Will male-dominated jobs ever be fully gender-integrated?
“Men’s work” still pays significantly more than comparable “women’s work.” Consider the difference between the median weekly earnings of a secretary ($552) and a firefighter ($933), a social worker ($698) and a police officer ($844). That’s the difference between scraping by and supporting a family.
Policing and firefighting are, unfortunately, not anomalies. In 2000, two-thirds of U.S. working women were still crowded into 21 of the Bureau of Labor Statistics 500 occupational categories. The top 10 included receptionist, secretary, cashier, sales worker, registered nurse, elementary schoolteacher and nursing aide. Women still make up only 2% to 20% of all engineers, police officers, firefighters, mechanics and construction equipment operators, chefs and head cooks, and more.
Translation: Women remain ghettoized in jobs with skinny pink paychecks. Employers get away with flagrant violations of the law because there’s no public outcry — indeed, almost no public scrutiny at all.
I’m tired, and my Philip Roth novel calls so I’m not going to do much analyzing on this one, except to say that the pink-collar workforce is one of the biggest reasons that women on the whole make less than men. The authors of this article compare police work to social work, which may not be fair considering that police work is more likely to be life- and- limb-threatening than social work. But the overall levels of work involved in “women’s” jobs compared to “men’s” isn’t all that different. It’s just a question of what kind of work is valued — and “women’s work” has been historically undervalued not because the work itself is unimporant, but because women do it. Examine the actual work done by, say, a plumber compared to a nurse’s aid. I’d be willing to bet that the nurse’s aid does more heavy lifting, and they both deal with all kinds of gross stuff. There really isn’t a logical reason why the plumber gets paid more — he just does. Anyway, check out the article, it’s a good explanation as to why there are so few women in law enforcement, firefighting, and other traditionally male occupations.
Sounds like these sexist government services need to be opened up to the private sector and stripped of their old-boy unionization protection, so that market forces can reduce the level of gender discrimination. That’s a little tricky (albeit still doable) in the case of police agencies, which implement the state’s police power, but completely practical for public safety entities like firemen and EMS.
That won’t eliminate discrimination altogether, but it will make the real costs of discrimination be borne by the people practicing the discrimination, rather than by powerless taxpayers. Connecting costs to the people and actions which generate them is the first step towards having systems that work fairly.
Why are unions the problem and not simple sexism?
It’s not that sexism isn’t the problem but that unions and other economic regulations make it harder to correct. The solution suggested in the article – hold bosses accountable for unequal wages – is much easier in a fluid competative market.
Social work can actually be an extremely dangerous job. Social workers often work with clients with social, behavioral, or mental difficulties, and frequently visit people in their homes. Abuse against social workers is quite common, but rarely talked about. In 2001, for example, Great Britain instituted a two million pound campaign to fight the problem. The National Association of Social Workers also has a Committee on the Study and Prevention of Violence Against Social Workers. The danger inherent in the the modern social work profession makes it even more upsetting that social workers are underpaid. When we think of jobs that are dangerous, we almost always think of professions like police officer or firefighter (read: male). Yet, workers like social workers, case workers, home health care aids, and maids (read: female) are actually subject to significant abuse, but fly under the radar.
Increased market competition in the supply of public safety is going to fix the problem? Are you suggesting farming out the work to contractors, or just straight up privatization with competing bids on site to put out a fire?
i agree with jill’s point that the wage disparity is largely due to men’s work being valued more highly than women’s work for comparable work/effort.
to play the devil’s advocate, i want to pose a question. is the high % of men in historically male professions (vice versa for women) a result of discrimination? or is does it represent the conscious choices made by women to pursue traditionally female fields?
the question struck me when i read above about holding mayors accountable for predominantly male police forces. if more men than women pursue jobs as police officers, it would be unfair to hold the mayors accountable.
similarly, you wouldn’t hold a superintendent accountable for a lack of male elementary school teachers. if more women pursue the elementary teaching profession, how can the superintendent be held responsible?
if the women pursuing jobs as police officers were told that they couldnt b/c of their gender or any related characteristic & this created a large disparity in male vs. female police officers, then by all means blame the mayor.
i think that the wage disparity b/t the genders can be decreased & gradually eliminated by:
1) valuing women’s work & thus, increasing their pay to be comparable with their male counterparts
2) encouraging women to pursue jobs in predominantly male fields; encouraging men to pursue jobs in predominantly female fields (i feel this has been started..)
3) having women & men actually make these choices
- more women choosing to be police officers, engineers, plumbers
- more male nurses, elementary school teachers, etc.
let me know what you think.
