Do men leave feminizing occupations?

Do Men leave Feminizing Occupations?

BARBARA THOMAS COVENTRY* University of Toledo

This article analyzes the 1970 and 1980 Public Use Samples of the decennial census and the 1983 Current Population Survey to determine if the degree of occupational feminization, i.e., the change in the percent female, affects men changing occupations. The results lend some support to the contention that men do not leave feminizing occupations. Men in occupations with the greatest increases in their percentage of female workers had the lowest percentage of men leaving their occupations. As the change in the percent female decreased, the percentage of men leaving the occupation increased. However, occupation was a critical factor in this relationship. While men from nonmanufacturing occupations followed a pattern similar to that found in the entire labor force (described above), men in manufacturing occupations left occupations that feminized the most. Men who changed occupations, in fact, often entered occupations that feminized. In the wake of these findings, I discuss how occupational sex segregation may be maintained. During the 197Os, more women began to enter occupations that previously were domi-

nated by men, and as a result the labor force became less sex segregated (see Beller, 1984; Jacobs, 1989; Reskin and Roos, 1990). Analysts (Rotella, 1987; Reskin and Roos, 1990) have speculated about whether male abandonment also plays a role in the feminization of some occupations, proposing two situations in which men could have contributed to their declining representation.’ Incumbent men may have left occupations or men may have failed to enter occupations in sufficient numbers to maintain

*Direct all correspondence to: Barbara Thomas Coventry, Department of Sociology, Work, University of Toledo, 2801 West Bancroft Street, Toledo, Ohio 43606. The Social Science Journal, Volume 36, Number 1, pages 47-64. Copyright 0 1999 by JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0362-3319.

Anthropology,

and Social

48

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 36iNo. l/1999

their representation, Rotella (1987) suggests that men’s abandonment of an occupation usually results from the failure of enough men to enter it rather than from high exit rates. Rapid occupational growth then acts as a key factor for the changing sex composition of occupations because employers may hire women when they cannot recruit enough men to satisfy their increasing labor demands. Rotella (1987, p. 152) contends: “It is not so much that men already employed left the occupations; rather, women entered at a greater rate than did men.” These occupations then become internally segregated with the remaining men promoted to the higher-paying, more prestigious positions in the occupation, while women become ghettoized in the lower-paying, less prestigious jobs (Rotella, 1987; Reskin and Roos, 1990; Sokoloff, 1992). It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine how many more men would have entered an occupation if more women had not entered. Thus, research has focused on men’s departures. Case-study research has produced inconsistent results concerning how much men’s exodus contributes to occupational feminization. In their study of eleven feminizing occupations, Reskin and Roos (1990, p. 44) conclude that the failure to retain enough men added to the feminization of some occupations. However, Wright and Jacobs’ (1994) examination of computer work suggests that women’s entry does not necessarily cause men to leave. These studies are based on one or a limited number of occupations. This research approaches the issue of men’s occupational abandonment by using national data of men in 489 different occupations. Analyses of the Current Population Survey explore male exits from occupations that experienced varied changes in their sex composition, while acknowledging that both men’s departure from and failure to enter feminizing occupations can play a part in men’s abandonment of occupations. This article examines whether from January 1982 to January 1983 men left occupations that had experienced various changes in their sex composition during the 1970s. I identify male occupational changers (both voluntary and involuntary) and stayers and the change in the percent female that occurred in their occupations in order to determine if men were more likely to leave occupations that experienced the greatest increases in the proportion of women workers. I also compare the change in the percent female of the occupations that men left with the change in the percent female of the occupations that they entered. I discuss the implication the findings have for occupational sex segregation, recognizing that greater job-level segregation may exist.

WHY MEN MAY ABANDON FEMINIZING

OCCUPATIONS

Analysts have speculated about the economic and noneconomic reasons that men have resisted women’s entry into “men’s” work (Hartmann, 1977; Treiman and Hartmann, 1981; Strober and Arnold, 1987; Reskin, 1988). Men may fear that women will take jobs from men or allow employers to lower wages (Reskin and Padavic, 1994). Occupations with predominately women workers pay low wages because sex-segregated labor markets force women to crowd into a relatively few occupations, producing an oversupply of workers that drives down earnings (Bergmann, 1974). Both men and women in these occupations earn less than those in predominately male ones (Treiman and Hartmann, 198 1); also, an occupational shift from predominately male to predominately female is often associated with a decline in relative earnings (Reskin and Hart-

49

Do Men Leave Feminizing Occupations?

mann 1986, pp. 31-32), supporting the contention that men in predominately male jobs enjoy an economic advantage. Despite the evidence that workers in jobs with predominately women workers suffer an earnings disadvantage, the causal link between wages and feminization is not clear. Instead of men objecting to the entry of women into their occupation, men may not resist because the occupation has already suffered a decline (Reskin and Roos, 1990). England and Herbert (1993) suggest that causation may be in either or both directions; increases in women workers may lower wages and/or lower wages may result in hiring an increasing number of women workers. Men also may suffer noneconomic costs from having women coworkers. Some men may believe that their work will lose prestige with feminization (Reskin and Padavic, 1994). Women’s entry into “men’s work” also may threaten men’s masculinity because then “even women” can do their jobs (Williams, 1989, 1992). Similarly, Willis (1977, p. 148) contends that, among the young men he studied, predominately male occupations, especially manual labor, are associated with masculine superiority rather than feminine inferiority. Furthermore, Hartmann (1977) argues that patriarchy governs male-female relationships so that women’s subordinate position in the family and the labor market reinforce one another; men may fear that a loss of superiority in the workplace may threaten their dominance elsewhere (also see Strober, 1984; Reskin, 1988). Feminizing occupations do not have to consist primarily of women workers for those occupations to fall out of favor with male workers, Men may not object to predominately female settings as much as they may object to balanced or integrated ones. Although Kanter (1977) claims that token men suffer the same disadvantages that women in sex-atypical occupations do, other researchers (Schreiber, 1979; Baron and Bielby 1985, pp. 241-244; Williams 1989, 1992) have found that token men enjoy informal status advantages and greater authority and responsibilities. In addition, Wharton and Baron (1987) found a curvilinear relationship between the sex composition of occupations and men’s psychic well-being: men in integrated settings experienced lower job satisfaction and self-esteem and more job-related depression than men in predominately male and predominately female settings.

