Sex Segregation and Barriers to Integration: Numbers vs. Gendered
1. How do we Know Sex Segregation Exits?
2. Focus: Moving Up and Taking Charge
• Women and promotions
3. Barriers to Integration: Numbers vs. Gendered Structures
4. mid-term details
-looking at sex segregation at level of occupation
-occupational sex segregation : jobs being seen as male or female across
different occupations – this is what chart is .
-gender concentration: the concentration of men and womenwithin a single
Distribution of Employees across Occupations (Canada, 2006 census) -looks at male and female differences in employment. Do they do different
types of work?
-women dominate service industry, men are in trade industry and in
managerial positions. Men have more decision making power.
-women are in people-oriented jobs, men in labour jobs.
-largest distribution difference is in business sector –
- Gender typing jobs – masc and fem – have more women and female
-2 occupational groups that are mixed – filtering system going on - men
dominate white collar and blue collar. 2 different types of masculinities but
still definite notion of who fills the positions.
-women dominate health and government occupations – because
government has to be example of employment equity. They are good jobs,
unionized, pensions, good job security.
Measuring Sex Segregation
Index of Dissimilarity (ID) What it Measures:
• proportion of cases that would need to be reallocated in order to
make the two distributions the same
• Varies between zero (no sex segregation) and one (complete sex
• To measure sex segregation in occupation. Shows how
proportion of women who would have to change jobs to have
equal occupation distribution
• Measures race, ethnicity, gender, age – any type of dominance
• sensitive to factors other than segregation itself
• doesn’t control for things like influxes in labour market
participation. Just like mean and average, it is really swayed by
outliers. If a whole bunch of women enter the labour market,
shifts the data. Effects levels of segregation.
Vertical Sex Segregation -sex segregation – occupational segregation, at level of occupation. Why do
we use this?
-easy to collect data in census. Problem with that – primary level of analysis
– there are many occupations under one title i.e. “health”. When we use this
big giant measures it makes it look like things are integrated but they
probable are not. i.e. doctors and nurses make it look like it’s more
integrated than it actually is. Underestimates real level of sex segregation.
-graph shows how dangerous it is – women – 35% of management – not that
bad. These numbers are broken down more specifically.
-men = yellow, women = red.
-higher we get in decision making power, the fewer women we find in
Fortune 500 Board Seats Held by Women Catalyst Statistics -women on boards – important for networking, have a lot of sway. Are
decision makers, not just a title.
-seems to be plateauing. Shows trend – important indication for future. Last
5 years – 1% increase.
Vertical and Horizontal Sex Segregation
Horizontal segregation :
• Different but not differentially valued
• Gender concentration/dominance
• Measure of gender dominance in different occupations. Men
and women do different types of work across different types of
work. But equally valued.
Vertical segregation :
• Different and differentially valued
• status, as well as the gender dominance, of the occupation- status
• men and women do different types of work that is value i.e.
managerial, high prestige, high pay.
Overall segregation is a combination of vertical and horizontal -international examples: over sex segregation – high levels of both sex
segregation – Scandinavian – have horizontal sex segregation – do fiferent
types of work, not differently valued. Quate – has vertical sex segregation –
have high status. Need to look overall – need t see what is driving it.
-countries with high vertaical difference will also have horizontal
segregation - also different types of work, go together.
Conceptualizing Segregation Components
-overal is the graph, go along for horizontal and high is vertical
segregation. Need to know which on is which and label.
1981 1986 1991 1996 % Change
Vertical .45 .36 .31 .27 -41%
Horizontal .60 .62 .62 .64 +6%
-in Canada – over time there has been a decrease in vertical – have gained
more status jobs but still highly distributed horizontally.
-index of similarity – 45% of women would have to change jobs to have no
sex segregation in vertical jobs.
-what explains these trends – changes in labour force participation in total –
women have more than doubled – 80s start to enter male-dominated jobs
breaking glass ceiling. Occupations that are feminized haven’t changed. We are entering still gendered occupations, some women entering womanly
occupations but not men entering women’s.
focus of vertical component – getting women into management positions.