Jill’s point about nurses’ aids reinforces this beautifully.
by the way, not denying discrimination exists & prevents women from moving up the career ladder.
just pointing at that another factor contributing to the disparity is the choice to pursue a predominantly female (& unfortunatley, lower-paying) profession.
Well, do you reject the idea that men are more likely to be drawn to the dangerous work? I get a bit tired of that article’s premise (that sexism is THE factor), as more men tend to gravitate towards employment (really anything) that is dangerous, physical, etc. All the article offers to refute the idea is this:
To some extent I’m sure that it’s true, but this assertion is so vague and absolute as to be laughable.
I’m not saying that sexism isn’t a highly relevant factor, but the idea that there will ever be parity in male-female employment in certain industries (men tend to dig endeavors likely to get them killed – just look at auto insurance rates for males vs. females) strikes me as the opinion of a behavioral biology luddite. Not all of this paradigm is a consequence of patriarchal social conditioning. (and where do you think many of the patriarchal social constructs came from in the first place? chicken and egg)
My point is, even when equal access is achieved, you probably won’t quite see equal distributions in certain industries
Also, in the example of nurse’s aid vs. plumber, I think that there is a logical reason for disparate pay (in addition to discrimination, which I don’t deny): one tends to be an occupation where the individual is an employee of an organization (nurse’s aid: small cog in the machine, either a service or a hospital) vs. the owner or stakeholder in a small plumbing business (at least that was the traditional model, though larger plumbing services have come into being). In the specific example, plumbers are in a much better position to gouge folks that need their services vs. a nurse’s aid, for example; they are in a position with more ability to actually influence the conditions of the market (value/demand/price). Now if you compare the salary of a nurse (with a BS) to a plumber, I think nurse’s have actually obtained the advantage in the past 10 years, btw, as demand for their services has rise dramatically.
I think that demanding more pay for “pink sector” jobs is the best strategy for feminism with regards to narrowing the pay gap, for the reason I put forth in my first paragraph – men and women will always be drawn – on AVERAGE not DETERMINISTICALLY – to different jobs; it’s just a matter of society valuing the different jobs more equally.
But then again, we’ve got entertainers making 90000x more than teachers, so gender disparities aren’t quite the only or necessarily biggest “injustices” in a free market.
And one last thing: a prediction I’d like to put in b&w for record keeping – within 15 years, i believe that the pay gap between men and women will narrow to almost parity via the widening proportion of women attending college. Want to bet $100, collectible 2021?
It’s just a question of what kind of work is valued
Bingo.
Bullshit.
I’m a personnel officer and we beg for women to join our Sheriff’s office and we get few applications even though the starting wage is $15.00 hour and it has benefits from hell. Every ad carries the phrase “This position not limited to males.” At this point the battle shifts from male attitudes to female attitudes.
Just wondering, why do my comments require moderation?
Honestly, IMO, it boils down to how much you want to risk for a larger paycheck. Like Bill said, men often go into fields that may get them killed than women. And I’m assuming they get paid big bucks because of the hazards present on the job. Then there’s overtime.
I’d be nice to see actual percentages split by gender in jobs ranging from secretarys to miners and the pay at each.
Amanda,
I agree with most of what you say but disagree with how you derive your conclusion “wage disparity b/t the genders can be decreased & gradually eliminated by” because your first policy is unworkable.
1) valuing women’s work & thus, increasing their pay to be comparable with their male counterparts
When I read that I interpret it as saying that we take an ideological position of “equal pay for work of equal value” and assign a value by fiat.
Jill’s point “wage disparity is largely due to men’s work being valued more highly than women’s work for comparable work/effort” also hinges on the value conundrum.
So, what we have is a problem of how to determine value. The problem of wage disparity exists today because value is determined by an economic transaction in which one party determines the value of the work that another party offers and makes a decision to voluntarily engage in a transaction in order to gain the value of the work that is offered.
If the solution is to impose a value onto the work the problem you have is that people will think that the work is valued too highly. Let’s use a secretary as an example. If the secretary produces a value of $1,000 per month but the salary must be $2,000 then it doesn’t make sense to hire the secretary and alternatives will be sought.
I don’t have a problem with your 2nd & 3rd suggestions as long as they’re not setting artificial quotas which must be met. Removing structural impediments is fine.
At this point the battle shifts from male attitudes to female attitudes.
Which, in this case, are female attitudes about male attitudes. Who wants to take a job where she’s convinced she’ll never be taken seriously by her bosses or co-workers?