DECADE OF CHANGE IN SEX COMPOSITION

OF OCCUPATIONS

The decade of the 1970s saw changes in women’s employment in the labor force. Although women continued their trend of greater labor force participation, the type of occupations that women entered changed. Instead of continually crowding into women’s occupations, some women began entering men’s occupations at a greater rate than they had in the past. Thus, researchers have found little change in occupational sex segregation until recently. For decades, the index of segregation fluctuated between 60 and 69 indicating that between 60 to 69 percent of the women in the labor force would have had to change to predominately male occupations for occupational integration to occur (Gross, 1968; Blau and Hendricks, 1979; Jacobs, 1989). Since the 1960s the index has fallen, but men and women workers have played different roles in the decline. In the 1960s men’s entry into women’s occupations, such as nursing, librarianship, and elementary school teaching, caused the segregation index to drop

50

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 36iNo.

l/l 999

(Blau and Hendricks, 1979). During the 197Os, the index declined further, this time, however, women joined sex-atypical occupations (Beller, 1984; Jacobs, 1989; Reskin and Roos, 1990). It dropped nearly eight points from 67.6 in 1970 to 59.8 in 1980 (Jacobs, 1989). Reductions in occupational segregation continued into the 1980s; by 1990 the index of segregation had dropped to 53. Thus, instead of the 60 to 69 percent of women required to change during most of this century, in 1990 53 percent of women still needed to move into men’s occupations to achieve integration (Reskin and Padavic, 1994). Women’s continued entry into feminizing occupations does not guarantee a drop in occupational segregation. If men leave these occupations in sufficient numbers, occupations that were men’s work will not become integrated but will become women’s work, and resegregation will occur. Bradley (1993) identifies three stages that occupations may experience as they change sex type: infiltration, invasion, and takeover.2 Infiltration refers to a token presence when only a few women enter a man’s occupation. In 1980 women still had a token presence in such occupations as engineering and construction trades (4.6 and 2.1 percent female, respectively; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1984). If additional women enter the occupation, the pattern of entry progresses to invasion or takeover. Invasion occurs if large numbers of women enter an occupation but men have not completely abandoned the occupation; the occupation has become integrated or sex-neutral, such as personnel, training, and labor relations specialists (47.0 percent female; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1984). But if the occupation becomes redefined as “women’s work,” then a takeover has taken place and the occupation has become resegregated. Historically, there are few examples of occupations switching sex types. Earlier this century, telephone operating and bank telling changed from predominately male to predominately female workers.3 More recently, typesetting and cornpositing has become women’s work. In 1970.women accounted for only 17 percent of typesetters and compositors. As the occupation feminized during the decade, however, it became integrated, with women comprising 56 percent of the workforce in 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1984). However, integration was short-lived; by the next census women dominated typesetting and cornpositing, accounting for 70 percent of its workers (Reskin and Padavic 1994). Although the stages of infiltration, invasion, and takeover can be viewed as part of a continuum, an occupation may or may not progress through all three stages (Bradley, 1993). The process of feminization may stop during any of the stages. Although tremendous change occurred during the 197Os, social change does not correspond to decennial censuses. The process of occupational feminization did not simply begin and end in automatic symmetry with the decade of the 1970s. Women’s representation may rise over several decades as their entry into some sex-atypical occupations continues and/or incumbent men leave these occupations. These trends towards feminization continued in some occupations into the 1980s and beyond (e.g., typesetting and cornpositing). In conclusion, the 1970s represent a turning point for occupational sex segregation. First, the feminizing of previously predominately male occupations produced a decline in occupational sex segregation. Second, the drop in the index of occupational sex segregation was relatively large. These developments make the 1970s an important

Do Men Leave Feminizing Occupations?

51

time period for studying occupational feminization. Therefore, this research explores a slice of this process of occupational feminization by examining if the change in the percent female of occupations between 1970 and 1980 affected men’s departures from January 1982 to January 1983.

ECONOMIC CHANGES Factors other than women’s increasing representation may affect men’s occupational exits. Several interrelated forces have been transforming the American economy (Eitzen and Zinn, 1989; Kuttner, 1989) and thus possibly affecting men’s occupational departures. The globalization of the economy may have contributed to men’s need to switch occupations in the early 1980s. American employers faced with greater competition from abroad attempted to cut costs. Some closed plants, while others relocated to areas both inside and outside the U.S. that offered cheap, nonunionized labor and fewer, if any, worker safety and environmental regulations. In other plants workers lost jobs as computer advances and robotics replaced them with machines (Dassbach, 1986; Eitzen and Zinn, 1989). From the employers’ point of view, changes were made to reduce operating costs and increase profits; but from the workers’ point of view, these changes resulted in job loss (Eitzen and Zinn, 1989). These moves contributed to the changing importance of economic sectors. The goods-producing sector of the economy, that enjoyed its greatest share of workers during the 1950s and 196Os, began to lose its relative share of employed Americans in the 197Os, while employment in the service sector continued to increase. Although the goods sector lost jobs relative to the service sector for decades, actual employment in the goods sector increased through 1979. However, during the recession of the early 198Os, which includes the time period I used to measure men’s occupational changing, the goods sector lost nearly three million jobs (Urquhart, 1984). Although the recession of the early 1980s cost many workers their jobs, several companies continued to reduce their workforces even after the economy improved. An Associated Press newspaper article described the recent past as the “decade of downsizing.” Citing the Cognetics research group’s annual Corporate Report on job demographics, the story stated that “nearly 30 percent of U.S. workers lost their jobs from 1990 to 1995 due to job cuts or company shutdowns” (Associated Press, 1996, p. 28). Despite the end of an economic recession, many workers’ employment remained precarious, with many men changing occupations.

