|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 56
~ Job Changing and Occupadonal
7 Sex Segregation:
Sex and Race Compansons
RACHEL A. ROSENE7ELD
The U.S. occupational structure is and
has been extremely sex segregated (see
Beller, in this volume). The extent and sta-
bility of such sex segregation prevents most
individuals from considering possible mo-
bility between sex-typical and atypical oc-
cupations. Such mobility does, however, oc-
cur. World War II was a dramatic example
of a situation where many women changed
from typically female to typically male jobs.
Even under less extreme circumstances, the
sex composition of a person's occupation is
not a constant throughout one's work life,
as will be shown here and as others have
demonstrated (Wolf and Rosenfeld, 1978;
England, 1982b; Corcoran et al., in this vol-
ume; Jusenius, 1975; Sociology of Work and
Occupations, vol. 9, number 3, 19821. Using
1973 data on job changers, this paper will
focus on change in occupational sex com-
position that people experience with a change
in employer. It will describe the movement
by black and white women and mend among
occupations with clifferent sex compositions
and will predict movement to or from sex-
atypical occupations using a range of indi-
vidual and job history variables.
EXPLANATIONS OF SEX SEGREGATION
Explanations for why women end up in
typically and predominantly female occu-
pations vary depending on whether the ex-
planations focus on labor supply or labor
demand. Both types of explanations usually
fail to consider that a person might break
through the sex segregation barrier.
Labor Supply Explanations
Labor supply arguments about sex segre-
gation often give the impression that a person
makes a once-in-a-lifetime and usually sex-
typical occupational choice. Socialization ex-
planations, one type of supply side argument,
suggest that women are socialized to plan for
~ There are, of course, other ethnic groups whose
occupational sex segregation would be interesting and
useful to study. One might like, for example, to follow
Malveaux's (1982) lead and look at the position of His-
panics and their mobility. The data set used here, how-
56
ever, identifies race/ethnicity only as white, black, and
other. The other group is extremely small and probably
quite heterogeneous. In what follows, those identified
as other are dropped from the analysis, leaving com-
parisons between blacks and whites.
OCR for page 57
JOB CHANGING AND OCCUPATIONAL SEX SEGREGATION _
57
and enter occupations that society considers
appropriate for women, while men are so-
cialized to choose Tom a wider range of suit-
ably male occupations. Consistent with this
explanation is the evidence of students' early
expectations of and aspirations for sex-typical
occupations (see Marini and Brinton, in this
volume, for a review of this literature). Hu-
man capital explanations of sex segregation,
another supply side argument, see the choice
and preparation for a sex-typical occupation
as part of economically rational planning. Since
women expect to take time out from the labor
force for fur-time work at home, they train
for ant! later enter occupations that over easy
reentry ant! low depreciation of their skills and
training while they are out of the labor force.
Such occupations, of course, become predom-
inantly female (Polachek, 1979, 1981a; Op-
penheimer, 19701. (See the detailed cliscus-
sion of this approach and evidence contrary
to its assumptions and hypotheses in Corcoran
et al., in this volume.)
Supply side arguments carry with them as-
sumptions about people's education and train-
ing. Much formal training for work careers
takes place early in a person's life, often before
one starts full-time work because in part, as
the human capitalist explains, early training
provides a longer time over which to receive
the returns to this training. Women's occu-
pations are not necessarily low-skilled, but
they are described as occupations in which a
woman must bring her training with her to
the job because her expected short tenure
does not allow enough time to receive returns
on her training there (Oppenheimer, 19701.
An early choice of a typically female occu-
pation, therefore, must be to some extent a
choice about the type of training to get or the
type of major to take in college (Polacheck,
19781. Tra~n~ng for a typically female job might
preclude training for a typically male job; for
example, when a woman decides or is advised
to attend nursing school rather than medical
school. Thus prepared, the woman lacks the
credentials to enter a medical occupation
atypical for her sex. Likewise, a young man
who does not take clerical courses in high
school or vocational school may not be able
to get a secretarial job. An early choice of
training thus determines a person's later oc-
cupational career.
Labor Demand Explanations
Labor demand arguments say that the ex-
clusion of women from traditionally male jobs,
especially the ones that supposedly require
continuous commitment, is largely a result of
employers' and male workers' preferences, not
women's choices. The internal labor markets'
literature hypothesizes that on some career
ladders that are protected from outside mar-
kets and for which workers receive on-the-
job training, employers are unwilling to take
a chance on losing their training investment
by hiring members of high-risk groups; that
is, members of groups known to be unstable
workers (e.g., Doeringer and Piore, 1971; Ed-
wards, 19791. Because of their propensity to
marry and bear and raise children, women
are considered one of these groups. On the
basis of their group characteristics, then, all
women might be screened from certain male
jobs by what is known as statistical discrimi-
nation (Phelps, 19721.2 Employers may also
2 It is not necessary for the beliefs about certain groups
to be true for statistical discrimination to occur (Spence,
1974; see also England, 1982a). If the supply of appro-
priate labor is great enough, and in the absence of other
pressures, the employer will not be hurt even if the
stereotypes about groups are objectively incorrect. At
times, employers have even created the link between
women's domestic roles and intermittent labor force
participation, reinforcing stereotypes about women as
workers. It is not that women have always chosen to
leave the labor market when they marry or have chil-
dren; it has also been the case that employers required
that women who marry or have children leave their
jobs. For example, secretaries, teachers, and flight at-
tendants the latter as late as 1972 have been re-
quired to leave their jobs when they marry (Davies,
1975; Cohn, 1982; see also Cook and Hayashi, 1980,
on forces in contemporary Japanese firms pushing or
encouraging women to leave the labor force at marriage
or childbirth).
OCR for page 58
58
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
feel that on-thejob training is easier if the
work force is homogeneous. Even for low-
skiDed jobs for which a long-term commit-
ment is not expected, however, employers
may hire on the basis of the sex appropriate-
ness of the applicant to the sex type of the
job (Levinson, 19751.
In addition, male workers in competition
with female workers have excluded women
from predominantly male training programs
and jobs (see Baker, 1964; Hartmann, 1976~.
Such exclusion may be hidden in seemingly
universal entrance requirements and hiring
and promotion procedures (Roos and Res-
kin, in this volume).
Reinforcement of Sex Segregation
Once women have selected out of, or are
excluded from, male occupations, some ex-
planations go on to say, their tenure in typ-
ically female occupations furler reduces their
ability to change to a typically male occu-
pation. In their typically female jobs, they
get returns from the skills in which they
have already invested; they do not have the
chance to learn new skills necessary for male
jobs; they may be isolated from information
networks about typically male job openings
(e.g., Boos and Reskin, in this volume); and
therefore they do not have access to the
male career ladders that provide better ad-
vancement than do female job ladders. As
a result of few advancement opportunities
and the demands of both a family and an
outside job, women may indeed lack com-
mitment to their jobs and decide to drop
out of the labor force.
EXPLANATIONS OF MOBILITY
To begin to study mobility to and from a
sex-typical occupation, rather than stopping
with the conclusion of immobility, one must
(1) examine more carefully the stereotypes
of typically female and male jobs, (2) con-
sider how supply side characteristics might
change over a person's work life, and (3)
consider changes in demand for certain kinds
of labor.
Occupations and Sex Stereotyping
The contrast often made is between typ-
ically female white-collar occupations and
typically male professions and crafts. One is
led to forget the variation among typically
male jobs and among typically female jobs.
Some typically male jobs do not require much
skill or continuity, although they may pay
more than a predominantly female job (Eng-
land and McLaughlin, 1979; England et al.,
1982~. Early decisions about future occu-
pations and occupational training alone can-
not account for the level of sex segregation
one observes.