Actually, it’s not entirely true that men are paid more for ‘danger money’, and it doesn’t explain the wage gap — for instance, managerial positions have huge disparities, and you can’t tell me being a middle manager is more dangerous if you’re a man.
The most dangerous jobs for men are low-paid agricultural jobs — highest death rate, not very good pay. So while there are some dangerous but high-paying jobs, this isn’t enough to account for the entire wage gap.
Ampersand at Alas, A Blog did a really good demolishing job of this particular meme.
As for the issue of choice, I’d argue we still have a very gendered idea of what jobs men and women can do. A friend of mine wanted to become a police officer but was talked out of it by family and friends who felt it was “too dangerous a job for a woman”. While the choice is ostensibly there, the pressures on men and women to still live their lives according to gendered ideas about behaviour, including work, cannot be discounted.
Actually, it’s not entirely true that men are paid more for ‘danger money’, and it doesn’t explain the wage gap — for instance, managerial positions have huge disparities, and you can’t tell me being a middle manager is more dangerous if you’re a man. – Kate
And while it may not be the singular cause of the wage gap (I doubt there’s any one reason anyway), it’s one of many things that contribute to it. This is ultimately an economic issue, since doesn’t the market set the value of one’s work not society itself?
Lauren:
Why are unions the problem and not simple sexism?
Sexism is the problem. Unions are just one way that the sexism is able to manifest itself without having to pay market price for it.
But government does not have the power to eradicate sexism by passing a bill. Government does have the power to eradicate jobs being union jobs by passing a bill.
Tex:
Increased market competition in the supply of public safety is going to fix the problem? Are you suggesting farming out the work to contractors, or just straight up privatization with competing bids on site to put out a fire?
No, increased market competition will not “fix” the problem. But it will relocate the fiscal costs of the sexist behavior to entities who have both the motivation and the ability to modify the behavior.
Right now, Joe and Frank at fireman’s local 412 can keep women out of the workplace through the expedient of simply making any woman’s life hell who has the temerity to join the boy’s club. Joe and Frank do not pay any price for making that decision. If a woman does sue, she isn’t going to be suing Joe and Frank – she’s going to sue the city. The city doesn’t have the ability to easily go after Joe and Frank in retribution – they would have to jump through union hoops and face a hundred other hostile firemen, who agree with Joe and Frank, to do it. So they settle the suit, or bring the woman back in as a token somehow, and maybe Joe and Frank get a talking to, but nothing ever really changes.
Joe and Frank, managers at FireCo Inc., can also resist bringing women on board. When the women sue FireCo, Inc., it’s easier than suing New York City. FireCo Inc. has less clout than NYC. In addition, the people who end up paying money in the suit, are paying THEIR MONEY – not taxpayer’s money. They are now PISSED at Joe and Frank. Even if all the other sexist managers at FireCo are on Joe and Frank’s side, they just watched their cushy annual bonus disappear in a cloud of legal smoke. Plus, there’s no work rules preventing Joe and Frank’s summary transferral to the urinal storage facility in Adak.
It’s not that the private sector is perfect and wonderful and the government sector is evil and dark-sided. It’s that the incentives and the consequences for actions are often more directly coupled to the people taking the actions in the private sector. Joe and Frank may end up losing their cushy jobs. I doubt anybody in San Diego lost their job after their suit. In the next generation, things will get incrementally better.
In other words, take a look at the governmental and unionized industries, and note that they’re pretty much throwbacks to the 1930s in terms of the position of women. Take a look at the free-labor-market private sector, and while it is far from a feminist paradise, it’s also a heck of a lot more open to women.
As for the mechanism, the approach I would take is to annually take bids from fire protection service companies in each geographic area for protection contracts – so much per incident, so much per labor hour, so much per equipment hour, etc. Wasteful and open to corruption, but no more so than the current system, and it has the advantage of making the contractors subject to the normal laws of supply and demand in their personnel practices, instead of letting them live in the blissful land of rent-seeking.
Kate says -
Oh YEAH, smart girl? Have YOU ever gotten your pickle stuck when trying to run it through the copier for yucks?
There are other factors for the wage gap, of course, and I think that feminists focus too readily on discrimination as prime cause. I’ll name two of the others:
1. Time sacrificed for women for childbirth -. This topic has been discussed at length on this blog. It’s a decent ideal to propose that women not be penalized, and a lot of jobs almost don’t, but to never see some “mommy penalty” in the overall market may be unrealistic.