Promotions & Women
4 Key Ares where Women face barriers to integration:
1. Getting into male dominated jobs
-sex segregation problem – getting into male dom. Jobs and
2. Getting into managerial jobs
-at the top rungs – glass ceiling problem – inequity in
3. Getting ‗real‘ authority
-in management jobs, but now need to get real authority.
Beyond a title. You control finances, hiring and firing.
4. Exercising authority
-compliance problem – getting subordinates to comply.
• The Glass Ceiling (and other ceilings)
• Metaphor – women get promoted at equally as men up until a
point. You are climbing and then you stop at invisible barrier.
• i.e. seen easily within an occupation – law – a lot of women
associates, very few partners. See professors at associate level,
few chairs. Discrimination, have own culture, you’re an
What happened to men? Do they face ceiling? No they have
glass escalator. • Glass Escalator
• Christine Williams – men entering female dominated
occupations. Structurally advantaged that advantages men –
idea of mobility is still a masculine idea. Men need to be
managing the women.
• Sticky Ladder
• Different name for effect of glass ceiling – women are in the
status ladder and they get stuck
• Sticky Floors
• Characterize women’s predominance n service-sector jobs –flat
in mobility structure. This is in feminized occupations, they are
bad jobs. This points to the problem of horizontal segregation.
There is nowhere to move up.
Role of Organization Structures/Processes
1. Rosabeth Moss Kanter‘s (1977) Men and Women of the
• Overall Idea: workplace social structure shapes thought and
• hypothesis: as proportions begin to shift, so also do social
• proportion of people in a work room. Looking at female tokens
( there are fewer). As proportions shift, so do social
experiences. The more you add subordinate group people, we
start to think of them differently. ****** TEST : her work on
tokenism – women are the subordinate group and men are dominant – not talking about gende per say – ANY SOCIAL
CATEGORY WHERE YOU HAVE DOM AND SUBORDINATE
GROUP – YOU WILL HAVE TOKEN PROBLEM. WHEN YOU
SHIFT PROPORTIONS, YOU CREATE AN EQUITABLE
SITUATIO, CHANGES WHAT WE THINK AND WHAT WE
EXPECT. IT IS A NUMBERED ARGUMENT. ELIMINATES
BIAS ETC. if you shift the proportion, you are change the
behavior. !!!Kanters, as you add more women, that’s gonna
change the behavior, more equitable and no more tokenism. ,
number& gender.(her case is gender, but she focus on number.
It’s a number argument)
• there is a masculine ethic: organizations reward those who act
like traditional masculine qualities– no emotion, authoritative.
What is a Token?
• a salient social category that represents no more than 15% of
people in a work setting (dominant versus subordinate group—
not specific to gender per se!)
• 3 things you experience by being token
• Look like the other, large awareness.
• You experience heightened performance problem.
• Everything is noticed so the token becomes the symbol of a
subordinate group – i.e. their action speaks for all minority,
this is how they behave
• Contrast • Insiders vs. outsiders – not only visible, you are different –
other status. The dominant group heightens their boundaries to
keep minority out. Not to keep them out but because they like
what they have going on.
• You are the representation of the job.
• Distorting characteristics to fit stereotypes – i.e. women manger
is assumed that she is secretary
• “office mom” – women in administrative position represents
-integrating women in male-dominated contrast – male closure – most
mangers are men, they hire men. Will a women fit? This sways
behaviour of manager. What about clients? Will they be comfortable,
what are competitors doing. Wmen are seen as risky labour – not like
me, can’t predict what you’re going to do – homosocial reproduction:
reproducing like me.
-outsider withi – intersectionality
Role of Organization Structures/Processes
Janice D. Yoder and Patricia Aniakudo. (1997). “Outsider within the
Firehouse: Subordination and Difference in the Social Interactions of
African American Women Firefighters”.
Hostile Organization Environment
• Relational demography and defining ‗outsiders‘ complicated
when we intersec