Occupational segregation refers to the unequal distribution of positions in the labor force. It is historically associated with exclusionary practices that excluded women from men's jobs and people of color from whites' jobs, and with practices that relegated white women and racial ethnic groups to jobs subordinate, if not subservient, to white men. Indeed, occupations associated with women and/or racial and ethnic minorities are generally associated with lower social rewards than positions held by white men, as indicated by measures of prestige, autonomy, income, and other benefits.

For example, the feminization of an occupation describes changes in the gender composition correlated with lessening the value and prestige of that occupation. As women enter a predominantly male occupation, the work becomes more closely supervised and deskilled and relatively less rewarded, as documented with the change from male to female predominance in public education and clerical work. Scholars have documented trends that show the occupational pattern of gender segregation is from maledominated to female-dominated occupations.

A racial caste system characterized occupational distribution in U.S. society through the mid-20th century. Occupations associated with the lowest racial status groups in society were the lowest paid, most segregated, and given the least regard, or occupational prestige, of all jobs. These occupations were often the "dirtiest" and most dangerous, least secure, and allowed some of the most virulent forms of abuse.

Conversely, the most prestigious and well-paid occupations in U.S. society are associated with the highest race and gender status group: white males. Although the civil rights movement led to new legislation that led to a decline in occupational segregation, patterns of race and gender dissimilarity persist. White males remain dominant in jobs associated with the best working conditions and remuneration both within and between social classes and remain at the top of the occupational hierarchy. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2005 whites and Asians dominated professional managerial occupations, respectively holding 36 and 46 percent of the related occupational positions. In contrast, blacks and Latinos/as together held 48 percent of service occupations and 36 percent of production and other labor, and Latinos/as were more likely than any other group to work in occupations associated with natural resources, construction, and maintenance.

Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows more women are in professional and managerial occupations--up to 35 percent of women by 2004--the jobs they hold remain overwhelmingly female and are often considered "semi-professional" such as nurse, librarian, and teacher. Among professional and managerial workers, women were more likely than men to be employed in education and other lower-paid fields, while men--particularly white and Asian American men--were more likely than women to work in high-paying fields such as computers and engineering.

Occupational segregation exists between and within occupations--such as the greater preponderance of men as physicians and women as nurses, and the gendering of particular types of physician or nurse as well. White-collar jobs dominated by women are called "pink-collar work"--lumping "semiprofessionals" together with office-related occupations, or clerical work, and low-end retail sales. In 2004, only 6.3 percent of men worked in office and administrative support, in contrast to 23 percent of women. Sixteen percent of men worked in service-related occupations compared to 20 percent of women.

Occupational segregation is either horizontal, with clear race or gender notions attached to the job, or vertical, where promotional opportunities are blocked by gender and/or race, leaving the top positions to the top gender or race group. Scholars refer to a "glass ceiling" to describe workplace constraints that contribute to vertical occupational segregation by locking women into dead-end jobs such as secretary, while the positions available to white men are more often associated with promotional opportunities or what some call a "glass escalator."

Occupations appear to take on value based in part on the social value attributed to the groups who dominate their ranks. However, scholars remain divided in their explanations for how social value and occupational segregation are correlated and whether allocation to different jobs along horizontal lines necessarily promotes inequality.

Some scholars argue that occupational segregation reflects differences among social actors, as a result of our socialization and orientation toward particular roles in society, or, as human capital theorists suggest, perhaps it reflects differences in training and ability as well. In other words, they link the outcome to differences in workers--differences in work ethic, training, availability, education, and so on. Others suggest that it is not our "human capital," but who we know that affects our access to employment opportunities. Social networks, not just experience, training, and education, influence knowledge about job opportunities and promotions, as do employers' gender and race notions of who is appropriate for the position.

Other scholars argue that culturally embedded race and gender notions result in discrimination by employers, coworkers, and/or customers and clients who shape workplace culture and practices to reflect these cultural notions. However, for some, occupational segregation is one of the practices that emerge in the complex of race-class-gender oppression that need not require overt, intentional discrimination by any of the social actors. In this sense, occupational segregation is both the product of practices that maintain divisions of race and gender privilege, inequality, and oppression and a means for reproducing these inequalities. It may result in part from socialization and discrimination, but it is also produced by a complex of social practices tied to cultural representations that reconstruct raced, classed, and gendered realities in dynamic ways, changing together as part of the taken-for-granted social organization of work in a highly differentiated globalizing capitalist economy.

Bibliography:

1) Charles, Maria and David B. Grusky. 2004. Occupational Ghettos: The Worldwide Segregation of Women and Men. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

2) Moss, Philip and Chris Tilly. 2001. Stories Employers Tell: Race, Skill and Hiring in America. New York: Russell Sage.

3) Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. 1993. Gender and Racial Inequality at Work: The Sources and Consequences of Job Segregation. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

Free term papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom written research paper, term paper, or essay on Argumentative Topics at affordable price. CustomTermPapers is the best solution for those who seek help in writing term papers, essays, and research papers related to Argumentative Topics and other relevant topics.