. The chapter would have been a lot more informative had it went more in depth with the information it provided.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reskin and Roos’ research about occupational sex segregation coincided heavily with the information presented in The Gender Pay Gap. Many of the reasons R & R listed to explain possible reasons for the discrimination were similar, if not identical to what was said in the earlier article. For instance, R & R noted that women tend to take clerical and semi-professional jobs that pay less, such as nursing and teaching. Blau and Kahn said, “women were more likely to work in lower-paying occupations and industries, as teachers and clerical or service workers” (241). It’s a fairly obvious observation that both made, but their support for each other should be noted.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think R & R did I better job at explaining the reasons why a company may chose to hire men over women. I particularly liked the reason which said that hiring women in a male-dominated workplace will have negative effects on the men because they would “[respond] to the threat of female incursion with organized opposition: strikes, slowdowns, and on-the-job resistance,” and that employers “will not risk antagonizing male workers to hire women” (421). It’s a ridiculous idea to me that men would be SO insulted by working with women that they may flat out refuse to be productive. This reasoning also coincided with a later argument that employers might find it more important to pay extra for an all-male workforce, than to allow women equality. “Gender solidarity preserves sex-based privileges that all men enjoy, forestalls the possibility that women will eventually challenge owners’ and managers’ positions, and keeps employers in the good graces of their male friends and colleagues who demand preference for male workers even if it means higher wage bill” (422). This reminded me of Weber’s closed relationships theory. This says that a group may exclude or limit participation to certain outsiders in order to maintain or protect their situation as the dominant group. If men began letting women into their clubs, it would open up social and economic opportunities for them. These opportunities would threaten males’ existence as the dominant sex and as the most powerful in the social hierarchy. These ideas are ridiculous to say the least, but were explained and supported well throughout the chapter in ways made a lot of sense.
Reskin and Roos talk about sex segregation in occupations and the progress women have made. Women have clearly made so much progress compared to the earlier years. We used to never be able to work outside the home, but now we have the opportunity to go out and actually have careers outside the home. We are now doing jobs what are seen as male occupations. However, there is sex segregation still in occupations. Men and women are ranked in the employment perspective. The list starts with white males, then white females, black men, and finally black female.
ReplyDeleteYou would think that after all these years that men and women would be somewhat equal. To go against this, I mean there are some fields that have fewer women than wanted and therefore women are wanted just like how males are wanted as nurses.
I thought it was interesting how it says that the best jobs go to the most preferred workers but then later on says that lowest-ranked white workers are chosen over the best black worker many times. Although this isn’t out in the open and no employer will admit to it, it’s out there and we all know it. I’m not saying that all employers do this, but I’m sure in some companies and some fields that’s how it is whether it happens directly or indirectly.
In a way, it’s great to know that men feel so threatened by women in the workplace. Then again, men are so threatened by us that employers don’t want to hire us whether we’re good for the job or not. It’s interesting that employers will pay men more just to keep it an all male work area rather than worrying about equality for women.