Not all female jobs are lower in their oc-
cupational rewards when compared with all
male jobs, either. While female occupations
pay less, on the average, than male occu-
pations pay to either male or female incum-
bents, certain white-colIar female occupa-
tions have relatively high status and relatively
good working conditions. And while female
occupations are described as giving little
chance for advancement, some upward mo-
bility may be possible. Men in these occu-
pations are often the ones who take advan-
tage of these possibilities. Oppenheimer
(1970) has suggested that for some men of
lower socioeconomic status, such female jobs
may be seen as a move up, perhaps a step
on the way to a managerial position. For
example, men in teaching tend to end up
disproportionately as principals and super-
intendents (Schmuck et al., 1981~. In gen-
eral, one finds that men in the female semi-
professions are overrepresented in admin-
istrative jobs (Grimm and Stern, 19741. (See
also discussion in Sokoloff, 1980: 55-63.) In
a case study of one firm that had encouraged
people to move to jobs atypical for their
gender, Schreiber (1979) found that men in
clerical positions, in contrast with the women
in those jobs, felt that these were jobs that
OCR for page 59
BOB CHANGING AND OCCUPATIONAL SEX SEGREGATION
59
would increase their chances to move into
management. What is interesting about their
perception is that it was not supported by
the promotion records of men who had been
clerical workers within the firm.
Individual Life Changes
Inclividuals' needs, employment behav-
ior, and human capital can change over their
lives. Not all men, for example, are highly
committed to the work force over all their
lives. Some are employed while still in school,
although often in sex-typical occupations
(Greenberger and Steinberg, 1983; Lewin-
Epstein, 19811. Still, at this stage, a young
man might end up in a typically female oc-
cupation that is convenient for him e.g.,
the graduate student who is also a depart-
mental secretary—and then change to a more
typically male occupation after graduation.
Many women have fairly long periods of
their lives when they are not involved with
childrearing and when they would be suit-
able candidates for jobs that require a rel-
atively long commitment (Kreps and Leaper,
19761. Schooling and training necessary to
make an occupational change are possible
later in life, as evidenced by the increasing
numbers of women attending colDege at older
ages (Heyns and Bird, 1982~. Other changes
in a woman's life circumstances could lead
her to seek a job considered atypical for her.
Many of the descriptions of women's careers
implicitly place women in families where
the husband provides the main economic
support; in such a setting the woman can
make her job decisions using criteria other
than income maximization. With increasing
divorce, inflation, and unemployment rates,
however, more women find themselves
without husbands or with husbands who do
not earn enough, or anything, to support
the family. Under such circumstances,
women may decide they can no longer afford
to remain in low-paying, though sex appro-
priate, jobs.
Changes in Labor Demand
Another source of individuals' mobility
between sex-typical and atypical jobs is from
changes in labor demand. A person may be
able to fill an occupation usually held by the
opposite sex, if the employer is experiencing
a demand for labor in that occupation. For
example, the feminization of clerical work
and school teaching seems to have resulted
from a scarcity of willing and suitably edu-
cated men (Davies, 1975; Strober and Tyack,
1980; Oppenheimer, 1970), although the
women who entered these jobs usually were
not moving from another job but from out-
side the labor force. World War II has al-
ready been mentioned as an example where
women were sucIdenly brought into men's
jobs. After World War II, of course, women
were just as brusquely forced out of the la-
bor force or into the usual female jobs (An-
derson, 19811. Dramatic changes in de-
mand, then, can bring about equally dramatic
changes in the sex distribution of occupa-
tions, which strongly suggests the impor-
tance of demand for maintaining and chang-
ing occupational sex segregation.
Legislation can also affect labor demand
and, as a result, movement from sex-typical
to sex-atypical jobs. The enactment of the
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) ti-
tle ofthe 1964 Civil Rights Act, its expansion
and strengthening in 1972, and Affirmative
Action legislation may have permitted and
encouraged at least some women to move
to jobs that previously were closed to them.
Beller (1982, and in this volume) did find
dramatic decreases in occupational sex seg-
regation in the 1970s and some links of this
decrease to legislative enforcement of EEO.
At the same time, some movement back
to sex-typical occupations may occur after
individuals experience harassment by co-
workers or difficulties in adjusting to work
that was designed for the opposite sex
(Schreiber, 1979; Gruber and Bjorn, 1982;
Harlan and O'Farrell, 1982; Kanter, 1977;
Boos and Reskin, in this volume).
OCR for page 60
60
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
The meaning of a move to a typical or
atypical occupation might be quite different
depending on whether the person is of a
minority race. In the past, because of race
discrimination in lower-level, male occu-
pations, a black woman or man moving to a
typically female occupation might find not
oniv an increase in status. but also an in-
thors make some initial analyses of the de-
terminants of such change for women.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PAPER
This paper will examine both patterns and
determinants of changes of occupational
gentler typicality by sex and race. The next
crease in pay and a job more in line with section describes the data for the analysis.
her or his educational credentials. Many of The third section shows the tYnes of occu-
the typical occupations for blacks, however,
were sex typed as well as race typed; for
example, private household workers were
black women anti porters were black men.
Among blacks, therefore, one might still ex-
pect to see differences in occupational lo-
cation and mobility by sex. It has been sug-
gested that one result of the civil rights
movement of the 1960s was the movement
of some black males into higher level posi-
tions typically occupied by white males and
the movement of black women into the lower-
paying and lower authority positions typi-
cally filled by white women (Lewis, 1977;
Jusenius, 1975; Malveaux, 19821. Analysis ~ ~
of mobility across sex-type boundaries needs ^ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
to include differences related to race.
Why a person has either a sex-typical or
sex-atypical occupation has`;received re-
markably little investigation (see Polacheck,
1979, 1981b; England, 1982b; Jusenius, 1975;
Daymont and Statham, 1981; Corcoran et
al., in this volume; and Beller, 1982 for some
of the exceptions to this statement). Even
less has been studied regarding the extent
and determinants of changes in occupational
sex-type during the adult years. Some case
studies (e.g., Schreiber, 1979; Kanter, 1977;
McIlwee, 1982; Dresse} and Petersen, 1982)
provide interesting hints about what hap-
pens, but they do not generalize their find-
ings to the occupational structure as a whole.
Using national data, Jusenius (1975) and
Corcoran et al. (in this volume) have shown
that some black and white women move
among male occupations; Corcoran and co-
workers show that at least some black and
white men change, as well. Both sets of au-
. , , ~
pational mobility undertaken by women and
men, black and white. The fourth section
examines the individual and job-level de-
terminants of a move to or out of a sex-
atypical occupation. The final section sum-
marizes the results and discusses their im-
plications.
DATA
The data for this paper come from the
January 1973 Current Population Survey
(CPS) and its supplemental questionnaire
that surveyed persons with new jobs since
January 1972. Data were selected on out-
of-schoo! whites and blacks 20 to 50 years
of age who had new employers at the time
of the CPS and who had been employed at
some time in the preceding 5 years.3 The
data set includes information on the re-
spondents' previous jobs, their 1973 jobs,
the way in which they spent time between
jobs (if there was such a period), the reasons
3 In January 1973, respondents were asked regarding
each r`^rc~n in the CP~ "Wac
~7 ~
an_.. ~~ ^ .~ ^ v, ~ . . . doing the same kind
of work a year ago, in January 1972?" The supplemental
questionnaire was distributed to those over 16 who had
new employers since January 1972 and who were not
self-employed or working without pay in a family busi-
ness in January 1973; the questionnaire asked about
the previous job and about the job search. Although
the question was meant to include persons who changed
occupation or job with the same employer, almost all
respondents seemed to interpret the question as re-
ferring to employer shifts. Of the 102,374 people about
whom the January 1973 CPS inquired, only 326 were
reported as changing jobs with the same employer, too
few to include in the analysis here.
