Occupations foster gender differences among workers in a variety of ways, one of the most pervasive being "internal stratification: That is, men and women in the same occupation often perform different tasks and functions. Even in those occupations that appear sexually integrated, the aggregate statistics often mask extreme internal segregation. Although the proportion of female bakers increased from 25 percent in 1970 to 41 percent in 1980, for example, the majority of female bakers are found in highly automated baking industries, while their male counterparts are located in less automated bakeries. The same phenomenon has been detected among pharmacists, financial managers, and bus drivers—all groups where the influx of women workers suggests a diminution of sex segregation.
Another strategy used to maintain gender differences in supposedly integrated occupations is the use of sumptuary and etiquette rules. When women enter male- dominated occupations, certain rules are often introduced to govern their dress and demeanor. In office settings, for instance, dress codes—either formal or implicit—are not unusual; female employees may be required to wear dresses, nylons, and high-heeled shoes to enhance their femininity. So it is for female marines and male nurses, both of whom are required to dress differently from their male and female counterparts. Male nurses never wear the traditional nursing cap; female marines never sport the standard Marine Corps garrison cap.
Informal practices also play a role in constituting femininity in female marines and masculinity in male nurses. As members of visible minority groups, they stand out at work and receive far more than their fair share of attention. This phenomenon was first documented by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, who found that women in corporations, simply by virtue of their numerical rarity, were noticed and scrutinized more than their male counterparts. This added pressure may actually result in different job performances from men and women in nontraditional occupations and exacerbate gender differences. Kanter,s corporate women, for example, became more secretive, less independent, and less oppositional in response to their greater visibility—all traits that have traditionally been associated with femininity.
Another informal technique that enhances gender differences is practiced by supervisors who evaluate men and women differently. The very qualities that are highly praised in one sex are sometimes denigrated in the other. Thus, a man is "ambitious, a woman, "pushy"; a woman is "sensitive," a man, "wimpy.”
But it would be a mistake to claim that all gender differences are forced on people. In addition to the external pressures I have just described, male nurses and female marines actively construct their own gender by redefining their activities in terms of traditional masculine and feminine traits. For example, women in the Marine Corps insist that their femininity is intact even as they march cadence in camouflage units. Likewise, male nurses contend that their masculinity is not at all threatened while they care for and nurture their patients.
Another strategy used to maintain gender differences in supposedly integrated occupations is the use of sumptuary and etiquette rules. When women enter male- dominated occupations, certain rules are often introduced to govern their dress and demeanor. In office settings, for instance, dress codes—either formal or implicit—are not unusual; female employees may be required to wear dresses, nylons, and high-heeled shoes to enhance their femininity. So it is for female marines and male nurses, both of whom are required to dress differently from their male and female counterparts. Male nurses never wear the traditional nursing cap; female marines never sport the standard Marine Corps garrison cap.
Informal practices also play a role in constituting femininity in female marines and masculinity in male nurses. As members of visible minority groups, they stand out at work and receive far more than their fair share of attention. This phenomenon was first documented by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, who found that women in corporations, simply by virtue of their numerical rarity, were noticed and scrutinized more than their male counterparts. This added pressure may actually result in different job performances from men and women in nontraditional occupations and exacerbate gender differences. Kanter,s corporate women, for example, became more secretive, less independent, and less oppositional in response to their greater visibility—all traits that have traditionally been associated with femininity.
Another informal technique that enhances gender differences is practiced by supervisors who evaluate men and women differently. The very qualities that are highly praised in one sex are sometimes denigrated in the other. Thus, a man is "ambitious, a woman, "pushy"; a woman is "sensitive," a man, "wimpy.”
But it would be a mistake to claim that all gender differences are forced on people. In addition to the external pressures I have just described, male nurses and female marines actively construct their own gender by redefining their activities in terms of traditional masculine and feminine traits. For example, women in the Marine Corps insist that their femininity is intact even as they march cadence in camouflage units. Likewise, male nurses contend that their masculinity is not at all threatened while they care for and nurture their patients.