In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Occupational Segregation Why Do Men Still Predominate in Scientific and Blue-Collar Jobs? Although many previously male occupations have been integrated—indeed some have gone from being predominantly male to predominantly female—some scienti- fic fields and many blue-collar occupations remain stubbornly male. Although discrimination is often blamed, it is usually simply assumed from the existence of the disparities. Moreover, invocation of sexism and discrimination does not explain why physics and firefighting have remained mostly male, while biology and law have not. A full understanding of occupational patterns requires a consideration of the intersection of cognitive abilities and occupational interests. The male advantage in spatial, mathematical, and mechanical pursuits, coupled with occupational interests oriented toward “things,” inclines men in different directions from women, with their advantage in some verbal pursuits and their more social orientation. Female participation in some fields declines as they progress through the educational system. Boys and girls participate approximately equally in math and science classes through high school. With increasing educational level, female participation in fields such as physics and mathematics declines. The two most influential factors leading to the varying representation of women in science at the doctoral level are the math-intensiveness of the field and the extent of the field’s social dimension , a pattern that holds even within disciplines. Blue-collar occupations have remained even more stubbornly male than the sciences . The primary reason is the very large sex difference on the “Realistic” occupational dimension, which taps an interest in building, repairing, and working outdoors. Large sex differences in mechanical ability and physical strength also contribute to the disparity. Many blue-collar jobs have attributes that women tend disproportionately not to like. They often have fixed hours (perhaps entailing shift work) and they tend to have worse working conditions than white-collar jobs. Many blue-collar jobs are physically dangerous, as well, and the most dangerous of them are overwhelmingly male. 5 05-R2159 4/12/02 10:50 AM Page 50 Existing occupational patterns will change even if men and women do not, as job demands change over time. Strength will become less important in many jobs, and computerization of production processes may mean that more-skilled women will take the position of less-skilled men. Despite women’s entry into, and even their predominance in, many fields, others—especially scientific and blue-collar occupations—seem resistant to integration. These occupations are often labeled “traditionally male” or “nontraditional ,” but it is misleading to distinguish these occupations from the many in which women have become more fully assimilated on the basis of their being “traditionally male.” The term “traditionally male” actually means “persistently male,” since almost all occupations not specifically reserved for women were “traditionally” filled mostly by men. What distinguishes physicists and carpenters from real-estate agents and lawyers is not the traditional sex distribution of those occupations but rather the sex distributions that exist today. The interesting question is what it is about many scientific and bluecollar occupations that have caused them, unlike so many others, to remain predominantly male. One popular explanation can be rejected at the outset. Some have argued that men have simply reserved the best jobs for themselves and left the rest for women, automatically according high status to men’s jobs and low status to women’s.1 That argument, however, cannot be squared with the real world, for it fails to explain, for example, why it is that most carpenters and physicists are men but that women are abundantly represented in law and medicine. Moreover , jobs are not accorded high status simply because men hold them. As sociologist Steven Goldberg has pointed out, “it is not primarily the maleness of a role that gives the role high status, but the high status that attracts males to the role.”2 Goldberg notes that men who cannot attain high-status roles may become ditch diggers, but their maleness does not result in ditch digging becoming a high-status occupation. The correct observation that the highest-status jobs tend to be occupied disproportionately by men and the lowest-paying jobs tend to be occupied by women is often transformed into the incorrect belief that men get all the “good” jobs and women get all the “bad.” Obscured in this discussion is the fact that men’s jobs are often less attractive than women’s. Despite the male predominance in the highest-status jobs, jobs held by women are rated overall...

Share