OCR for page 61
OB CHANGING AND OCCUPATIONAL SEX SEGREGATION
6
that they changed jobs, and such personal
characteristics as marital status, age, and ed-
ucation. These data enable one to examine
the job-changing process and the extent and
determinants of changes in the sex compo-
sition of occupations held by individuals.
The timing of this survey on employer
changers was fortunate, since January 1973
is a particularly interesting period in which
to examine gender differences in job shift-
ing. It was just after EEO legislation en-
forcement became stricter. It was also a time
of recovery in the business cycle, when jobs
may have been more available and the ef-
fectiveness of EEO legislation enhanced.
The availability of data on a relatively large
sample of persons that changed employers
during a particular period is also fortunate.
Selecting only employer changes avoids
confounding general inertia with the bar-
riers to changing occupational type faced by
movers. Of course, people can change jobs
within the same employer. (Data on job shif-
ters within a firm were not available from
the CPS; see footnote 3.) One might expect,
however, that the chances for changing from
a sex-typical occupation to a sex-atypical oc-
cupation would be greatest across employ-
ers. Those changing jobs within the same
firm might be more likely to continue along
some job ladder rather than changing job
ladders. Jusenius (1975) found that, among
Some of those with a new employer had never been
employed before or had not been employed within the
last 5 years. New labor force entrants will, by defini-
tion, not have had a previous job and so are not really
job shifters. They are not included in the analysis. Fur-
ther, the CPS supplemental questionnaire asked for
detailed information about the job held previous to the
January 1973 job only if it was one on which the re-
spondent worked in 1968 or later. The data for the
analysis presented in this paper are thus on those who
had changed employer some time in the 5 years pre-
ceding January 1973. Previous job refers to that job
immediately before the job in January 1973. For most
people, this w`as a job held during 1972. For others, it
may be separated from the J`anu`ary 1973 job by a period
of up to 5 ye`ars out of the labor force or unemployed.
white women aged 30 to 44 in 1967, about
50 percent of those who moved from an oc-
cupation predominantly of one sex to one
predominantly of the other sex between 1967
and 1971 did so within a given firm. For
black women, however, she found "chang-
ing type of occupation either to or from a
typical one was much more likely to be
accompanies! by an employer change." Fur-
ther, "these results are in part explained by
the listing of occupational changes....
Among white women, there were those
whose movement into an atypical occupa-
tion appeared to be an intrafirm promotion,
from operative to foreman, for example.
Among the black women, however, the
atypical jobs into which women moved were
considerably different from their previous,
typical employment, from private house-
hold worker to operative, for example" Ju-
senius, 1975:28~.
There is considerable sex segregation
within firms (Blau, 1977~. Occupations that
are atypical for a given sex in the labor mar-
ket as a whole may be predominantly of that
sex within a particular firm. Some of the
intrafirm job changes that Jusenius labelled
as changes in type of occupation may have
actually been changes from one predomi-
nantly female (male) job to another predom-
inantly female (male) job in that particular
firm. While using data on employer chang-
ers does not solve the problem of possible
inconsistency between the sex composition
of an occupation as a whore and the sex com-
position for a given job, it does increase the
chances that a change in occupational type
represents a real change on the job. More
will be said about this in the conclusions.
While there are advantages to using this
particular sample, some important statistical
problems are raised in limiting the study to
those persons changing employers. In ana-
lyzing the outcomes of job changes across
employers, one would like to be able to gen-
eralize these results to all potential job-shift-
ers, including: (1) those persons who re-
mained with their current employers from
OCR for page 62
62
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
. .
January 1972 until January 1973 but who
might, if observed longer, change employ-
ers after January 1973; (2) those persons pre-
viously employed who were not in the labor
force or who were unemployed and between
jobs as of January 1973; and (3) those persons
who did not have any previous job. Select-
ing only those persons for study who changed
employers over a given period could bias
coefficients estimated on the selected sam-
ple (Berk and Ray, 1982; Heckman, 1979;
Barnow et al., 1980; Olsen, 1980~. The au-
thor was not able to investigate all forms of
selectivity in these data. The author did,
however, use procedures described by Ray
et al. (1981) to create a selectivity measure
for moving from, as compared to staying with,
an employer, 1972 through 1973. This meas-
ure was highly collinear with tenure on pre-
vious job for those who shifted jobs, not a
surprising result given the decline of job
mobility with tenure (Hall, 1980~. Tenure
on the job, then, differentiates those who
changed employers from those who stayed
with the same employer between January
1972 and January 1973. Since the correction
proposed by Ray et al. (1981) is for an or-
dinary least squares model and this study
used logits for much of the analysis, a direct
measure of tenure on previous job to control
for selectivity bias is used here rather than
the derived selectivity measure.
The selection of those who change em-
ployers over those who remained with an
employer is probably most significant for adult
males, especially white adult males. For
women, especially white women, the dis-
tinction between being in the labor force at
all and not in the labor force can be equally
important. The women in the sample were
employed at a given time, January 1973.
Only about 50 percent of all adult women
are employed at a particular time. However,
selecting on employment at any given time
does not seem to bias cross-sectional anal-
ysis of women's occupational rewards and
characteristics (Corcoran et al., in this vol-
ume; Fligstein and Wolf, 1978~. They were
also required to have had some previous job
in the last 5 years, perhaps thus selecting
on those with more continuous labor force
participation. At the same time, since this
previous job could be one held at any time
between 1968 and January 1973, the selec-
tivity bias is probably less than if the re-
quirement for inclusion in the analysis had
been employment on two particular dates
(Corcoran et al., in this volume).
DESCRIPTION OF OCCUPATIONAL SEX
COMPOSITION AND EMPLOYER
CHANGING
Table 4-1 describes the current and pre-
vious occupations of the sample in terms of
the average percent male.4 White males were
most segregated on this measure: On the
average, they held occupations composed of
over 80 percent of the same sex. Black men
were in somewhat less sex-segregated oc-
cupations. Women, both white and black,
at the mean tended to be in occupations that
were only 26 to 28 percent male (or, con-
versely, 74 to 72 percent female). As a result
of changing employers, there was little change
in average sex composition of occupations
for any group.5
The overall low average change in percent
4 In general, percent male was calculated for each 3-
digit occupational code from the 1970 U. S. census. Ten
large, miscellaneous groups of occupations (including
clerical workers not specific and miscellaneous, man-
agers and administrators not elsewhere classified, and
inspectors n.e.c.) were further broken down by indus-
try; see Spenner, 1977, for further details. Using the
1970 data to categorize occupations is problematical in
that at least some occupations changed their sex com-
position between 1971 and 1974 (Belier, in this vol-
ume). It is not clear that such changes affect a large
number of people. One should keep in mind, however,
as discussed above, that just as individuals can change
to occupations with different sex types, so whole oc-
cupations over time can change their sex composition
and sex label.
5 Since the CPS was a multistage rather than simple
random sample, the significance levels in the tables are
only approximate. Using the weights provided with the
CPS, however, did not change the distribution of the
dependent or independent variables.
OCR for page 63
IOB CHANGING AND OCCUPATIONAL SEX SEGREGATION
63
TABLE 4-1 Description of lob Shifts and Occupational Sex Composition by Race and
Sex: 1973 CPS Employer Changers
Black White Black White
Women Women Men Men
Mean percent male of previous occupation 26.4 27.3 76.0 81.8
Mean percent male of 1973 occupation 28.9 27.3 76.6 82.1
Average change in percent male (percentage
points
Correlation between percent male of previous and
1973 occupationsb
N
2.23
34
.
- 44
.