2. ON AVERAGE, Women don’t ask for raises or negotiate as aggressively for the same jobs. I noticed this phenomenon not from a book or the internet, but in real life when talking to co-workers about raises, salaries, etc. over the years. While I’ve almost always had women as superiors (just thought I’d note that), the times that I’ve found out my colleagues salaries (at equivalent job levels), I’ve always made more than the women. I always assumed (and one time verified) that this was becasue I was aggressive in negotiation (I was).
(Exhibit B) To some extent this can be learned behavior, but to the extent it’s not taught, men might have a default position to comfort with confrontation/aggression that helps them out with this, comparatively.
PS, btw, my “Well, do you reject the idea that men are more likely to be drawn to the dangerous work?” was actually directed towards Lauren’s subsequent comment, as she asked if it was simple sexism. I’m aware that Jill addressed it in the post this time.:-)
Mythago:
Sooo…
Women should say, “Fuck that, why even apply?” And sometimes feminist pioneers took the damn job and said, “fuck ‘em if they don’t like it.”
In the instant case I gave the women would be welcome and mentored. But (I have to believe) their own fears are holding them back.
Not trying to attack you because I love your stuff but, y’know, nothing ventured, nothing gained. I’m not just talking cops, truck driving, welding, etc. There are so many technical fields right begging for people and the pay is outstanding. Women, ignore your Xeroxing gene and GO FER IT!!!
“women’s work” has been historically undervalued not because the work itself is unimporant, but because women do it.
As shown by the fact that when a traditionally male field of work starts to be more populated by women, its remuneration relative to other jobs typically goes down. This would be partly due to the phenomenon Billl notes of women being less likely to negotiate for better pay – itself partly a result of discrimination (an employee who’s systematically downgraded and thus feels dispensable won’t be able to insist on her value in order to drive a harder bargain).
As a former attorney for NYC, let me just say:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, lordy. If you only knew.
David, I have no idea why some comments are held in the moderation queue — it’s got something to do with anti-spam. If it makes you feel better, my comments, as well as Jill’s and piny’s, are often caught up in it.
And, in fact, my last comment was held!
Re: Unionization
Perhaps the women in the Pink Collar jobs should aggressively unionize and demand that they be paid what they are worth? Overall there has been a downward pressure on wages for all workers. Police and Firefighters continue to have better pay and benefits than a lot of others because their union has fought for them. I think the nurses aids, elementary teachers and other female dominated jobs should demand higher wages that reflect the value of their work. These jobs are essential and the pay should reflect that, but unless higher pay is demanded it won’t be given.
Robert, I disagree that this is a question of the costs of the inefficiency of discrimination. It is my (not backed by more than intuition) opinion that the disparities between the sectors you favor and the ones you don’t is not so great that spreading the costs more evenly would be of more than marginal benefit. There can be reasonable disagreement on this.
Still, you deserve lots of credit for out-of-the-box thinking. First time I think I’ve heard an avowed libertarian argue that we should set policy by who it would be easier to sue.
…..and the beat goes on.
Robert, I hate to burst your bubble here, but the unions aren’t the problem. I work in the (private sector) construction trades, and while women in the unionized construction trades hover between 1-3% (depending on trade), in the nonunion construction trades the female participation rate is more like .0001%. Unions are how women first got into the construction trades, through that perky little institution known as “apprenticeship.” See, apprenticeships are accredited educational programs through the Department of Labor, and Title IX means women have to be given access. The nonunion sector does not have an accredited educational program, so it’s harder to pass helpful legislation to integrate women.
Look. Are there assholes in the unions who discriminate against women? Fuckin’ A there are. Where isn’t there? But this scenario you put forth of how “Joe” and “Frank” can’t be retaliated against because of “union” rules is complete bullshit. Joe and Frank can indeed be canned, and most contracts do indeed have clauses in them that address things like this. What allows “Joe” and “Frank” to get away with this happy horseshit is more related to the unwillingness of others who witness this behavior to speak up. And let’s not forget political patronage, and the provincialism of smaller cities and of neighborhoods within larger cities. Getting rid of unions will do nothing to eradicate those trends; in fact, it will abolish one useful tool for re-educating or suppressing these fools.
Here’s another thing—let’s not forget that public works projects already have legal mandates in most places to have the workforce resemble the population (makes sense, right? That the taxpaying public ought to be able to either have a chance at getting hired themselves, or at least be able to see others like themselves have the chance of getting hired, no?). Yet in California, Prop 209 abolished those workplace goals, with the result that tradeswomen have a hard time getting hired. Again, keep in mind that California is majority nonunion. Both Indiana and Missouri have rescinded collective bargaining for state employees. Let’s watch and see how this increases the number of female—and African-American—state-employed tradespersons. I’ll bet the (already small) number goes down, since there won’t be unions around agitating for their members to get jobs. It’ll go back to “are you a member of the Masonic Lodge?”; the Gold Standard of midwestern patronage in both the public and private sectors. Do I really need to remind folks that women can’t join?