DATA AND METHODS Theseanalyses use the 1970 and 1980 Public Use Samples of the decennial census and the 1983 Current Population Survey (CPS). The January 1983 CPS data were chosen for many reasons. First, the data contain the respondent’s occupation at two times-in 1983 and in the previous year. Therefore, I could determine which men switched occupations, which occupations they left, and which occupations they then entered. If men indicated that they worked in the same occupation in January 1982 as they did in January 1983, I defined them as occupational stayers. If they reported different occupations

THE

52

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 36/No. l/1999

in January 1982 and 1983, then I classified them as occupational changers. Second, it is possible that men’s departures from feminizing occupations could have occurred for several years after the end of the 1970s. However, I chose a time closest to 1980 because, as an adaptation of the “contact hypothesis” from ethnic relations (see Hraba, 1994, pp. 58-60) indicates, increased interaction between men and women as coworkers makes for more favorable attitudes and greater acceptance of women in an occupation by men. If men were going to leave a feminizing occupation because of the increasing presence of women, men presumably do so relatively soon before they had a chance to accept their female coworkers. For that reason, I used the data from January 1982 to January 1983 to measure men’s departures. Third, the 1983 CPS data use 1980 occupational codes, as do the census data sources. Lastly, although January 1982 to January 1983 was a recession year, many of today’s workers still must face changing their occupations, as many companies have continued to reduce their workforces (see Associated Press 1996). I used the 1970 and 1980 decennial census data to determine occupational measures of percent female in 1970 and 1980 and the change in the percent female that occurred in each occupation from 1970 to 1980. I adopted Jacobs’ (1989) classification scheme that includes an integrated category, as well as predominately male and predominately female-both because of the number of men employed in integrated occupations, and because of the theoretical reasons for including an integrated and more balanced category (Kanter, 1977; Wharton and Baron, 1987). Predominately male occupations are less than 30 percent female, while predominately female occupations have workforces that are 70 percent or more female. Integrated occupations are more than 30 but less than 70 percent female (see Jacobs, 1989). An occupation is feminizing if it experiences an increase in its proportion of women workers (Wright and Jacobs, 1994). I measure the process of feminization by examining occupations’ shifting sex compositions and classify occupations into four outcomes based on their change in percent female from 1970 to 1980. The categories are based on: (1) whether women’ s representation failed to increase in an occupation, (2) whether women’s representation in occupations grew less than the 4.6 percent increase that occurred in the entire labor force, (3) whether women’s representation in occupations grew more than the labor force but not double the labor force rate, and (4) whether women’s representation in occupations grew more than twice the rate of the labor force (i.e., more than 9.2 percent).4 I used these criteria to determine if there were any differences in the change in sex composition of occupations for those men who stayed with the same occupation in 1982 and those men who changed occupations between January of 1982 and 1983. These measures were used to describe the sex composition of the occupations of the male workers studied and to test two hypotheses about men’s occupational movement and occupational feminization. The first hypothesis focuses on leaving versus staying in occupations that may have or may not have feminized in order to tests Rotella’s (1987) contention that men do not leave feminizing occupations. HI: Occupational

feminization

will not increase

men’s departures.

Do Men

LeaveFeminizing

53

Occupations?

Rotella (1987) contends that feminization results from the lack of men entering an occupation. These men who possibly fail to enter feminizing occupations could be either occupational changers or new labor force entrants. While it is impossible to determine if men would have entered an occupation had it not feminized, I can determine if male changers move away from feminizing occupations when they switch occupations. H2: Men who leave feminizing occupations enter nonfeminizing occupations.

or less feminizing

A possible limitation in the test of these hypotheses concerns voluntary versus involuntary departures from occupations. The CPS data differentiates between job leavers and job losers among the unemployed but not among those who changed occupations. Although one could argue that men who were fired or laid-off did not leave their job but were forced out, this does not mean that they could not get another job within the same occupation. Under these circumstances they would not be occupational changers and would not included in the analysis. The effects of the manufacturing job loss on these research findings may be somewhat tempered by the fact that in the Current Population Survey data men had to be employed in January of 1983 to be asked about their employment in January of 1982. Thus, unemployed men in January 1983 were not asked about their employment in January 1982. Some of the men who lost their jobs during 1982 found new employment but others contributed to the increase of over two percentage points that occurred in men’s unemployment rate from January of 1982 to January 1983, and over 80 percent of all unemployed men in January of 1983 were job losers (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1983). Presumably, many of the job losers from January of 1982 to January 1983 were unemployed in January of 1983 and not included in the study. Although the male occupational changers may include some men who were forced out of their previous occupations and distinguishing between them and voluntary changers would be interesting, this research still takes a step forward by using a nationally representative sample to examine the movement, or lack of movement, of men from occupations whose sex composition changed by various degrees during the 1970s.

RESULTS CPS Men Workers and the Sex Composition of their Occupations Of the 41,070 men 18 years of age or older in the CPS data who were employed in January of 1983, 2640 male workers had left their occupation for another one since January of the previous year. Given the sex segregation that exists in occupations, it is not surprising that most of the men worked in predominately male occupations in January of 1982. Of all employed men in the CPS sample, over 70 percent were in predominately male occupations in 1980, but only five percent of the men worked in predominately female occupations (see Table 1). These men’s occupations were even more male ten years earlier, since eight out every ten were predominately male occupations when using 1970 standards (see Table 1).