.32
.86
.26
185 2009 176 2358
.29
a None of the changes is statistically significantly different from O at the .05 or .1 level.
b All correlations significantly different from 0 at the .05 level.
male might be interpreted as indicating lit-
tle change of occupational sex type with a
change of employer. This would be consist-
ent with the representation of the labor mar-
ket as sex-segregated and preventing any
change to less sex-typical jobs by members
of a given sex. Averages, though, can hide
large changes in both directions, i.e., to and
away from occupations with high propor-
tions of the respondents' sex. As Table 4-1
also shows, there are surprisingly low cor-
relations between the sex composition of the
previous and the January 1973 occupations
of the CPS employer changers, from a high
of .34 for black women to a low of .26 for
black men. Such low correlations suggest
considerable change in occupational sex type
with a change of employer, perhaps some-
what less so for women (black and white)
than for men. One hypothesis to account for
these results is that something is wrong with
the data. Others (e.g., England, 1982b),
though, have found similarly low correla-
tions.
While lower than might have been ex-
pected, the correlations are positive. One
can imagine that what is happening is that
people are changing occupations within
ranges of sex composition. For example,
women could be shifting easily among oc-
cupations with anywhere from 0 to 30 per-
cent male but be stuck at a hypothetical 30
percent male barrier. The image of the labor
market is of barriers across which it is dif-
ficult to move (e.g., Sokoloff, 19801. One
would like, therefore, to go from a contin-
uous measure of occupational sex composi-
tion to a categorical or ordinal measure of
occupational sex-type or typicality.
While most occupations can be iclentified
as male or female, the particular coding of
occupations into these categories is some-
what arbitrary. In the remainder of this pa-
per, occupations in which men are the ma-
jority (at least 51 percent of those in the
occupation) will be labelled "male," "atyp-
ical for women," or "male dominant," while
those with less than 51 percent male will be
called "female," "atypical for men," or "not
male dominated."6
Table 4-2 describes the employer changes
of the 1973 CPS sample in terms of these
categories. While there is considerable sex
segregation, some people do move from or
to sex-atypical jobs. Ten to 15 percent move
from a sex-typical to a sex-atypical occupa-
tion with a change of employer; over 60 per-
cent move back to a sex-typical one. While
6 This categorization is similar to that used by Cor-
coran et al. (in this volume). The distribution of race
and sex groups over the occupational percent male did
not show any natural breaking points, but it was ex-
tremely skewed. The median percent male of the 1973
occupation was 16 for black women, 16 for white women,
87 for black men, and 93 for white men. Since most
people are in the tails of the distributions, the exact
points chosen to separate male from female occupations
should have relatively little importance as long as they
are somewhere in the middle of the distribution.
OCR for page 64
64
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
TABLE 4-2 Sex-type of 1973 Occupation by Sex-type of Previous Occupation by Race
and Sex: 1973 CPS Employer Changers
Black Women White Women
Previous Occupation Previous Occupation
Male- Not Male- Male- Not Male-
Dominated Dominated Total Dominated Dominated Total
1973 Occupationa (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Male-dominated 39.0 15.3 20.5 36.2 15.9 21.0
Not male-dominated 61.0 84.7 79.5 63.8 84.1 79.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
N 41 144 185 503 1506 2009
% 22.2 77.8 100.0 25.0 75.0 100.0
Black Men
White Men
Previous Occupation Previous Occupation
Male- Not Male- Male- Not Male-
Dominated Dominated Total Dominated Dominated Total
1973 Occupation (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Male-dominated 86.5 62.9 81.8 90.2 71.6 88.4
Not male-dominated 13.5 37.1 18.2 9.8 28.4 11.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
N 141 35 176 2136 222 2358
% 80.1 19.9 100.0 90.6 9.4 100.0
a Male-dominated occupations are those that are at least 51 percent male.
the flow is stronger in the direction of sex-
typical occupations, at least at the level of
census occupational cocles, the barriers be-
tween male and female occupations are not
impermeable. 7 In Table 4-2, results are gen-
erally consistent with other descriptions of
occupational sex type by race. Black women
as compared with white women, and black
men as compared with white men, are
7 The movement across occupational sex types as de-
fined here usually involves a relatively large change in
the sex composition of a person's occupation; see Ap-
pendix A. (Results for blacks, not shown, are similar
to those in Appendix A.) The majority of those who
stay with an occupation labelled male or female hold
occupations after their employer shift that are within
10 percentage points of the percent male of their pre-
vious occupation. A majority of those crossing the sex-
type boundaries move to an occupation with a sex com-
position that differs by more than 50 percentage points
from that of their previous occupation. Further, the
direction of the change is as one would expect: Those
women going from typical to atypical occupations, for
example, are going to occupations that are considerably
more male than their previous occupations.
somewhat more likely to be in female oc-
cupations, which is what Malveaux (1982)
reports. Here, though, one floes not see a
greater tendency for black women than white
women to move to female occupations. The
mobility patterns of women by race are sim-
ilar. Black men, on the other hand, show
greater movement than white men out of
male-dominated occupations and less move-
ment to male occupations.
As Malveaux (1982) and others have em-
phasized, in making comparisons of sex type
of occupations (and mobility between types)
by race, one needs to keep in mind the race
differences in occupation within the cate-
gories of male and female occupations. One
way of understanding race and sex differ-
ences in mobility across or within occupa-
tional sex-type categories is by examining
the outcomes of such mobility i.e., the
types of occupations where people work after
a change. Table 4-3 shows these outcomes
by race, sex, and sex type of 1973 occupa-
tion.
Typical occupations for the white women
OCR for page 65
OB CHANGING AND OCCUPATIONAL SEX SEGREGATION
65
job shifters are clerical occupations, al-
though 13 percent end their employer
changes as health workers or teachers and
19 percent as service workers. Atypical oc-
cupational outcomes for white women tend
to be within the professional and managerial
categories, though 16 percent are durable
and nondurable goods operatives. While al-
most 40 percent of the black women who
end up with sex-typical 1973 occupations are
clerical workers, more of them as comparecl
with white women have sex-typical blue-
colIar jobs as operatives, nonhousehold
service workers, and household workers.
Black women's atypical occupations are
roughly comparable to white women's atyp-
ical occupations.
Among white men, sex-typical occupa-
tional destinations are most often skilled ant]
semiskilled blue collar. Almost one-quarter
of those with male-dominated 1973 occu-
pations have crafts occupations, while an-
other one-fifth are operatives. Atypical oc-
cupations for white men after a job shift are
in lower white-collar retail sales and clerical
occupations, as well as in durable and non-
durable operatives and service categories.
For black men, both sex-typical and sex-
atypical occupational outcomes tend to be
lower skilled, as compared with the out-
comes for white men. More of those with
sex-typical destinations, as compared with
white men (or women), are laborers or serv-
ice workers. While 18 percent of the black
men with sex-atypical outcomes are clerical
workers and 12 percent are health care
workers and teachers, another 35 percent
are service workers.
Another approach to understancling race
and sex differences in mobility across and
within sex-type boundaries is to look at the
outcomes of the mobility in terms of relative
job rewards. Table 4-4 shows changes in sta-
tus and wages by race and sex for different
types of moves.
Consistent with Wolf and Rosenfelcl's
(1978) findings, all sex and race groups mov-
ing to a male-dominated occupation gained
the most, or close to the most, in terms of
status, despite the greater proportion of
white-collar jobs held by white women and
black and white men who were in female
occupations. Going to or even staying in male-
clominated occupations, however, does not
necessarily result in the greatest increases
in wages. For white men, moving to a fe-
male occupation may not increase status,
but it does increase wages more than any
other type of move. For black women, those
going to typically female occupations ex-
perience the greatest gains. Moving to a male-
dominated occupation does provide greater
wage increases for white women than other
types of moves, but white women do not
significantly gain in wages by going from one
male occupation to another. The failure of
male occupations to be wage growth occu-
pations for women has been found else-
where (Corcoran et al., in this volume; Ju-
senius, 1975; Rosenfeld, 1983~. At the same
time, those who stayed in male-dominated
occupations as compared with others in their
race/sex category have the highest 1973 wage
levels.