I gotta say though, that nothing will change until the critical mass is there. And yes, that means more women need to consider apprenticeship, damn the torpedoes.
I wrote about this awhile back on my blog; it’s pretty link-heavy (translation: you may miss a couple if you’re not careful with the cursor!). This is my bread-and-butter; I don’t have a dog in this fight, I have a whole fucking pack!
OK. You hit a nerve now.
I am a contractor. Yes, I build houses and I frame and do finish carpentry. I am the only women in the state besides one other whom I’ve never had the opportunity to meet.
I tried to join a women’s organization for contractors but was put off as I didn’t have enough time in the field. FOr crise sake! You’d think that they would want to support up and coming women before they fizzled out in frustration.
But anyway. I have yet to see ANY women even attempt to pursue this field or anything related to it.
I attended a local state technical college to get a degree in residential construction just two years, which I still have yet to finish.
There were two women besides myself, one for each year. Year number one wanted to get assistance and information in order to G.C. putting an addition on her house. Two semesters and a relationship with a few eager young men fulfilled that purpose. She never returned for the next year and made it VERY clear ALL THE TIME that she had no intention of purusing building as a career. As if somehow her feminity would be in danger if she did.
Next year a woman enrolled in the first year and again, made it VERY clear that she did not intend to puruse building as a career and in fact made it a point to distance herself from me (I was apparently some kind of threat, of which I’ll never know).
She again, had a build project at her house to pursue. Within one semester she had assembled a team of young eager men to assist her and had classroom help in making her plans. She never returned.
Every single other traditionally male dominated field did not have even one female enrollee. That includes, auto mechanics, electrical, HVAC, welding and the building department.
Conversely, the nursing and early childhood ed classes were predominantly women.
Save for the RN positions, all the other traditionally female occupations cannot put a candle to the earnings potential in the other male dominated occupations.
But who is holding women back? Certainly not the instructors or the school administrators. They were thrilled and supportive of my pursuit and I must say that the young men had no problem either, although the conversations and assumptions focused around the male paradigm, more becuase of such a small number females present to challenge it.
In my business now there is a serious shortage of plumbers, electricians, framers and heating and air techs. The industry belly-aches about it all the time, but does nothing to change their recruiting tactics which rely on the traditional male high school graduate.
I am sorry, but women need to take some responsibiliy for their own destiny and stand up and break these barriers down themselves.
I have found the MOST sexism from other women who find my being in a male dominated trade to signal some kind of sacrifice of my female identity. I am sure that no doubt I am seen as a lesbian by many and by others as just a social reject who will never get a man, blah, blah blah.
What I’d like to see is what women are going to do to challenge their own assumptions and break down the barriers to access trades that are male dominated and yet have a high pay scale.
As long as women continue to take low paying jobs, they will stay low paying. It takes two to tango.
When I see numbers of women DENIEd access to trades and other non-traditional work, then I will believe that the establishment must make more change. But women must be willing to recognize their unwillingness to challenge established stereoptypes that they willingly support.
Ok, I’m spurned into action and will do my part. I just called a local girl’s support foundation and they said, “We have a program where we teach girls to work with power tools and build and in fact we’ve built projects at the tech college.”
Lo and behold, I never was told. I’m not done yet. They are supposed to call me back. I am going to see to it that the enrollment of females in non-traditional male jobs at the tech is made an option available for high school aged girls.
Magis – perhaps you dont understand how it works.
When the district manager of Texaco told me that I could have a better job than I applied for because I scored so well on their tests (“better than anyone Ive ever interviewed”), I had to decline – the hours were not compatible with being a mom to my children.
So strike #1 – if I want to raise children and actually, like, see them, I have to work odd hours which generally means blue-collar work.
When I asked him if I could just have the job I applied for he told me that “We dont hire women for that position.”
So Strike #2 – I wasnt born with the correct genitals to have the job I needed to get.
Now, I could have sued Texaco but why the hell would I ever work for someone like this in ANY capacity?
I could have sued but it takes time and I have a family to raise and I have to find a job, both of which require an enormous amount of energy.
I firmly applaud all those who DID go after Texaco for their discriminatory practices but I just didnt have that kind of time.
On the other hand, I have worked at many male-dominated occupations (truck driver, traffic specialist) , so it cant be because Im afraid to apply – just not interested in beating my head against male prejudice.