54

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 36iNo. l/l 999

Table 1. January

1982

1970 and 1980 Sex Composition by All Employed

of Occupations

CPS Men, Male Occupational

Male Occupational

Held in Changers,

and

Stayers (by percentage)

1980

1970

Sex Composition

All Men

Changers

Stayers

All Men

Changers

Stayer

73.3 21.3 5.4 100.0

65.2 27.3 7.6 100.1*

73.9 20.9 5.2 100.0

81.2 13.4 5.4 100.0

74.3 17.6 8.1 100.0

81.6 13.1 5.3 100.0

41,070

2,640

38,430

41,043

2,639

38,404

Male Dominated Integrated Female Dominated Total N Note:

*Error due to rounding.

Although men tended to work in sex-typical occupations, the sex composjtion of occupations varied among occupational changers and stayers. Men who stayed in the same occupation were more likely to work in occupations whose workforces were predominately male than those who left. Nearly 74 percent of men who stayed in their occupations worked in occupations that were predominately male in 1980, while 65 percent of the men who changed came from sex-typical occupations (see Table 1). Occupational changers, on the other hand, were more likely than stayers to work in occupations whose sex compositions were integrated (27.3 percent of changers and 20.9 percent of stayers; see Table 1) or predominately female (7.6 percent of changers and 5.2 percent of stayers). Using 1970 standards the relationship is similar, even though both changers and stayers were slightly more concentrated in predominately male occupations than they were when using the 1980 figures. For example, 74 percent of changers and 82 percent of stayers worked in occupations that were predominately male in 1970 (see Table 1). Calculated against the 1980 standards, however, the comparable figures were only 65 and 74 percent, respectively (see Table 1). Changing

Sex Composition and Male Workers’ Exits and Retention

Occupational

Although most of the employed men in the CPS sample had worked in predominately male occupations in 1982, many of these occupations feminized during the 1970s. Relatively few men (i.e., 15 percent of the employed men in 1982; data not shown) worked in occupations that did not show increases in women’s representation. Typically, the men’s occupations experienced either (1) increases in the percent female that was less than that in the labor force or (2) increases in women’s representation that were more than twice the rate of the labor force. Approximately one-third of the men’s occupations fell into each of these two categories (3 1.8 and 3 1.2 percent, respectively). Thus, the change in the sex composition of the men’s occupations varied. However, was there a relationship between the occupations’ changing sex composition and men’s occupational exits? Was Rotella right or wrong when she speculated on the occupational feminization and men’s departures? Were men more likely to leave occupations whose percent female increased the most?

55

Do Men Leave Feminizing Occupations?

Table 2. Occupation*

Occupational Status by the Change in the Percent Female of in January 1982 of Employed CPS Men for All Occupations, and Manufacturing,

Nonmanufacturing

Change in the Percent Female*

Increased Occupational

Did not increase

Status

(< 0%)

Panel A. All Occupations Stayers 92.3 Changers 7.7 Total 100.0 Panel B. Manufacturing Occupations Stayers 92.7 Changers 7.3 Total 100.0 Panel C. Nonmanufacturing Occupations Stayers 91.5 Changers 8.5 Total 100.0 All Occupations:

the labor

Occupations:

93.7

6.3 100.0

93.5 6.5 100.0

92.6

93.8

6.2 100.0

>

Increased Disproportionately

(4.6 to 9.1%)

6.4 100.0

C- 9.2%) 94.0

6.0 100.0 90.5

7.4

9.5

100.0

100.0 94.3

94.3

5.7

5.7 100.0

100.0

missing observations = 27 = 21.74

3 df

p<

.OOOl

3 df

pc: .Ol

N = 17,739 Chi-square

Occupations:

increased

(By %) in 1982

the Labor Force

93.6

N = 41,043

Nonmanfacturing

= 14.57

missing observations = 27

N = 23,304 Chi-square

Note:

< Force

(< 4.6%)

Chi-square Manufacturing

Occupations

of Men’s Occupations

= 27.95

3 df

p’;

.OOOl

*Change in the Percent Female from 1970 to 1980.

Table 2 shows the change in the percent female of men’s 1982 occupations for male occupational stayers and changers. Considering all occupations, the data show that a significant relationship exists between the change in percent female and men changing occupations.5 The smallest percentage of occupational changers (i.e., 6.0 percent; see Table 2) came from occupations whose percent female increased more than twice as much as the entire labor force. As the change in the percent female declined, the percentages of men who left their occupations increased; nearly eight percent (i.e., 7.7 percent; see Table 2) of the men who worked in occupations whose percent female did not increase changed occupations. If men left feminizing occupations, the pattern would be reversed. For example, the percentage of changers from occupations whose percent female increased the most would have been the highest, not the lowest. Conversely, because incumbent workers could either stay or leave their occupations, men were more likely to stay in occupations whose percent female had increased during the 1970s. Although slightly over 92 percent of male incumbents whose occupations did not feminize stayed, these occupations had the smallest percentage of male occupational stayers (see Table 2, Panel A). As the change in the percent female increased, the percentage of men who stayed with their occupation also increased. The occupations with the most male occupational stayers were those that feminized the most (i.e., 94.0 percent; see Table 2). Of the men who left occupations whose percent female did not increase, nearly 60 percent came from two occupational groups-precision production, craft, and repair