Even among people changing employers,
then, there is a considerable amount of sex
segregation in both the origin and the des-
tination occupations. At the same time, be-
tween 10 and 15 percent, depending on race
and sex category, go from a sex-typical to a
sex-atypical occupation with their employer
move. A considerably larger proportion, 60
to over 70 percent, of those who previously
had a sex-atypical occupation had a sex-typ-
ical one in 1973. The sex-type distribution
and mobility across occupations differ be-
tween the sexes and between the races. Black
women resemble white women in their dis-
tributions and mobility more than black men
resemble white men. Yet even among women
the characteristics of jobs labelle(1 male or
female and the consequences of mobility
within and across categories differed by race.
Such differences need to be kept in mind
when interpreting sex and race differences
and similarities in individuals moving to or
between sex-atypical occupations, the sub-
ject of the next section.
OCR for page 66
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
TABLE 4-3 Occupational Destinations by Sex, Race, and Sex-type of 1973 Occupation:
1973 CPS Employer Changers
Black Women
Occupational Destinations
Typicalb Atypical
1973 Occupation (%) (%) Total
Engineer, physician, dentist 0 2.56 .54
Health worker, teacher (except college) 2.04 10.26 3.77
Engineering and science technicians 0 0 0
Other professional, salaried 1.36 17.95 4.84
Manager, salaried, manufacturing 0 0 0
Manager, other, salaried 0 7.69 1.61
Sales retail 3.40 0 2.69
Sales other .68 2.56 1.08
Clerical 38.10 20.51 34.41
Crafts 0 7.69 1.62
Durable and nondurable goods operative 15.64 17.95 16.13
Other operative 2.04 10.25 3.76
Nonfarm labor , 0 0 0
Private household worker 10.88 0 8.60
Service worker 25.85 2.56 20.97
Farmer, farm manager 0 0 0
Farm laborer, foreman 0 0 0
Totala 99.99 99.98 99.99
N 147 39 186
Percent white collars 46 62
White Women
Engineer, physician, dentist 0 .71 .15
Health worker, teacher (except college) 12.82 11.85 12.61
Engineering and science technicians 0 1.42 .30
Other professional, salaried 1.32 17.54 4.72
Manager, salaried, manufacturing 0 .71 .15
Manager, other, salaried 0 13.03 2.73
Sales retail 5.40 1.18 4.52
Sales—other 0 6.64 1.39
Clerical 47.36 12.32 40.02
Crafts .25 3.09 .85
Durable and nondurable goods operative 9.74 16.12 11.07
Other operative 1.76 5.45 2.54
Nonfarm labor .06 4.26 .95
Private household worker 2.32 0 1.84
Service worker 18.98 4.97 16.04
Farmer, farm manager 0 0 0
Farm laborer, foreman 0 .71 .15
Totala 100.01 100.00 100.03
N 1596 422 2014
Percent white collars 67 65
a Totals differ from 100 due to rounding.
b A typical occupation is one that is male dominated (more than 50 percent male) for men and one that is not
male dominated for women.
c White-collar occupations are those in the major occupational categories of professional and technical, managerial
and administrative, clerical, and sales.
OCR for page 76
76
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
than 12 years of schooling or more than 3
years of college are more likely to remain
with a sex-atypical occupation than those with
intermediate amounts of education. Fur-
ther, the higher the specific skill prepara-
tion required on the previous job, the lower
the odds that a woman will go to a sex-typical
occupation with a change of employer.
As Table 4-5 showed, higher previous SVP
also decreases the probability that white men
will leave sex-typical occupations. Male oc-
cupations requiring higher skills or educa-
tion may be especially likely to keep their
incumbents even across employers, al-
though women with lower education stay
with their atypical occupations, too. For men
who began their employer change from a
typically female occupation, it is having only
a few years of college, as compared with
other levels of education, that inhibits
movement to a sex-typical occupation. The
interpretation may again have to do with
credentials. If some women s occupations
offer relatively good positions to men, one
might have expected that those men who
had fifed higher-skiDed and white-collar jobs
and who had more than 3 years of education
would also be less likely to move from a
female to a male occupation. This does not
seem to be the case. For white men, having
held a white-collar occupation actually in-
creased the chances of leaving a sex-atypical
occupation, although this effect was of mar-
ginal statistical significance. If the mana-
gerial and administrative women's occupa-
tions do indeed offer men chances for
promotion, perhaps men are moving to them
in increasing numbers, resulting in occu-
pations that are now more male, though con-
sidered female. For women, having a pre-
vious atypical occupation that was white
collar, net of everything else, increases mo-
bility to a sex-typical occupation. i2
|2 In Table 4-6, the opposite signs for white women
of whether the previous job was in a white-collar oc-
cupation and of its SVP look suspiciously like the result
Some life cycle and age effects appear.
Men who had sex-atypical occupations and
were previously in school have greater odds
of going to sex-typical occupations than those
who were out of school in both 1972 and
1973. Younger women, as compared with
older women, may have a somewhat greater
tendency to stay with a sex-atypical occu-
pation even across firms, although here the
effect is only marginally significant.
While marital status and family related
interruptions in labor force participation again
have no significant effects on women's oc-
cupation-type mobility, changes in hours do.
The women who go from full-time to part-
time work are again more likely to move to
typically female occupations.
Thus, as in the analysis of mobility from
sex-typical occupations in Table 4-5, edu-
cation, skill requirements, life cycle stage,
and hours employed play a part In precl~ct-
ing who will move across sex-type bound-
aries, although the way in which these var-
iables explain mobility is somewhat different
here.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
The labor market is extremely sex seg-
regated. Some people, however, do move
across the barriers built upon sex-typicality
of occupations. This paper used date on 1972
to 1973 black and white employer changers
to examine this phenomenon. At the level
of 3-digit occupational codes, this study found
that of those persons beginning a job shift
of multicollinearity. The correlation between whether
the previous job was white collar and its SVP is mod-
erately high about .48 for white women. For black
women and men it was approximately .43 and for white
men, .34. When white-collar occupation for the pre-
vious job was dropped, the effect of SVP continued to
be significantly negative for white women. When SVP
was dropped, the effect of whether the previous job
was white collar was positive, but not significant. For
other groups and other kinds of mobility, including
only SVP or only white collar did not change the re-
sults.
OCR for page 77
JOB CHANGING AND OCCUPATIONAL SEX SEGREGATION
77
from a sex-typical occupation (defined in
terms of whether the occupation had a male
majority), 15 percent of both black and white
women, 13 percent of black men, and 10
percent of white men moved to an occu-
pation atypical for their sex. There was also
a strong flow from atypical to typical occu-
pations: Somewhat over 60 percent of women
and black men made such a move, as well
as over 70 percent of the white men. In
general, the mobility patterns across sex types
of occupations for black ant! white women
resembled each other closely. Indeed, sex
differentiated occupational locations and
types of mobility to a much greater extent
than did race. At the same time, there were
race differences. Even among the women,
the black women's female occupations were
much less likely to be white collar ones than
those held by white women, in part because
of the overrepresentation of black women
in typically female service occupations. Black
women who were able to remain in pre-
dominantly male occupations actually had
higher wage levels and status gains than white
women in male occupations. Among men,
blacks were more likely to be in or move to
female occupations, although those who re-
mained in predominantly male occupations
received the greatest wage gains of any of
the four race by sex groups. For black men,
too, both the male and female occupations
they held were relatively unlikely to be white-
colIar ones.