Plus, your starting place is the starting place of oppressors everywhere – instead of cleaning house to make sure equality and acceptance is the norm you chide the oppressed for not fighting hard enough to secure a foothold against the oppresser.
Why is the whole childbirth thing always brought up? Yes, I took off 6 weeks after the birth of each of my children, but (like most every other woman I know) it was saved up vacation time.
Yes, vacation time that the company actually gave EVERYONE, men and women, to be used as each employee saw fit.
Instead of taking off a day here or a day there, I waited until I had enough vacation time accrued to be off that long because I couldn’t afford to go without a paycheck. I personally know very few women who actually took unpaid leave for childbirth. And I don’t think 6 weeks once, twice or even three times over the course of 12 or so years should translate into significantly lower pay. At the job I have now, I’m allowed 5 weeks a year vacation time. Some people take it all at once, some people take a few days every month. Some people save it up until they retire and then they’re on vacation for the last 6 months on the job.
I’m a nurse. I’m also a pretty good negotiator. But many hospitals have an entry level wage and there is *no* negotiating. You take it or you don’t. And once you’re in, you don’t negotiate raises, either. You get what they choose to give you or you leave. Same for teaching (I briefly taught middle school). For the past 15 years I’ve worked in an area where I can negotiate what I get paid and I feel adequately reimbursed for what I do. However, I’m being paid more than a nurse who works a hospital floor, and my working conditions are considerably better.
sometimes feminist pioneers took the damn job and said, “fuck ‘em if they don’t like it.”
In the instant case I gave the women would be welcome and mentored. But (I have to believe) their own fears are holding them back.
Yes, Magis, and no. Back in the seventies, one of the factors that increased the number of women in the trades was the policy various states had of encouraging women on public aid to apply. And in order for that to be successful, women had to have access to daycare. So, in the larger cities, there were pilot programs that did just that—provided daycare that coincided with working hours to make it possible for women to get into apprenticeships and off of public aid. And for those women who entered those pilot programs, it worked. Flash forward to the Reagan era and the ensuing years of Democratic kowtowing to right-wing Republican ideals, and these programs that increased accessibility haven’t existed in over twenty years. The women most likely to integrate and all-male environment and take that “fuck ‘em if they don’t like it attitude” are generally women who don’t have other options going for them. It’s a do-or-die thing. And there are accessibility issues for them, whether it’s childcare, or apprenticeship classes that are held over an hour’s drive away (sometimes in places without public transportation, so if you’re a poor woman without a car, or without a reliable car, that door is still shut).
I agree with you that more women need to be applying for and staying in the male-dominated professions. But it’s going to take more than good intentions and a want-ad that basically says “we don’t discriminate”. For instance:
*official mentoring programs
*open lines of communication
*identifying brothers likely to be allies, and giving them the task of keeping the bullshit to a minimum
*introducing every female prospect to the women already there.
*going out to the high-schools (and even better, the middle schools) and encouraging the girls and young women there to consider these options. Perhaps even forming a club like “Future Tradespeople of America”
*working with the various contractors’ organizations to encourage the retention and promotion of women.
*working with the various associations in the business community, as well as state/city departments devoted to economic growth and opportunity to increase the availability of child care. That is still a huge barrier to women in the trades.
*better orientation programs to integrate women into the culture of the trades.
*better educational programs to integrate the suspicious brothers that having women in the trades is not the end of the world. Sometimes all it takes is a positive word from a business agent, or foreman, or generally respected brother or sister to take the heat off some new, ususally “green” female apprentice.
Most of these suggestions don’t take much, if any money. They take some time and committment. Unions, contrary to Robert’s assertion, are a perfectly fine vehicle for accomplishing these tasks, as the framework already exists. We’re actually in the process of instituting most of those ideas in my Local, and perhaps providing that shining example of what can be accomplished with a little effort. But it’s been a long time coming. In July, I’ll be starting my eighteenth year in the Local, and I’ve been talking about this shit ever since I topped out. (Hence, part of my reputation as a “radical”). But hey, I’m still hopeful. I talked up having a 401K plan for four years before it was instituted!
One more thing—-since unions are pretty much nonexistant in the South, why aren’t we seeing more female (and African-American) participation in the trades down there, hmmm?
I tried to join a women’s organization for contractors but was put off as I didn’t have enough time in the field. FOr crise sake! You’d think that they would want to support up and coming women before they fizzled out in frustration.