56

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 36/No. l/l 999

occupations and operators, fabricators, and laborers. Therefore, I also examined how men’s departures from these two occupational groups differed from men’s in other occupations. Table 2 also shows the change in the percent female for changers and stayers in these two manufacturing occupational groups and the other nonmanufacturing occupational groups.6 Although a slightly smaller percentage of men from nonmanufacturing left their occupation compared to those in all occupations (6.0 and 6.4 percent, respectively; data not shown), nonmanufacturing occupations show a similar pattern as found in all occupations with the greatest percentage of men leaving occupations whose percent female did not increase. Of the men in nonmanufacturing occupations that did not feminize at all between 1970 and 1980, eight and one-half percent left their occupations (see Table 2, Panel C). The concentration of occupational changers drops as percent female increases; less than six percent of the male workers left occupations whose percent female increased more or disproportionately more than in the labor force (see Table 2, Panel C, 5.7 percent for both categories). Men from manufacturing occupations changed occupations slightly more often than other men, and showed a different pattern than that found in nonmanufacturing occupations and the entire labor force. Unlike other male workers, in manufacturing the smallest percentage of men to leave their occupations exited occupations whose percent female increased less than in the labor force (6.5 percent; see Table 2, Panel B). Nearly identical percentages of men left occupations whose percent female did not increase and occupations whose percent female increased more than in the labor force (7.3 and 7.4 percent; see Table 2, Panel B). The biggest discrepancy between men in manufacturing and other male workers came in occupations whose percent female increased the most. Men in all occupations and in nonmanufacturing occupations were least likely to leave these occupations (6.0 and 5.7 percent, respectively; see Table 2, Panel A and C, respectively). However, in manufacturing the occupations that experienced the greatest proportional increase in women workers were those that men were most likely to leave (9.5 percent; Table 2, Panel B). Therefore, the data on men who had worked in manufacturing occupations do not support Rotella’s hypothesis but nonmanufacturing do. Recently, scholars (see Andersen and Collins, 1995) have emphasized the intersection of gender, race, and class. Although the data did not allow me to examine class differences,7 I explored the possibility that the relationship between occupational feminization and men’s departures differed by race. Elements of queueing theory (see Reskin and Roos, 1990) suggest that because black men rank lower in the labor queue and have fewer employment opportunities than white men, then they would be less likely to leave feminizing occupations than their white counterparts. Table 3 shows that the percentages of men who left their occupations, regardless of the degree of feminization, were lower for black men than for white men (4.4, 4.9, 3.5, and 4.8 percent for black men compared to 8.1, 6.8, 6.5, 6.0 percent for white men, respectively). Because the vast majority of employed men in the CPS sample were white, it is not surprising that their pattern of departures corresponds to that of all men (see Table 2, Panel A): (1) the greatest percentage of men left occupations that feminized the least; (2) the greater the increase in the percentage of female workers, the lower the percentage of men leaving the occupation; and (3) the relationship was statistically significant (x2 = 27.15, 3 df, p<.OOOl).

Do Men Leave Feminizing Occupations?

57

Table 3.

in

Occupational Status by the Change in the Percent Female of Occupation* January 1982 of Employed CPS White and Black Men+ (By %) Change in the Percent Female* of Men’s Occuoations Y

Occupational Status Panel A. White

in 1982

Did Not

Increased <

Increased >

increase

the labor Force

the Labor Force

(< 0%)

CC 4.6%)

(4.6 to 9.1%)

Increased Disproportionately (,

9.2%)

Men

Stayers Changers

91.9

93.2

93.5

8.1

6.8

6.5

100.0

100.0

95.6

95.1

96.5

4.4

4.9

3.5

100.0

Total

94.0 6.0 100.0

Panel B. Black Men Stayers Changers

100.0

Total White

Men:

100.0

100.0

= 27.15

3 df

p < .OOOl

= 2.28

3 df

p > .I0

N = 3,151 Chi-square

Note:

4.8

100.0

N = 36,611 Chi-square

Black Men:

95.2

‘I ,308 men were neither white nor black; they were coded as “other.” *Change in the Percent Female from 1970 to 1980.

The departures of black men, on the other hand, differed from those of male workers in general and those of white men: (1) the greatest percentage of black men did not leave occupations that feminized the least but left occupations that feminized less than in the labor force; (2) black men’s departures did not follow the pattern found for all and white men but rose, fell, and rose again, as the percentage of female workers in their occupations increased; (3) the relationship was not statistically significant k* = 2.28, 3 df, px.10). Furthermore, &i-square goodness-of-fit tests indicate that the percentages of black men who changed occupations were significantly different from those of all men (x2 = 21.24, 3 df, p<.OOOl) and from those of white men (x2 = 25.49, 3 df, p<.OOOl). Although occupational feminization and men’s departures differed by race, the data on both white and black men support Rotella’s hypothesis because neither group of men left feminizing occupations. For black men, the relationship between women’s increased representation and men’s occupational departures was not significant. While the relationship was significant for white men, the greatest percentage of white men did not leave occupations that feminized the most but left those that feminized the least. Changing Sex Composition of Occupations left and Entered of Men who Changed Occupations In this section, I focus on those men who changed occupations, comparing the change in the percent female of the occupations left with the ones entered. This analysis was done to determine if men moved away from feminizing occupations when they changed occupations. Table 4 shows that the two most common occupational destinations, regardless of the change in the sex composition of the occupations left, were

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL

58

Table 4.

The Change Change

in the Percent

in the Percent

Female*

of the Occupation

Female of the Occupation

CPS Men who Changed

Occupations

Change in the Percent Female’

Exited by the

Entered

by

Exited

Change in the

Did Not

Percent Female *

Increase

the Labor Force

the labor force

(< 0%)

(< 4.6%)

(4.6 to 9.7%)

(> 9.2%)

17.1

15.8

12.8

13.4

30.5

36.2

28.8

24.3

22.9

20.8

22.2

21.7

29.6

27.2

36.2

40.7

100.1t

100.0

100.0

100.1t

of the Occupation Did Not

Entered

<

l/1999

(By %)

of the Occupation

increased

Vol. 36/No.

Increased

>

fncreased Disproportionately

increase (< 0%) Increased < the Labor Force (< 4.6) Increased > the Labor Force (4.6 to 9.1) Increased Disproportionately (> 9.2%) Total

missing observations

N = 2634 Chi-square Note:

= 49.6

= 6

9 df

p<

.OOOl

*Change in the Percent Fernale from 1970 to 1980. to rounding.