For neither white nor black women was
there much support for the idea that extent
of family responsibilities influences the
chance to move from or to a sex-typical oc-
cupation. One could argue that this is be-
cause the variables measuring family re-
sponsibilities are not detailed enough. These
results, however, are consistent with a num-
ber of other studies that show the effects of
marriage and children on women's labor force
participation but not on the status, income,
or sex-type of the occupation women hold
once they are in the labor force. Much of
the lore about why women get lower wages
than men and about why they are in wom-
en's occupations focuses on women's roles
within the home. For men, on the other
hand, responsibilities for a family are usually
ignored. Finding effects of family status for
men but not for women suggests that our
stereotypes about the interface offamfly and
employment need to be reexamined with
respect to both women and men.
Other variables, though, that indicate
changing commitment to the labor force did
have effects on the nature of women's and
men's mobility between occupations with
different sex types. Moving to part-time work
was associated with moving to or staying
with a typically female occupation for white
women and men, while moving to a full-
time job from one that had been part-time
increased the probability of going to a typ-
ically male occupation for black women.
Having been in school the previous year also
increased the chances of moving to a sex-
typical job for black women and white men
previously in typically female occupations.
As discussed in the preceding section, it is
not possible to determine whether part-time
employment represents a choice about how
many hours to spend on market work versus
other activities or whether it represents in-
voluntary underemployment. For those
persons who have demands on their time
beyond employment, it would be possible,
in some cases, to extend the range of jobs
open to them through such options as flex-
time.
Level of education influenced the types
of occupation changes that persons made.
Having more than 3 years of college, which
in most cases would indicate having a col-
lege degree, made it more likely that women
and black men would go from sex-typical to
sex-atypical occupations and that white
women would go from one atypical occu-
pation to another. Unfortunately, the CPS
did not give information on college major.
It is not clear, therefore, whether it is the
degree as a credential or the substance of
the degree that enables someone to go to
OCR for page 78
78
RACHEL A . ROSENFELD
and stay with an atypical occupation. If de-
mand is sex-segregatecI, then even having
the training for an atypical occupation may
not help the individual get the desired job;
by virtue of gender, he or she will be con-
sidere`1 inappropriate. If employers are
pressured to desegregate the workplace, they
may be more willing to hire people from
other fields and train them on the job. With
the decreasing sex segregation of college
majors (Belier, in this volume; Heyns and
Bird, 1982), it will be interesting to measure
whether persons use such majors to follow
atypical careers.l3
White women and men who held male
occupations that required more skill were
more likely to stay with a typically male oc-
cupation when they changed employers. This
effect, together with the effect of having a
college education, suggests the attraction and
retentive power of the higher-level male jobs.
The effects of having less than a high school
degree on a woman remaining with atypical
occupations emphasize again the range of
occupations that are predominantly male.
It is not skill and training alone that keep
women out of male occupations. It could be
that the less-educated women who stay in sex-
atypical occupations are trapped in low-level
jobs; they remain in these jobs because the
pay is higher than that which they could earn
elsewhere. Daymont and Stream (198lj Fund
that it is precisely among the blue-collar oc-
cupations, which often have lower educational
requirements, that one finds an advantage to
\3 Using data on female college graduates in 1961,
Bielby (1978) showed that those who had sex-atypical
college majors were more likely than other women to
stay with sex-atypical careers. Conversely, Hearn and
Olzak (1981) reported data on 1976 college seniors that
showed women were actually more likely than men to
study vocationally specific majors. The jobs for which
these typically female majors were preparing them,
however, were lower in status than those anticipated
by typically male vocationally specific majors. Hearn
and Olzak were not able to follow these seniors to see
how closely the various majors predicted types of ca-
reers.
being in a male-typed rather than a female-
typed job.
The analysis did not present strong age
effects, such as one might have expected
from changes in the degree of sex segrega-
tion over cohorts (Belier, in this volume). It
may be that both the strong movement back
to sex-typical occupations and the failure to
find age effects are the result of using data
from a period when changes in the climate
facilitating sex desegregation were just
underway.
These analyses provide some insights into
the nature of male and female typical jobs
by race and sex and into the mechanisms by
which persons change from an occupation
of one sex type to one of another sex type.
The explanatory power, however, of the in-
dependent variables taken together is low,
as indicated by the D statistic. It.is espe-
cially difficult to predict, for whites, who
will leave a sex-typical for a sex-atypical oc-
cupation, at least using these individual and
job-shifting characteristics as the independ-
ent variables. One reason for this could be
that the individual and job-shifting variables
were not detailed and extensive enough.
Another reason could be that the factors that
affect whether a person is in or moves to a
sex-atypical occupation are outside the per-
son. As already discussed, individual char-
acteristics can seem to produce effects that,
in reality, reflect outside forces. The de-
mand for certain kinds of labor, e.g., the
demand for women in atypical occupations,
can work against even the strong sex role
socialization that most of us receive. Kanter
(1977), for example, recounts how within a
given firm, management persuaded women
against their initial resistance to move to
more typically male positions. Within and
among firms, employers vary in their en-
couragement of persons of the wrong sex to
apply and be hired for jobs; this variation
could explain whether an individual ends up
in a sex-typical or atypical job. Once a per-
son is hired into a sex-atypical job, whether
that person stays with the job may depend
OCR for page 79
IOB CHANGING AND OCCUPaTIONAL SEX SEGREGATION
79
on management's efforts to curtail harass-
ment and to adapt work conditions so that
both men and women can continue em-
ployment there (Roos and Reskin, in this
volume).
Such efforts at desegregating the work-
place usually depend on whether it is prof-
itable to make them. Legislation can make
it unprofitable not to hire and retain a sex-
integrated labor force by enacting direct
monetary sanctions and by creating a cli-
mate in which expensive sex discrimination
suits are possible. An unfavorable economy
such as we have now, however, can redirect
emphasis toward providing jobs and away
from efforts to integrate jobs. While women
may have a greater need to support their
families now and may be more attracted to
typically male jobs, competition for jobs in-
creases the possibility of reverse discrimi-
nation charges by male and white workers,
as well as informal efforts to exclude women
from male occupational territory. Rapid
changes in decreasing occupational sex seg-
regation and improving sex role attitudes
occurred in the 1970s; social scientists and
policy makers need! to monitor carefully what
happens in the unfavorable economic cli-
mate of the early 1980s if these gains are to
persist.
The dependent variables in this analysis
were movements across occupation sex types
that were created from the sex composition
of 3-digit occupational codes. Information at
the 3-digit census code level is generally the
most detailed available for national samples.
Sex segregation occurs within 3-digit
codes. Firms are sex segregated (Blau, 1977),
and within firms, women rarely work in the
same jobs as men (Bielby and Baron, in this
volume). It is not clear, then, that the women
who move to male occupations or the men
who move to female ones are really going
to jobs shared with members of the opposite
sex. One would hope that sensitivity to this
level of measurement problem would lead
more of those who design large surveys, es-
pecially longituclinal ones, to include ques-
tions on the sex composition of the respond-
ents' specific jobs. The conditions on a
person's job can be important in determin-
ing that person's rewards and motivation to
stay with the job. O'Farrell and Harlan (in
this volume) have urged that serious efforts
be made to study sex segregation within or-
ganizations, where advancement and work
conditions can be traced more precisely. The
rewards of a given occupation over time may
indeed depend on its overall sex composi-
tion, with those occupations dominated by
women offering lower rewards than other
aspects of the occupation would predict
(England and McLaughlin, 19791. Future
research needs to include not only the ques-
tion of why inclividuals enter and stay with
sex-typical as compared with sex-atypical oc-
cupations, but also the larger questions of
why and how women, whose work is un-
dervalued, have been excluded from the work
that society values highly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The support of the Carolina Population
Center and NSF grant DAR-79-1585 made
this paper possible. I am grateful to referees
and participants from the Workshop on Sex
Segregation of lobs (National Research
Council, Washington, D. C., May 24-25,
1982) for comments on an earlier paper that
informed the work on this one, to David
Maume and Roberto Fernandez for merging
the data, to Kenneth Spenner for providing
the sex composition data, to Franpois Niel-
sen and Kathy Ward for their advice, and
especially to Barbara Reskin for her exten-
sive and helpful suggestions.
