work

Robin L. sent us this great visual, from Flare (via), that uses U.S. census data to show how work type has changed over time.  The image below displays the percentage of men (blue) and women (pink) in each job between 1850 and 2000:

If you go to the interactive, you can see what percentage of all workers were of any given type, by sex, for each year.

You can also look at work by gender.  Look at how women’s participation in paid work has increased over time (but watch out for the shortened y axis):

The trend for men is down and I can’t think of a good reason for why (you?), though the source explains that some modern jobs are left out because they use occupational categories from 1950.

You can also look at each job individually.  This is the image for farm laborers (again, with a short y axis):

This data is great for comparative purposes, but leaves a bit to be desired in terms of capturing the whole picture because of the missing occupations.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Nora R. pointed out a Navy Facebook page that presents female members of the Navy as ground-breaking women who redefine femininity. The photo:

Here’s the text below the photo:

Applauding women who define life on their own terms. Intermingling the stereotypically feminine and masculine. Women in the Navy are amongst those paving the way in redefining femininity in the 21st Century.

I think it’s fascinating that they refer to feminine and masculine characteristics as stereotypes, rather than simply saying they mix feminine and masculine traits (thus accepting them as meaningful categories).

I went over to the Navy page on women from Facebook. Another image:

Some text from that webpage, which again emphasizes equality, empowerment, and the idea that ideas about gender are stereotypes, not accurate beliefs:

What’s it like being a woman in today’s Navy? Challenging. Exciting. Rewarding. But above all, it’s incredibly empowering. That’s because the responsibilities are significant. The respect is well-earned. The lifestyle is liberating. And the chance to push limits personally and professionally is an equal opportunity for women and men alike.

The notion of a “man’s work” is redefined in the Navy. Stereotypes are overridden by determination, by proven capabilities and by a shared appreciation for work that’s driven by hands-on skills and adrenaline. Here, a woman’s place is definitely in on the action. And women who seek to pursue what some may consider male-dominated roles are not only welcome, they’re wanted – in any of dozens of dynamic fields.

Besides equal pay for equal work, you can also look forward to the opportunity for personal development in the Navy. Take advantage of the chance to learn, grow, advance, serve and succeed right beside male counterparts – sharing the same duties and the same respect.

Farther down there’s this paragraph:

Spending time with family and friends. Going shopping. Getting all dressed up for a night out. As a woman, you’ll find there’s ample time for all of that in the Navy. Time when you’re off-duty. Time for the everyday things and the “girly stuff.” What you do as a woman in uniform may not be considered typical, but the life you lead outside of that can be as normal as you want.

I think the message there is partially that you don’t have to give up all the things associated with femininity if you’re in the Navy, but also the implication is that in the Navy you’ll be empowered and liberated to break stereotypes that you won’t be able to do as much in the outside world, where you may want to act more “normal.”

We’ve posted before about the use of female empowerment to sell products (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). In all of those instances, liberty or empowerment comes through simply consuming the right thing, whether it’s Virginia Slims, a better cleaning product, or a pre-packaged food item. It’s a completely superficial use of the idea of women’s liberation. In this Navy campaign, however, some very real advantages are promised: equal pay for equal work, respect, equal opportunity at work, the ability to enter “what some may consider” male-dominated fields.

Of course, that doesn’t mean all of these things happen. For instance, the Navy can say women are welcomed into male-dominated roles; that doesn’t mean the male soldiers are going to be thrilled and welcoming. After all, 26 female Navy members reported being sexually assaulted by fellow sailors in 1991. But the book The American Woman 2001-2002 lists the Navy as the branch of the military with the second-lowest levels of gender discrimination (after the Air Force; not surprisingly, the worst branch is the Marines) and says that after the 1991 Tailhook incident the Navy undertook major efforts to deal with gender discrimination. According to the book the Navy has “the largest number of women moving into nontraditional occupations” (p. 163). Women are allowed on combat vessels, while the Army still does not allow women in combat positions.

