work

A main source of the wage gap between men and women is job segregation.  Men and women are sorted into different jobs and jobs associated with women are paid less.

Below is a list of occupations and their average wages for 2007 from The Bureau of Labor Statistics.  I picked out occupations that were rather straightforward (not a random sample, just an illustrative one), put them in order from lowest to highest, and colored them according to whether they are feminine (pink) or masculine (blue) occupations.  Comments below.

Parking Lot Attendants:  $8.82
Child care workers:    $8.82
Coatroom attendants:   $9.18
Bellhops:  $9.25
Sewing machine operators:   $9.31
Manicurists and pedicurists:   $9.60
Home health care aid:  $9.62
Stock clerks:   $9.85           
Janitors:   $10.00
Hairdressers:  $10.68
Security Guards:  $10.85
File clerks:  $11.06
Pre-school teachers:  $11.12
Barbers:  $11.31
Receptionist:  $11.40
Bus Driver (school):   $12.43
Construction workers:   $13.13
Butchers:   $13.87
Dental Assistants:   $15.17
Bus Driver (city):   $15.94
Roofers:   $15.98
Car mechanics:   $16.43
Truck drivers:   $17.41
Electricians:   $21.53

1. Notice that feminized occupations, occupations that are disproportionately female, cluster towards the lower wage end of this hierarchy.  

2. Notice also that, were we to rank these occupations in order of importance or difficulty, we might come out with a very different ranking.  Importance and difficulty does not necessarily translate into wages. 

For example, child care workers and home health care workers are paid only a bit more or no more than parking lot attendants. And coatroom attendants are paid more. So coats and cars are, I guess, pretty important.

Car mechanics are paid more than dental assistants.  They require a similar amount of training, yet we still pay those taking care of our cars more than those taking care of our teeth.

And pre-school teachers are paid less than butchers and bus drivers.  Is preparing our children for school less important than getting them there?  Do we value the man preparing our meat more than we value the woman tending to our child?

3. Finally, notice that some jobs come in gender specific forms and the feminized form is paid less. For example, maids are paid less than janitors and hairdressers are paid less than barbers.

Beth T. sent us this picture of some books for sale at the NASA John Glenn Research Center in Cleveland.  I found some more at the website. They nicely illustrate the gendering of jobs.  Only because we implicitly think that zoologists, oceanographers, paleontologists, and architects are men, is it necessary to modify the term with “woman.”

Before there were flight attendants, there were stewardesses.  Below a vintage commercial for airlines (found here thanks to AdFreak, see also this print ad):

While pressure on airlines to be less sexist means that we don’t see ads like this anymore, Stephen W. alerted us to the ongoing sexism in “general aviation,” that is private planes and jets owned by individuals and companies.

Airports have FBOs (or “fixed based operators”) which are, essentially, glorified gas stations for planes.  A private pilot can choose which airport and thus FBO, or which FBO at which airport, to patronize.  So FBOs will compete for customers.  Stephen pointed to one strategy: plying pilots, assumed to be men, with sex.

This website allows pilots to see what “FBO Girls” all over the country, the women working behind the counters at FBOs, look like.  Another website, FBO Hotties, allows pilots to submit their favorite girls.

Flower Aviation promises that you will be guided into your parking spot by “girls in short ‘skorts’ and tank tops.”

Here are some of the images from the website, notice that when you spend money on fuel, they reward you with red meat (and fresh baked chocolate chip cookies):

So, there you have it.  Private aviation, still very much a man’s world.

Other than the objectification, I think an interesting sociological question might be: Why have the airlines dropped overt sexist advertising, while general aviation has not? One possibility is that general aviation is, literally, less public and, thus, less vulnerable to public censor. Another may be that pilots are still overwhelmingly men, unlike the customers served by airlines, and so there may still be profit in sexism for general aviation, but not in commercial aviation. I’d welcome your thoughts as well.

There is a lot going on here.  Comments after the image (found at MultiCultClassics):  

First, notice how this ad mobilizes a nostalgia for a simpler past (“We’re bakers”).  Goldfish crackers are likely baked not by bakers (how quaint), but in large automated factories.  Second, in line with this nostalgia, Pepperidge Farm, the company, is recast as a parents (“We’re bakers. But we’re parents, too”) instead of a corporation in a capitalistic society likely employing low-wage workers (who are not, by the way, busy caring about consumers kids).  Notice that, by re-casting the company as parents, they encourage you to think of the company’s motives not as profit, but nurturing.  Third, the Goldfish crackers themselves are anthropomorphized into a happy parent and child. Finally, happiness and family togetherness are commodified. Text:

That’s why we bake Goldfish crackers the way we do. Natural. With no artificual preservatives adn zero grams trans fat. Made with whole grains, real cheese, and plenty of smiles. For tips and tools to help keep your kids smiling, visit fishfulthinking.com. Because we believe kids should be happy and healthy.

Jessica at Scatterplot notes the difference between the BBC coverage and the U.S. coverage of a recent research report noting that the real gender gap is between men who believe men should be breadwinners and women homemakers and everyone else (men who believe women and men should share in both breadwinning and homemaking, women who believe the same, and women who believe that they should be homemakers and men breadwinners) (i.e., at msnbc).  Here are two screenshots of the coverage:

Did you catch the difference?

Angela B. brought our attention to an animated map showing, over the space of some seconds, the growth of Walmart across the United States from 1962 to 2007.  Below is the final image.  It’s worth a click to watch the growth yourself.

Blanca M. sent in this picture she took here in Las Vegas of a truck advertising Air Conditioning Technical Institute. The truck says “Hot City, Cool Career,” and then had this image on the side.

When you go to the website, you see a video (which I can’t embed, sorry) of a man driving up to a house in a sports car. A blonde woman comes out and gushes over the car. The man then says “Six months ago she wouldn’t have given me a second look. I had no job, no education, I was living with my parents.”

So apparently air conditioning tech school is appropriate only for men, and guarantees that you will make enough money to get the hot women you’ve always wanted. Aside from the clear objectification of women as sexual rewards for men, it reinforces the idea of women as opportunistic gold-diggers. It’s also an interesting perspective on how men should view relationships–that they should be perfectly happy to be with women who don’t like them for who they are, and who would presumably leave them if they lost their job or got a pay cut. As long as the woman’s hot, a guy is apparently supposed to be satisfied with the relationship and not worry about little things like whether his wife actually loves him–we reserve concerns about love and emotional closeness for women only.

Thanks, Blanca!

Sine A. sent in this awesome photo that she and Kayt S. took at a construction site in Fairbanks, Alaska:

As Sine points out, given the history of frequent resistance to women in male-dominated jobs and in unions, it’s “refreshing and quite startling to see this sign on a job site.”

Thanks for an awesome pic, Sine!