OCR for page 80
80
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
APPENDIX A Extent of Change in Percentage Male by Type of Occupation Change:
White 1973 CPS Employer Changers
White Women
Type of Movea
Typical to Typical to Atypical to Atypical to
Typical Atypical Typical Atypical
(%) (%) (%) (%)
1973 percentage male-previous occupation percentage male =
(1973 occupation greater % male)
91 to 100 0 0 1.2 0
81to90 0 0 34 0
71 to 80 0 0 8.1 0
61to70 0 0 9.7 0
51to60 0 0 19.3 0
41to50 .9 0 22.7 .5
31to40 2.2 0 14.3 2.7
21to30 2.9 0 14.0 4.9
llto20 8.9 0 5.6 8.8
1 to 10 11.8 0 1.6 12.1
(No change) 0 42.4 0 0 34.1
(1973 occupation smaller % male)
-1 to -10 13.1 2.1 0 13.2
-11 to -20 9.6 3.8 0 8.2
-21 to -30 4.7 5.0 0 10.4
-Otto -40 2.8 12.1 0 3.8
-41to -50 .7 20.5 0 1.1
-51 to -60 0 20.9 0 0
-61 to -70 0 16.3 0 0
-71 to -80 0 12.1 0 0
-81to -90 0 4.6 0 0
-9lto -99 0 2.5 0 0
Totals 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8
N 1267 239 321 182
OCR for page 81
[OR CHANGING AND OCCUPATIONAL SEX SEGREGATION
81
APPENDIX A (Continued)
White Men
Type of Movea
Typical to Typical to Atypical to Atypical to
Typical Atypical T,vpical Atypical
(%) (%) (%) (%)
(1973 occupation greater % male)
91 to 100 0 1.9 0 0
81to90 0 5.2 0 0
71 to80 0 5.7 0 0
61 to 70 0 17.1 0 0
51to60 0 18.1 0 0
41 to 50 1.5 25.7 0 0
31to40 2.2 10.5 0 4.8
21to30 3.5 12.9 0 7.9
11 to20 5.9 2.9 0 3.2
1 to 10 18.6 0 0 11.1
(No change) 0 31.1 0 0 47.6
(1973 occupation smaller % male)
- 1 to - 10 18.6 0 .6 15.9
-11 to -20 7.4 0 2.5 1.6
-21to -30 5.1 0 5.0 4.8
-31 to -40 4.9 0 10.7 3.2
-41 to -50 1.2 0 23.3 0
-51to -60 0 0 21.4 0
-61to-70 0 0 15.7 0
-71 to -80 0 0 11.3 0
-81 to -90 0 0 6.9 0
-91 to -99 0 0 2.5 0
Totalb 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.1
N 1926 210 159 63
a A sex-typical occupation is one that is at least 51 percent male for men or less than 51 percent male for women.
b Totals differ from 100 due to rounding.
OCR for page 82
OCR for page 84
OCR for page 85
OCR for page 86
Representative terms from entire chapter:
labor force
82
4-
o
C)
·=
en
an
8
C.
C)
.
so
a;
C)
Cal
en
c)
._
Cal
I
o
-
:>
i_
o
o
d C
._
Ad,
C ~
~ An
Cal
Ct
_ ..
.w ~
~ .o
Ct
o
z.O
~ Pa
.~
3
.o.-
=P
Cal
.o~
.~
C5g
E E
a
.~
3
.o~,4
~ ·<
Cal
C)
O
~ _
o ~
S ·o
_
c~ "o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~o
— — · ~
c~ ~ o o - - ~ -
c)
- - - -
o - - ~ -
c~ ~ - c~ - c~ - c~
· - · - · - · -
~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
- - - -
oo cv' ~ c~ ~ - . o ~
- - - -
cs) ~ - o u,
O
- - - -
~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ oo
O - cO
- · - · - -
a, CD co
C~ di _ CO ~ _
- - - -
· - · - ·
~ ~ ~ ^
O ~ ~ ~ C~ _ _ ~ ~
~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ - cO ~ o
- - - - -
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~
· - · - ·
co o ~ ~ - ~ ~ 'o
~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ o c~
· - ·
O - ~ cO
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~
- - - - -
~ = - ~ - ~ ~ =^= ~ ~
- - - - -
io c~ O c~ C~ ~ o°
'~ ~ u ) - c~ - ~
- - - - -
- - - - -
~Q
~ o
·~
O
~ -
co) ~ o
o c)
.
, E E ~ E
,6
83
He ~ ~ ~ Cal Cal Go ~ on ~ o ~ ~ oo ~ U.
~ CO _ Cal _ Cal o ~ o Cal o ~ ~ ~ o ~ Cal ~
. . . . . . . · . · . . . · . . . —
_ _ _ _ —_d _ —C~~ _~ —~
C~
~ ~C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = - ~ ~ ~m ~
C~ ~ _ o ~ o ~ o _ ~ C~ ~ _ ~ C~ ~
· _ _ — — —~ _1 —C'd:, _ —
84
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
REFERENCES
Anderson, Karen
1981 Wartime Women: Sex Roles, Family Rela-
tions, and the Status of Women during World
War II. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Baker, Elizabeth
1964 Technology and Women's Work. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Barnow, Burt, Glen Cain, and Arthur Goldberger
1980 "Issues in the analysis of selectivity bias." In
Ernst Stromsdorfer and George Farkas (eds.),
Evaluation Studies Review Annual, Vol. 5.
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, pp. 43-59.
Barrett, Nancy S.
1979 "Women in the job market: Unemployment
and work schedules." In Ralph E. Smith (ed.),
The Subtle Revolution: Women at Work.
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, pp.
63-98.
Beller, Andrea
1980 "Occupational segregation by sex: Determi-
nants and changes." Paper presented at the
Population Association of America annual
meeting, Denver, April 12.
1982 "Occupational segregation by sex: Determi-
nants and changes." Journal of Human Re-
sources 17:371-92.
Berk, Richard, and Subhash Ray
1982 "Selection biases in sociological data." Social
Science Research 11:352-98.
Bielby, Denise
1978 "Career sex-atypicality and career involvement
of college educated women: Baseline evidence
from the 1960s." Sociology of Education 51:7-
28.
Blau, Francine
1977 Equal Pay in the Office. Lexington, Mass.:
Lexington Books.
Cohn, Samuel
1982 "Synthetic turnover: A reinterpretation of hu-
man capital models of occupational sex-typ-
ing." Unpublished manuscript. Department of
Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Cook, Alice, and Hiroko Hayashi
1980 Working Women in Japan. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cor-
nell International Industrial and Labor Rela-
tions Report #10.
Davies, Margery
1975 "Women's place is at the typewriter: The fem-
inization of the clerical labor force. " In Richard
Edwards, Michael Reich, and David Gordon
(eds.), Labor Market Segmentation. Lexing-
ton, Mass.: D. C. Heath, pp. 279-95.
Daymont, Thomas, and Anne Statham
1981 "Occupational Typicality: Changes, causes, and
consequences." In Lois Shaw led.), Dual Ca-
reers, Vol. 5. Columbus, Ohio: Center for Hu-
man Resources Research, Ohio State Univer-
sity, pp. 107-139.
Doeringer, Peter, and Michael Piore
1971 Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Anal-
ysis. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath.