'r Error due

occupations that feminized less than the labor force and those that feminized the most. Between 24 and 36 percent of men who changed jobs entered occupations whose percent female increased less than in the entire labor force (i.e., 30.5, 36.2, 28.2, and 24.3 percent, depending on the change in the percent female of the occupation exited). An even higher percentage of male occupational changers entered occupations that experienced disproportionate increases in their percentage of female workers (i.e., 29.6, 27.2, 36.2, and 40.7 percent). Although men tended to enter occupations that experienced these modest or disproportionate gains, there appears to be a relationship between the change in the sex composition of the occupations exited and entered. Of the men who left occupations that feminized less than the labor force or not at all, the greatest percentages entered occupations that experienced only modest increases in their percentage of women workers (36.2 percent and 30.5 percent, respectively; see Table 4). On the other hand, men who left occupations whose percent female increased more than the 4.6 percent that occurred in the labor force frequently entered occupations that feminized the most. Thirty-six percent of the men who left occupations that feminized more than the labor force (i.e., 4.6 to 9.1 percent) entered occupations whose proportion of women workers increased even more than in the ones they left, while over 40 percent of the male changers who came from occupations that enjoyed the greatest increases in their percentage of female workers joined occupations that also experienced similar changes in their sex composition (see Table 4). Thirty percent of the men from occupations that did not experience the highest degree of feminization (data not

Do Men Leave Feminizing Occupations!

59

shown) also often entered occupations that feminized the most. Thus, men who changed occupations often entered occupations that feminized as much or more than the ones they left.

DISCUSSION The results suggest that, in general, men did not flee feminizing occupations. If men were inclined to leave occupations in the process of feminizing, the trend of increasing percentages of exiting male workers would have been in the opposite direction; occupations that did not experience increases in women’s representation would have had the lowest percentage of men exiting them. Instead, occupations with the greatest proportional increases in women workers saw the smallest percentage of their male workforce leave them between January 1982 and 1983. This pattern existed for men in all occupations and in nonmanufacturing occupations and for white men. Although black men’s departures differed from this pattern, black men, like these other men, did not flee feminizing occupations. The difference between white and black men was that white men tended to leave occupations that feminized the least, while for black men the relationship between feminization and men’s departures was not significant. Thus, these results provide support for Rotella’s (1987) contention that men do not leave feminizing occupations. If male abandonment contributed to occupational feminization, it occurred because sufficient numbers of men failed to enter the occupations, not because they left them. The exit patterns of men from manufacturing, however, did not support Rotella’s (1987) hypothesis; they were most likely to leave occupations that feminized the most. A combination of factors may have contributed to the relatively high departure of men from manufacturing occupations that experienced disproportionate increases in women workers. As discussed earlier, manufacturing occupations faced retrenchment, thus producing higher exit rates. Because many of these occupations were virtually all male, their percent female could increase disproportionately with only a relatively few women entering the occupations. Thus, the decline in manufacturing in the early 1980s and women’s entry into virtually all-male occupations during the 1970s contributed to the “relatively high rate” of departure of men from manufacturing with disproportionate gains in women workers (see Reskin and Roos (1990) for other examples of men leaving occupations experiencing decline). Without the convergence of these two factors that occurred in the early 1980s manufacturing occupations may have followed the pattern of other occupations with men leaving occupations that did not feminize.8 Factors other than the increasing proportion of women workers may discourage men’s departures from feminizing occupations. Most decision makers, including male occupational incumbents, settle for satisfactory solutions rather than holding out for the ultimate solution (March and Simon, 1958). Strober and Arnold (1987) point out that the tendency to settle for satisfactory situations and the forces reinforcing inertia tend to reduce men’s occupational movement, possibly even when occupations are feminizing. In addition, men who stayed in feminizing occupations may have done so because, even though women’s representation increased, women did not threaten men’s positions. Despite the feminization that occurred in the labor force during the

00

THE SOCIAL

SCIENCE JOURNAL

Vol. 36iNo.

l/l

999

1970s most men in the sample still worked in predominately male occupations in 1980. Even if the percent female increased to change the occupation’s sex type (i.e., predominately male to integrated, integrated to predominately female), some male incumbents may have chosen to stay in feminizing occupations because they occupied the best jobs in the occupations (see Phipps, 1989). Feminization did not appear to play a major role in these men’s occupational changes. If men were fleeing feminizing occupations, they probably would not enter occupations that experienced comparable changes or even greater feminization. Yet male changers often moved into occupations that had experienced similar or even greater feminization than their previous ones. Thus, the results indicate that occupational feminization did not push men to leave nor did it deter these occupational changers from entering occupations.

CONCLUSION As discussed earlier, two situations of male abandonment could have contributed to occupational feminization: incumbent male workers may have left these occupations or an insufficient number of men may have entered these occupations. Although Rotella (1987) suggests that women’s dominance of an occupation usually results from the failure of enough men to enter rather than from men’s high exits, both low entry and high exits of men could have contributed to an occupation’s feminization (see Reskin and Roos, 1990). Yet, this research found that in general men did not leave occupations that experienced increases in the proportion of women workers. This result, along with the findings that many men who changed occupations often moved into ones that experienced even greater increases in the percentage of women workers than the ones they left, may lead us to optimism about reducing occupational segregation. However, these results may not coincide with dramatic reductions in segregation. First, an increase in the percentage of women workers does not mean that an occupation will progress very far in the process of feminization. Some virtually all-male occupations can experience increases in their percentage female and remain male dominated. Some occupations may become integrated during the invasion stage of feminization and the process may stop there. Other occupations may have increased their percentage of workers so much that a takeover has occurred, and they have become predominately female occupations. Thus, the process of feminization does not mean that an occupation has become integrated. Second, even when occupations become more integrated, job-level segregation of men and women may exist because men and women may work in the same occupations but have different jobs. It is impossible to measure nationally the extent of joblevel, sex segregation because information on the tasks and place of work of every worker would be needed. However, smaller studies have found that considerable sex segregation exists at the job level. An investigation of 393 California firms between 1959 and 1979 revealed that in 199 establishments men and women had different job titles and 30 firms employed only men or women (Bielby and Baron, 1984). Certain jobs within feminizing occupations also can provide attractive niches for men (Reskin and Roos, 1990; Bielby and Bielby, 1992). Commercial real estate remained a male bastion while women real estate agents were concentrated in the less profitable, resi-

Do Men leave

FeminizingOccupations?