I don’t know. I have to say, this seems to be more of a sincere effort to recruit women by focusing on equality and skills than most I’ve seen, in which empowerment is depicted as taking on “masculine” roles or characteristics, and in which the idea that they are masculine isn’t questioned as a stereotype. I know many people will say that getting more women into the military isn’t necessarily a great advancement. But just as a marketing effort aimed at women, this is one of the more interesting ones I’ve seen, since it highlights specific types of equality (pay, etc.) as opposed to some vague idea of “liberation” and challenges the femininity/masculinity binary.

UPDATE: Reader Samantha C. says,

You know, I was all over this until the bit about “as a woman, you’ll totally still be able to go shopping and dress up tee hee”. And calling that life that of a “normal woman”. I just really hate those interests being universally assumed of all women.

I think it’s an excellent point.

Once again Larry at The Daily Mirror dug up something interesting from the L.A. Times archives. It’s a 1969 article about–gasp!–a female ranch hand. What’s fascinating is the way that, while discussing how she does things that aren’t traditionally considered female, the reporter describes her in ways that emphasize her femininity so we know she’s not completely un-womanly.

She’s as cute as all get-out and as strong as a heifer. She’s the only female ranch-hand (“don’t call me a cowgirl, it’s a dude term”)…

…”I was never quite like all the other little girls.” Beverly always wanted to be a cowboy–always wore bluejeans to school…

But she also succeeded in remaining ultrafeminine in an impish sort of way…She bemoans the fact that she has to keep her hair trimmed to a maximum of two inchles all over her head…

And:

Text:

“I enjoy working,” she said. “I don’t whine or cry when there is a lot to do. I love my job.” For this she is known as “comadrie,” meaning little mother…”

She’s also described as “coy”:

But to the likely relief of many readers, she goes on to say that probably she eventually will get married. Reading the entire article, I can’t help but suspect that’s more out of a sense that you have to than a real desire on her part. She kind of reminds me of my grandma, who I think got married and had kids mostly because what else could a woman do? I suspect if she’d been able to get a job as a ranch hand, she would have happily done that instead.

And while they don’t call her a “cowgirl,” this title from the second page of the article might not be what she was hoping for instead:

Now, if this was just an historical curiosity, I wouldn’t have posted it. But the thing is, we still see this type of emphasis on the femininity of women who succeed at things we consider “men’s work.” For instance, see this post on WNBA player Candace Parker, or Lisa’s post about Caster Semenya. Or even just compare the uniforms of male and female athletes.  We’re more comfortable with women who break some gender rules as long as they maintain their femininity by following other rules.

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.

You might think that during an economic crisis that leads to job loss, workers might begin to think more positively about unions, seeing them as a possible buffer that would keep each individual worker from being completely on his or her own. But Nate Silver, over at FiveThirtyEight, posted a graph showing the relationship between the unemployment rate and public support for labor unions, based on historical data that goes back as far as 1948, and it’s distinctly negative:

Of course, support for unions has been decreasing in general since World War II, so some of the trend is likely due to that. But Silver says that even after controlling for the overall downward trend in support for organized labor, we see:

…a decrease in approval of 2.1 points for unions for every point increase in unemployment. Both relationships [this one, and the model without taking the overall downward trend into account] are highly statistically significant.

So what would explain this? The obvious answer would be that people must in some way blame unions for job loss–perhaps believing that they have negotiated pay and benefits that are too high and as a result have driven companies out of the U.S., causing people to lose jobs.

Or maybe some workers who were in unions blame them for not negotiating hard enough to keep their jobs–perhaps as people lose jobs, or see those around them losing theirs, they feel that their unions didn’t do everything possible to save their jobs, that union leaders got scared and gave in to corporate demands to allow layoffs. That might explain the decrease in support for some, though today unionization is low enough that it’s not enough to have a large impact on overall levels of support.

