Job sex segregation

From Segregation Wiki
Revision as of 16:31, 23 February 2024 by Maintenance script (talk | contribs) (Creating page)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

2005
united states

Job sex segregation refers to the division of jobs and careers based on gender. It occurs when certain occupations are predominantly filled by either men or women, creating a gender imbalance in the workforce.

Historically, job sex segregation has been rooted in societal norms and stereotypes regarding gender roles and abilities. For example, women have often been encouraged to pursue careers in traditionally female-dominated fields such as teaching, nursing, or administrative work, while men have been steered toward professions like engineering, construction, or finance.

This segregation has implications for various aspects of society, including pay disparities, career advancement opportunities, and gender equality. Occupations that are predominantly female tend to have lower wages and less upward mobility compared to male-dominated occupations. Additionally, sex segregation can perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination, limiting individuals' choices and reinforcing gender-based expectations.

Efforts to reduce job sex segregation include promoting gender diversity and inclusion in all fields, challenging gender stereotypes, providing equal access to education and training opportunities, and implementing policies that support work-life balance. Increasing awareness and advocating for equal representation and opportunities for all genders in all professions is key to breaking down barriers and achieving greater gender equality in the workforce.

See also

References

Further reading

Fernandez R.M.; Mors M.L. (2008) "Competing for jobs: Labor queues and gender sorting in the hiring process", Social Science Research, 37(4), pp. 1061-1080. . DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.10.003

Fernandez R.M.; Sosa M.L. (2005) "Gendering the job: Networks and recruitment at a call center", American Journal of Sociology, 111(3), pp. 859-904. . DOI: 10.1086/497257