Boy, if that doesn’t sound familiar. Way back when, my local was contacted by some association looking for some women to represent our trade, as part of a career fair for 9-14 year old girls to encourage them to study math and science. I jumped at the chance to get involved, until I found out it would involve a series of early-afternoon meetings (read: during working hours) and I simply couldn’t take the time off. They haven’t contacted our (or anyone else’s Local) since. Shit—what was there to have a meeting about? Just tell us when to show up; we’ll set up the booth. (Again—it’s a difference in workplace culture. On the job, you are expected to actually accomplish shit, not have a half a dozen meetings about your future plans to accomplish shit. Sigh.)
And yes, I hear you about the “instant dyke? Just add Carharrts!” syndrome. I think of it as another facet of the “lavender menace” and homophobia. In my area of the country, young women are still raised to think of getting married as a financial strategy, not just a personal-happiness choice, so it’s no surprise to me that some women continue to think along those lines as adults—afraid of doing anything that might alienate some prospective suitor. Yeah, it’s their loss—but it’s also part of the culture.
kate, if you really want to encourage young women to enter the trades, I highly suggest contacting the Girl Scouts. They’re everywhere, and they really dig this stuff. I was part of a presentation on women in the trades for the local Girl Scouts after one of my union brothers contacted me—he wanted to have a woman there so the girls wouldn’t just have to take his word that “women do this too”.
I worked in the non-profit field for several years – earning fairly low wages and surrounded predominantly by women. Many women I knew pursued that career path in part because it offered more flexibility,tele-commuting, and part-time work options so they could spend time with their kids. Additionally, I know women who want to work in elementary schools because the schedule will be the same as their kids’ or who have worked the night shift as nurses so they can spend the days with their children. Avoiding expensive childcare and long hours away from home can also draw women to low paying, low status jobs.
Mickle had a very insightful post included as part of the last Carnival of the Feminists. One of the best observations:
The “feminist pioneers” likely were heroic, not least in their ability to persist. But why should anyone have to add “hero” to her job description?
Actually, if one is so inclined, it works to be “one of the geeks”, (which is not the same as being “one of the guys”). Growing up, I was never interested in “girl things” like fashion and boy-chasing, and I ended up hanging out with a bunch of guys who were correspondingly uninterested in sports and girl-impressing. In my experience, male and female geeks have at least as much in common with each other as either does with “normals” of their gender. Electrical engineering was not an unusual career choice in my circle of friends.
The other things that helped me persevere were a thick skin, a wide stubborn streak, and good luck (I have been fortunate to have only a very few managers and co-workers who were overtly against fair and equal treatment for women). But, 26 years later, it distresses me to see that these things are *still* required for women in science/tech. The latest statistics even indicate a decline in the proportion of young women getting into these areas, at the same time as there is an increase in the absolute numbers. (I wonder if this is because there has been an increase in the coolness factor for men in tech, without any corresponding increase in coolness for women.)
i like this point made by kate.
Go Kate.
It isn’t the men in my life or my job who act like I’m a freak and try to convince me I should change careers. It’s the women. How sad is it that I find the men in my life significantly more supportive than the women? Men: you got a promotion? Congratulations! Let’s go out and celebrate at that Mexican place you like. Women: you got a raise? No wonder you’re still single, you do realize men don’t like women who earn more than they do don’t you? (I do not lie. Same promotion, different responses =P)
I’d say at this point women’s refusal to put themselves forward for traditionally male jobs is a far larger barrier to improving their wages and status in life than the attitudes of the men they’d be working with (at least for some fields; I’m a geek, I work in the heart of geekdom, I’m told this place isn’t normal, but it is what I know).
I don’t know if it’s nature or nurture, and I’m not sure it matters: all the opportunities in the world don’t matter if you refuse to take them.
Jannia: it’s the patriarchy. It sets women against one another because it’s set up to push the idea that a woman’s worth depends on her ability to get a man.
I’m a geek, I work in the heart of geekdom
Unless your company is unusual, in “the heart of geekdom”, most of the geek employees are male; the women are support staff.
Nature: you have the ability
Nurture: you feel empowered to use the ability, despite obstacles
Nurture includes family upbringing, but also all the other influences – education system, peer pressure, societal attitudes (ie entrenched patriarchy). So, despite decades of counter-examples, there is still the pervasive idea that, as zuzu says, “a woman’s worth depends on her ability to get a man“. Yes, this means there is one more obstacle for a woman to overcome, just because she lacks a Y chromosome. Yes, it’s unfair. But when a woman says that she won’t bother trying for a non-traditional career because it’s harder for her than it *should* be, that is self-defeating. We need to keep bashing away at the brick walls and glass ceilings.