Another possible explanation is that during a time of rising unemployment, people simply feel they can’t afford to support unions–that they need a job now, and they’ll oppose unions and collective bargaining if they think that makes it less likely that employers will be hiring. In that case, they may not be blaming unions for unemployment directly, but may think that unions are a luxury that just have to be discarded when you’re desperate, individually or as a nation.

Thoughts?

This graphic, found at ChartPorn, compares the average number of work hours per year and per week across selected countries.  After the graphic, I listed the countries in order just for fun.

hours/country

27 Germany
27 Netherlands
27 Norway
30 Belgium
30 France
31 Ireland
31 Denmark
31 Spain
31 Sweden
32 Austria
32 Switzerland
32 U.K.
33 Australia
33 Canada
33 Finland
34 Japan
34 New Zealand
34 Portugal
35 Iceland
35 Italy
35 Slovakia
35  U.S.
36  Mexico
38 Czech Republic
38 Hungary
38 Poland
41 Greece
44 South Korea

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

The figure below, borrowed from U.S. News and World Report, shows that the wage gap between women and men, for nearly all age groups, has narrowed significantly between 1979 and 2008.  It also shows that the wage gap is smallest for men and women aged 20-24, grows for men and women aged 25-34, grows even further for men and women aged 35-44, and remains steady after that.

These data are for men and women in the same jobs working full time.  So what would explain this change?  Sociologists have found that much of the growth in the wage gap over the life course is due to the fact that women are held disproportionately responsible for childcare and housework (see some data here).  As men and women start to have children, women (whether by choice or necessity) find themselves sacrificing their careers more so than men.  On the flip side, mothers are discriminated against by employers more often than fathers and women without children. (See, for example, this clip of Gov. Rendell commenting that Janet Napolitano is a good candidate for secretary of Homeland Security because she has no family.) That’s why you see the wage gap increasing during prime childbearing years (25-44), but not afterward.

For more on the wage gap, see our posts on the wage gap for college grads, comparing different kinds of wage gaps, the role of job segregation, gender and the wage gap in different professions.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

Adam W., at Zoophobia, wrote a post calling out the Gotmilk.com website.  The website features six characters.  Here’s the front page:

Clicking on each character takes you to a page where you can play a game related to a benefit of drinking milk.  As Adam explains, through the characters the website reproduces the idea that “men do things with their bodies and women have things done to theirs; men produce things, women have things produced for them.”  He explains:

Slav, Igor and Sergie work their muscles to solve a puzzle.

Mr. Osseous works the assembly line saving a valuable product, and Chuck assembles cartons for shipment.

On the other hand, Miss Dowdy needs to be *given* a makeover by blasting from a cannon into a pool of milk filled by the truck driver and Mother Hen needs your help because she is “tense and irritable” from her PMS.

Also, Mr. Wyde A. Wake wants to be sleepy:

In sum:

While the male animals are productive laborers, the female animals are either ditsy blonds or cruel old hens not worthy of the same honor, but still customers who need milk.

That is, men produce and consume the milk, while women only consume it.  Which is, of course, where the real craziness comes in.  Adam again:

While the male animals perform all the labor in the games, the literal labor of female cows giving birth in order to begin lactating as well as the exploitation of their bodies’ labor in producing all of the milk is completely absent. It is as Joan Dunayer writes in Animal Equality: within the dairy industry, “Milking is done to her rather than by her.”

Thus the game doesn’t just erase female labor in an ideological sense (as a reproduction of gendered stereotypes), it also erases the literal labor of female animals, without with there would be no milk to get.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

The graphic below is interesting to me in light of the discourse about greenhouse gas emissions.  We often hear about emissions from cars and sometimes about emissions from industry.  I was surprised, then, to see that electricity and heat was such a large contributor to carbon dioxide emissions.  And I feel like land use change and agriculture hardly get discussed at all.

Graphic borrowed from ChartPorn, which also has an interactive graphic that breaks down emissions by country (via Simoleon Sense).

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.