61

dential specialty (Thomas and Reskin, 1990); similarly, men dominated commercial banking while women bank managers tend to do personal banking (Bird, 1990). Furthermore, attractive specialties may keep some men from leaving feminizing occupations. Although 35 to 44-year-old men left insurance adjusting during the 1970s older men tended to stay in the occupation because these men had the few remaining better-paid adjusting jobs or they could move into supervisory positions (Phipps, 1989). Thus, men may choose to stay in feminizing occupations and yet still work in a job in which they have few women colleagues. Third, despite the findings reported here, men may still leave a feminizing occupation, and thus contribute to its resegregation as a predominately female occupation. The data used in this research measured men’s departures over a very modest period of time. More than ten years is needed for the process of occupational feminization to be completed and more than one year is needed to capture men’s movement out of feminizing occupations. For those occupations that feminized early in the 197Os, men’s exodus may have occurred prior to 1982. In other occupations, men may have left after January 1983. Even though some of the findings of this study support Rotella’s (1987) contention that men do not leave feminizing occupations, broader examination of this phenomenon is needed. A longer time span is necessary to rule out prior or later departures of male incumbents from feminizing occupations. Furthermore, because occupational feminization is just one possible condition that might affect men’s occupational movement, multivariate analysis is needed. The inclusion of additional factors may show that occupational feminization plays a role in men’s occupational departures if the effects of variables in both their old and new occupations are held constant, since factors in men’s old occupations may compel them to leave, while other factors may entice them to enter their new occupations. Among the possible factors that might have contributed to men’s occupational changes in the early 1980s are the economic conditions of the early 1980s career advancement, and occupational growth. The structural changes in the economy may have contributed to men leaving manufacturing (see Urquhart, 1984; Eitzen and Zinn, 1989). For example, the loss of manufacturing jobs may have caused some of the 47 male production supervisors in the CPS sample who changed occupations to lose their jobs. (Results not shown.) Less than 15 percent of these former production-supervisors stayed in precision production, craft and repair occupations, possibly because of the poor employment outlook for this group of occupations.’ Many of these men might have found better employment opportunities in the managerial and professional specialties or in technical, sales, and administrative support occupations; 23 and 32 percent of the former production supervisors entered these fields, respectively. Indeed, any of the male changers, regardless of their prior occupations, may have changed their occupations because they found better opportunities elsewhere. The comparison of men’s earnings from their old occupations with their earnings in their new occupations may support this advancement hypothesis, since most workers use earnings as the primary criterion when assessing an occupation’s desirability or “goodness” (National Opinion Research Center, 1947; Jencks, Perman, and Rainwater, 1988).” In addition, the better occupational opportunities may have resulted from occupational growth that both men and women shared (Reskin and Roos, 1990; Sokoloff, 1992). Particularly

62

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 36/No. l/1999

when occupations are expanding, they may feminize not because men left but, as Rotella argues, because “women entered at a greater rate than did men” (1987, p. 152 italic added). Even if this expanded research provides additional support for Rotella’ s hypothesis, researchers still must determine why women’s entry rate has surpassed men’s in feminizing occupations. Yet another question relevant to current labor force patterns is whether the men who stayed in feminizing occupations currently work in attractive specialties, thus maintaining segregation at the job level a decade later. Acknowledgment: The author wishes to thank Marietta Morrissey, Barbara Chesney, Sarah Smith, and anonymous reviewers.

NOTES 1.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

A decrease in women’s departures or an increase in women’s entry could also contribute to a decline in men’s occupational representation (see Wright and Jacobs, 1994). Although Bradley (1993) discusses these patterns in terms of masculinization, her terminology could also apply to feminization. However, the males originally employed as telephone operators were boys, not men (Hartmann, Kraut, and Tilly, 1986). I adopted Reskin and Roos’ (1990, pp. 16-20) standard for “disproportionate” change. In addition to the Chi-square for the relationship between the change in the percent female and men’s occupational status (stayers versus changers) is significant (see Table 2), a chi-square goodness-of-fit test also indicated a significant difference among changers based on the sex composition of the occupations they left (x2 = 19.77, df = 3, a = ,001). The nonmanufacturing occupations include Managerial and Professional Specialty; Technical, Sales, and Administrative Support; Service; and Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations. The 1983 CPS data do not ask the respondents questions about their occupations in the previous year. Therefore, I could not test if the relationship between occupational feminization and men’s departures differed by social class. Wright and Jacobs (1994) found higher exits among male computer workers from 1982 to 1984 than in slightly later time periods. However, Urquhart’s (1984) results indicate that manufacturing occupations were more severely affected than occupations from other sectors of the economy. Some men found opportunities in manufacturing occupations. Eighteen percent of the CPS males entered precision production, craft and repair occupations, while one quarter became operators, fabricators and labors. Carey’s (1989) analysis of the 1989 CPS men found a slightly smaller percentage of men joining the former occupations (16 percent) but a greater percentage entering the latter occupations (29 percent). These analyses were not done due to the limitations of the CPS data. The CPS data do not contain the reasons why workers left the occupations they worked at in January of 1982 or their earnings in those occupations.

REFERENCES Andersen, M.L. and P.H. Collins. (Eds.). (1995). Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Do Men Leave Feminizing Occupations?