La Lubu:
Your right. It’s going to take some outreach. Still, I applaud the women who have come to the organization on their own. I admire their gumption.
ThatGirl:
What I was trying to get at was the following:
I think many women don’t visualize themselves outside of traditional roles. I don’t think it ever enters their mind that hey, I could do that! That is a consciousness problem.
The house had been cleaned. Acceptance was assured. No fight requried. Mentoring guaranteed. Just apply!
Still, I guess I need to do more as La Lubu points out. However, I think women who have broken the barriers are the best ambassadors.
However, I think women who have broken the barriers are the best ambassadors.
Again, yes….and no. We can provide better “mirror-image” role modeling (in that we do encounter obstacles our male counterparts don’t, and that we’ve found ways around that), and we can usually establish rapport faster, in that there isn’t (usually) a big trust barrier to get past first.
On the other hand, you don’t want to burn out the veteran women, nor do you want to give the message that integrating and recruiting women is a “woman’s job”. It’s not. It’s an “everybody’s job.” And it’s very important to have vocal, visible male allies. Because whether it’s out in the open or behind closed doors, you can count on some asshole(s) to be quite vocal and visible with their assholishness. One thing about nontraditional jobsites is that they tend to be fairly insular and sometimes tend to be not-quite-as-”respectable” (if not outright disrespected) by the mainstream. (You’re in law enforcement, so you’re probably pretty familiar with this! ;-)
And that fosters multiple reactions amongst the workforce, including a culture of protective silence. The same silence that offers self-protection to the workers is the same silence that can foster divisiveness and provide cover for bigots of all stripes. This is something that needs to be addressed. Another factor is the enshrinement of codes and rituals that no longer serve their once intended purpose—nor in many cases can the knowledge or origin of these codes and rituals be taken for granted amongst a diverse workforce. Reluctance to adapt “Old School” ways doesn’t actually serve the intent of why those Old School ways were instituted. Here’s where a little communication (via orientation programs) can go a long, long way.
Unofficially, the women of my Local have been on hand to greet new female apprentices when they swear in. Sorta like the Welcome Wagon. Just to let ‘em know that (1) you’re gonna do just fine, (2) keep ya head up and don’t take any shit, and (3) we always have your back. But….we also make it a point to ask them where they are working and who they are working with, and give them a heads-up if necessary. Some of this is no different from what we do for the male apprentices we meet; some of it (necessarily) is. Depends on the situation. It’s not all negative, either; we identify the brothers that are cool. Just that little no-cost impromptu tradition has had a positive effect on morale—and not just of the women.
The ads encouraging women to apply are still a good idea—keep on doing that. I would have applied anyway (‘cuz I was broke-as-a-joke), but the “women and minorities encouraged to apply” tagline at the bottom gave me the impression of a “welcome mat”. It gives a positive impression—can’t hurt, might help, and doesn’t cost a dime (since you have to run an ad anyway). But don’t just rely on newspaper ads either. (That is really the downfall of the trades in my area; too much reliance on the papers.) Develop some contacts around the community who can point interested recruits your way (pass out those business cards!). And look in places where you’re likely to find women who are already breaking some barriers—like nontraditional classes at the local community college and/or vocational school, martial arts dojos (or climbing schools, or mountain biking clubs, BMX racetracks, etc.), and don’t forget to contact the local military office about recently discharged veterans—some of them are looking for a real opportunity. And if you can, develop a contact in the local public aid office—there are a lot of stereotypes about women who go on public aid, but you’d probably be surprised at the number of women there who have a lot of skills and get-up-and-go. A savvy social worker can be a conduit for recruitment, too. A lot of school districts have social workers too, and could point you in the direction of parents are looking for just this kind of opportunity. Some folks say “try the churches”, but we haven’t had much luck in that arena; but who knows, maybe you would.
Anyway…good luck! And don’t get discouraged!
La Lubu:
Thank you for your intelligent suggestions. It is a small town/county and I don’t have some of those resources but some I do. I’ve spoken to some girl scout meetings and girls 4-H groups. They’re too young yet to tell if it stuck but I have faith that it did. Hope springs eternal…. :)
I wrote the article under discussion. Hope you’ll check out our fuller argument in our book Getting Even: Why Women Still Don’t Get Paid Like Men–and What To Do About It (Simon & Schuster) which touches on most of the points discussed here.
[...] hem to hazing or hold them to higher performance standards than their male peers. (Curtsy: Feministe) Then I said that a woman’s right to choose was nobody el [...]