Dressel, Paula, and David Petersen
1982 "Becoming a male stripper: Recruitment, so-
ciali7~tion, and ideological development." Work
and Occupations 9:387-406.
Duncan, Otis Dudley, David L. Featherman, and Bev-
erly Duncan
1972 Socioeconomic Background and Achievement.
New York: Seminar Press.
Edwards, Richard
1979 Contested Terrain. New York: Basic Books.
England, Paula
1982a "Explanations of occupational sex segregation:
An interdisciplinary review." Unpublished
manuscript, University of Texas at Dallas, De-
partment of Sociology and Political Economy.
1982b "The failure of human capital theory to explain
occupational sex segregation." Journal of Hu-
man Resources 17:358-70.
England, Paula, Marilyn Chassie, and Linda Mc-
Cormack
1982 "Skill demands and earnings in female and male
occupations." Sociology and Social Research
66:147-68.
England, Paula, and Steven D. McLaughlin
1979 "Sex segregation of jobs and male-female in-
come differentials." In Rodolfo Alvarez, Ken-
neth Lutterman, and Associates (eds.), Dis-
crimination in Organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, pp. 189-213.
Fligstein, Neil, and Wendy Wolf
1978 "Sex similarities in occupational status attain-
ment: Are the results due to the restriction of
the sample to employed women?" Social Sci-
ence Research 7:197-212.
Greenberger, Ellen, and Lawrence Steinberg
1983 "Sex differences in early labor force experi-
ence." Social Forces 62:467-86.
Grimm, James, and Robert Stern
1974 "Sex roles and internal labor market structures:
The 'female' semi-professions." Social Prob-
lems 21:690-705.
Gruber, James, and Lars Bjorn
1982 "Blue-collar blues: The sexual harassment of
women auto workers." Work and Occupations
9:271-98.
Hall, Robert E.
1980 "The importance of lifetime jobs in the U.S.
economy." Cambridge, Mass.: National Bu-
reau of Economic Research Working Paper
#560.
Hanushek, Eric A., and John E. Jackson
1977 Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New
York: Academic Press.
Harlan, Sharon, and Brigid O'Farrell
1982 "After the pioneers: Prospects for women in
nontraditional blue collar jobs." Work and Oc-
cupations 9:363-86.
TOB CHANGING AND OCCUPATIONAL SEX SEGREGATION
-r'
Harrell, Frank
1980 "The LOGIST procedure." In SAS Supple-
mental Library User's Guide: 1980 Edition.
Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, Inc., pp. 83-102.
Hartmann, Heidi
1976 "Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation
by sex." SIGNS 1:137-69. Polachek, Solomon
Hearn, James, and Susan Olzak
1981 "The role of college major departments in the
reproduction of sexual inequality." Sociology 1979
of Education 54:195-205.
Heckman, James
1979 "Sample selection bias as a specification error."
Econometrica 47:153-61.
Heyos, Barbara, and Joyce A. Bird 1981a
1982 "Recent trends in the higher education of
women." In Pamela Perun (ed.), The Under-
graduate Woman: Issues in Educational Equity.
Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, pp. 43-
69.
Jusenius, Carol
1975 "Occupational change, 1967-71." In Dual Ca-
reers, Vol. 3. Columbus, Ohio.: Center for Hu- Ray
man Resource Research, Ohio State Univer- Ace;
sity, pp. 21-35.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss
1977 Men and Women of the Corporation. New York:
Basic Books.
Kreps, Juanita, and R. John Leaper
1976 "Home work, market work, and the allocation
of time." In Juanita Kreps (ed.), Women and
the American Economy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, pp. 61-81.
Levinson, Richard M.
1975 "Sex discrimination and employment prac-
tices: An experiment with unconventional job 1980
inquiries." Social Problems 22:533-43.
Lewin-Epstein, Noah
1981 Youth Employment During High School. Re-
port to National Center for Education Statis-
tics, U.S. Department of Education. Chicago:
National Opinion Research Center.
Lewis, Diane
1977 "A response to inequality: Black women, rac-
ism and sexism." SIGNS 3:339-61.
Malveaux, Julianne
1982 "Recent trends in occupational segregation by
race and sex." Paper presented at the Work-
shop on Job Segregation by Sex, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., May
24-25.
McIlwee, Judith
1982 "Work satisfaction among women in nontra-
ditional occupations." Work and Occupations
9:299-336.
Olsen, Randall
1980 "A least squares correction for selectivity bias."
Econometrica 48:1815-20.
Oppenheimer, Valerie
1970 The Female Labor Force in the United States:
Demographic and Economic Factors Govern-
85
ing Its Growth and Changing Composition.
Population Monograph Series, No. 5. Berke-
ley: University of California.
Phelps, Edmund
1972 "The statistical theory of racism and sexism."
American Economic Review 62:659-61.
1978 "Sex differences in college major." Industrial
and Labor Relations Review 31:498-508.
"Occupational segregation among women:
Theory, evidence, and a prognosis." In Cyn-
thia Lloyd, Emily Andrews, and Curtis Gilroy
(eds.), Women in the Labor Market. New York:
Columbia University Press, pp. 137-57.
"Occupational self-selection: A human capital
approach to sex differences in occupational
structure." Review of Economics and Statis-
tics, pp. 60-69.
1981b "Occupational segregation: A defense of hu-
man capital predictions." Unpublished man-
uscript, University of North Carolina-Chapel
Hill, Department of Economics.
Subhash, Richard Berk, and William Bielby
"Correcting sample selection bias for bivariate
logistic distribution of disturbances." Unpub-
lished manuscript, University of California-Santa
Barbara. Revision of a paper presented at the
1980 meeting of the American Statistical As-
sociation.
Rosenfeld, Rachel A.
1977 "Breaks in women's employment and labor
market re-entry." Paper presented at the an-
nual meetings of the Canadian Sociology and
Anthropology Association, Fredericton, New
Brunswick.
"Race and sex differences in career dynamics."
American Sociological Review 45:583-609.
1983 "Sex segregation and sectors: An analysis of
gender differences in returns from employer
changes." American Sociological Review 48:637-
55.
Rosenfeld, Rachel A., and Frangois Nielsen
1984 "Inequality and careers: A dynamic model of so-
cioeconomic achievement." Sociological Meth-
ods and Research 12:279-321.
Rumberger, Russell, and Martin Carnoy
1980 "Segmentation in the U.S. labour market."
Cambridge Journal of Economics 4:117-32.
Schmuck, Patricia, W. W. Charters, Jr., and Richard
O. Carlson (eds.)
1981 Educational Policy and Management: Sex Dif-
ferentials. New York: Academic Press.
Schreiber, Carol Tropp
1979 Changing Places: Men and Women in Tran-
sitional Occupations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Shaw, Lois
1981 "Causes of irregular employment patterns." In
Lois Shaw (ed.), Dual Careers: A Decade of
Changes in the Lives of Mature Women, Vol.
5. Columbus, Ohio: Center for Human Re-
86
RACHEL A. ROSENFELD
source Research, Ohio State University, pp.
79-106.
Sokoloff, Natalie
1980 Between Money and Love: The Dialectics of
Women's Home and Market Work. New York:
Praeger.
Spence, Michael
1974 Market Signaling: Information Transfer in Hir-
ing and Related Screening Processes. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Spenner, Kenneth
1977 From Generation to Generation: The Trans-
mission of Occupation. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Strober, Myra, and David Tyack
1980 "Why do women teach and men manage?"
SIGNS 5:494-503.
Sweet, James A.
1973 Women in the Labor Force. New York: Sem-
inar Press.
Temme, Lloyd
1975 Occupation: Meanings and Measurement.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Social Science
Research.
Wolf, Wendy, and Rachel A. Rosenfeld
1978 "Sex structure of occupations and job mobil-
ity." Social Forces 56:823-44.