63

Associated Press. (1996, December 28). The Legacy of Downsizing: A Decade of Fear. The Blade, p. 28. Baron, J.N. and W.T. Bielby. (1985). Organizational Barriers to Gender Equality: Sex Segregation of Jobs and Opportunities. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the Life Course, pp. 23325 1. New York: Aldine. Beller, A.H. (1984). Trends in Occupational Segregation by Sex and Race, 1960-1981. In B.F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies, pp.1 l-26. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Wages and Profits When Employers Bergmann, B. (1974). Occupational Segregation, Discriminate by Race and Sex. Eastern Economic Journal, I: 103-l 10. Bielby, W.T. and J.N. Baron. (1984). A Woman’s Place is with Other Women: Sex Segregation Within Organizations. In B.F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies, pp. 27-55. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Bielby, D.D. and W.T. Bielby. (1992). Cumulative Versus Continuous Disadvantage in an Unstructured Labor Market. Work and Occupations, 19: 366-387. Bird, C.E. (1990). High Finance, Small Change: Women’s Increased Representation in Bank Management. In B.F. Reskin and P.A. Roos (Eds.), Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Movement into Male Dominated Occupations, pp. 145-166. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Blau, F.D. and W. Hendricks. (1979). Occupational Segregation by Sex: Trends and Prospects. Journal of Human Resources, 14: 197-210. Bradley, H. (1993). Across the Great Divide: The Entry of Men into “Women’s Jobs.” In C.L. Williams (Ed.), Doing “Women’s Work”: Men in Nontraditional Occupations, pp. 10-27. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Carey, M.L. (1989). Characteristics of Occupational Entrants. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 33: 8-17. Dassbach, C.H.A. (1986). Industrial Robots in the American Automobile Industry. Insurgent Sociologist, 13: 53-61. England, P. and MS. Herbert. (1993). The Pay of Men in ‘Female’ Occupations: Is Comparable Worth Only for Women? In C.L. Williams (Ed.), Doing ‘Women’s Work’: Men in Nontraditional Occupations, pp. 28-48. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Eitzen, D.S. and M.B. Zinn. (1989). The Reshaping ofAmerica. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gross, E. (1968). Plus Ca Change.. .? The Sexual Structure of Occupations Over Time. Social Problems, 16: 198-208. Hartmann, H.I. (1977). Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex. In M. Blaxall and B.B. Reagan (Eds.), Women and the Workplace: The Implications of Occupational Segregation, pp. 137-169. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hartmann, HI., R.E. Kraut, and L.A. Tilly. (1986). Computer Chips and Paper Clips. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Hraba, J. (1994). American Ethnicity. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers. Jacobs, J.A. (1989). Revotving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women’s Careers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Jencks, C., L. Perman, and L. Rainwater. (1988). What is a Good Job? A New Measure of Labor-Market Success. American Journal of Sociology, 93: 1322-1357. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and Women ofthe Corporation. New York: Harper & Row. Kuttner, R. (1989). The Changing Occupational Structure. In D.S. Eitzen and M.B. Zinn (Eds.), The Reshaping of America, pp. 85-102. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. March, J.G. and H.A. Simon. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

64

THE

SOCIAL

SCIENCE

JOURNAL

Vol. 36iNo.

l/1999

National Opinion Research Center. (1947). Jobs and Occupations: A Popular Evaluation. Opinion News, 9: 3-13. Phipps, P.A. (1989). Sex Segregation and the Changing Sex composition of Insurance Adjusters and Examiners. Ph.D dissertation, University of Michigan. Reskin, B.F. (1988). Bringing the Men Back In: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women’s Work. Gender & Society, 2: 58-81. Reskin, B.F. and H.I. Hartmann. (1986). Women’s Work, Men’s Work: Sex Segregation on the Job. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Reskin, B. and I. Padavic. (1994). Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Reskin, B.F. and P.A. Roos. (1990). Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Movement into Male Dominated Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Roos, P.A. (1990). Hot-Metal to Electronic Composition: Gender, Technology, and Social Change. In B.F. Reskin and P.A. Roos (Eds.), Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Movement into Male Dominated Occupations, pp. 275-298. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rotella, E.J. (1987). Comments on ‘The Dynamics of Occupational Segregation Among Bank Tellers.’ In C. Brown and J.A. Pechman (Eds.), Gender in the Workplace, pp. 149-154. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Schreiber, C.T. (1979). Changing Places: Men and Women in Transitional Occupations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sokoloff, N.J. (1992). Black Women and White Women in the Professions. New York: Routledge. Strober, M.H. (1984). Towards a General Theory of Occupational Sex Segregation: The Case of Public School Teaching. In B.F. Reskin (Ed.), Sex segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies, pp. 144156. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Strober, M.H. and C.L. Arnold. (1987). The Dynamics of Occupational Segregation Among Bank Tellers. In C. Brown and J.A. Pechman (Eds.), Gender in the Workplace, pp. 107-157. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Thomas, B.J. and B.F. Reskin. (1990). A Women’s Place is Selling Homes: Occupational Change and the Feminization of Real Estate Sales. In B.F. Reskin and P.A. Roos (Eds.), Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Movement into Male Dominated Occupations, pp. 183-204. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Treiman, D.J. and H.I. Hartmann. (1981). Women, Work, and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Urquhart, M. (1984). The Employment Shift to Services: Where Did It Come From? Monthly Labor Review, 107: 15-22. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1984). 1980 Census of the Population: Detailed Occupation of Employed Persons by Race and Sex for the United States: 1980 and 1970. Supplementary Report PC80-S 1- 15. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1983). Employment and Earnings (Vol. 30, pp. 29-30). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Wharton, A. and J.N. Baron. (1987). So Happy Together? The Impact of Gender Segregation on Men at Work. American Sociological Review, 52: 574-587. Williams, C.L. (1989). Gender Differences at Work: Women and Men in Nontraditional Occupations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Williams, CL. (1992). The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the ‘Female’ Professions. Social Problems, 39: 253-267. Willis, P.E. (1977). Learning to Labor. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Wright R. and J.A. Jacobs. (1994). Male Flight from Computer Work: A New Look at Occupational Resegregation and Ghettoization. American Sociological Review, 59: 51 l-536.