(Much of the material for this post comes from David J. Maume Jr.’s 1999 work “Glass Ceilings and Glass Escalators,” because that’s the one in my Work Organization textbook. More recent citations gratefully accepted.)
According to analysis of the PSID (Panel Study of Income Dynamics), a longitudinal study of a representative sample of American families, between 1989 and 1999, 44% of white men and 17% of black men are promoted out of primarily female occupations into managerial positions. However, only 15% of white women and 7% of black women are promoted out of these positions.
Initially, this sounds like a good thing for men. After all, promotions are cool, right? However, the “glass escalator,” as it is known, has its roots in anti-male sexism.
According to a groundbreaking 1992 study by Christine L. Williams, “The glass escalator: hidden advantages for men in the ‘female’ professions,” men in typically female professions (she interviewed nurses, teachers, librarians and social workers) are viewed as “deviant.” In particular, the clients of schools, hospitals and social work agencies tend to prefer women to equally qualified men. Supervisors respond to this by promoting men out of these occupations.
In general, women are assumed to be better at nurturing tasks and men are assumed to be better at instrumental tasks such as delegation, planning and organization. This is a classic case of a social narrative that is sexist against both genders: not only does it cast doubt on women’s ability to lead, but also on men’s ability to care.
A man is fully capable of sponge-bathing an elderly person or comforting a woman dying in a hospice; he is fully capable of teaching a child to read or mentoring a troubled teenager. To suggest otherwise is to deny men their full humanity: after all, humans evolved as group animals. We evolved to care about and take care of each other, and to arbitrarily cut off half of humanity from this heritage is the height of stupidity.
In addition, it is generally assumed, according to Williams’s research, that a female nurse wants to make a living out of caring for patients, while a male nurse is assumed to want career success. This ties in to the image of men as “success object,” the way women are “sex objects”: in the same way that our culture presents the highest goal of women as looking conventionally attractive, it presents the highest goal of men as being conventionally successful (i.e. a professional in a high-earning occupation). A man who doesn’t want to be a success object is as silly as a woman who doesn’t want to be a sex object. (More on this in an exciting upcoming post!)
In fact, the expectation that men will go for managerial roles represents one of the largest flaws with the “glass escalator.” Most people who choose caring careers such as social work or teaching choose them because they want to help people, not shuffle papers in an office. You can shuffle papers in an office for much better pay at Goldman Sachs. Essentially, men are being systematically driven out of the professions they actually want to do and are good at– the professions they chose— because of outdated and ridiculous gender expectations that they cannot be caretakers and must be driven by success over all.
To not be given the chance to choose emotional satisfaction with your work over monetary reward is exactly the same as to not be given the chance to choose monetary reward over emotional satisfaction with your work. It’s the same situation, as reflected in a broken mirror.
It is important not to underestimate other factors not covered in Williams’s research: for instance, men may bond with their male supervisors more than their female coworkers, possibly by sharing interest in so-called “male bonding” activities. (It would be interesting to see a sociological study of whether men who are interested in, say, knitting get promoted as much as men who are interested in golf.) However, the statements she’s collected in her research provide a clear example of how sexism hurts men too– even in situations in which it may seem to be beneficial.
Thing of Things 
Wait, so in America librarians are expected to be female?
Why???
In my country it is not so.
Why would they be female? It is not a “care” profession at all.
I don’t get it. Someone please enlighten me.
LikeLike
Americans have this kind of weird stereotype that if a job involves sitting around with books, and it doesn’t involve law, medicine or moving money around, it’s for girls.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I mean, i don’t know what the gender ratio of librarians where I live is, I just mean that I never heard the stereotype that they must be female and a male librarian must be gay.
LikeLike
Link: American librarian demographics and projectsion
The link is about credentialed librarians, which will differ from “all library workers.” The majority of workers in many (most?) public libraries will be in part time, non-MLIS (Master of Library and Information Science) positions. I don’t have numbers, but a common perception in the profession is that those positions are predominantly female, and that administrative positions are disproportionately male. The usual number I hear is an 80-20 split in either case, although I have no idea how accurate that is.
I don’t have solid numbers on LGBT librarians either, but my informal observations suggest “higher than the population average.”
LikeLike
I think this problem stems from a lack of respect for positions that involve care such as nursing, not from sexism against men. Intelligent and impressive people of any gender who want to be nurses or do social work are frequently told that they aren’t achieving their full potential. However, a man working as a flight attendant isn’t told that he is bad at his job; he is told that he could do something more socially impressive if he wanted. I don’t think that men are shut out of these jobs because people believe they are less good at it. I think they are promoted because of continued sexism against women. Society believes men have already proved they are good at being nurses and can continue onward to “bigger and better” things while many women are perceived as meeting their work-potential as nurses. This is an issue in how we assess the importance of different types of work and community contribution. We value managerial work more and putting men in those positions does not mean we believe they are incapable of caring. It means we think it is beneath their potential abilities to only use them in that capacity which we disdain.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is an instance of the “femmephobia” argument, and it suffers from the same problems as other instances of that argument – the idea that nurturing and caring are demeaning to women is a strictly recent phenomenon. Go back a hundred years or so, and you’ll find a society that was constantly singing the praises of motherhood and other “feminine virtues,” provided, of course, that they remained in women where they belonged. Hell, you’ll still find that attitude in the more viciously patriarchal parts of society today.
To the extent that we consider nurturing and caring to just be plain bad things, we pretty much only do it because some parts of second-wave feminism got their wires crossed and assumed that because women are oppressed, anything traditionally “womanly” must be part of that oppression and therefore inferior. It’s not a normal part of how sexism functions in our society and can’t explain situations like this.
LikeLiked by 3 people
the idea that nurturing and caring are demeaning to women is a strictly recent phenomenon
That’s because the idea that women are not overall lesser beings than men is a strictly recent phenomenon. Nurturing and caring were praised (less than a hundred years ago, FWIW) because they were seen as appropriate to women’s lesser, complementary role. So it’s not surprising that many second-wave feminists rejected those things: if caretaking is so great, why aren’t men doing it? It’s not really surprising that in a culture that prized traditionally male pursuits above traditionally female ones, that women seeking to improve their status would adopt the former and reject the latter, rather than trying to win what was much more of an uphill argument back then – that caretaking is just as important as winning in the public sphere.
LikeLike
I agree with you all the way to the last line. I don’t think that just because it is a more recent aspect of sexism makes it less problematic or relevant in this situation.
LikeLike
Not sure what you mean? Certainly, disparagement of men’s interest and ability to be caretakers is sexist. What I was responding to was Galle’s comment that nurturing used to be respected until second-wave feminists came along and made fun of it.
LikeLike
Quote: “Society believes men have already proved they are good at being nurses and can continue onward to “bigger and better” things while many women are perceived as meeting their work-potential as nurses.”
I don’t want to get into an oppression-off back-and-forth, but I view this as an artefact of the expectation that men be the breadwinners of the family, while women are expected to down-shift their career (or quit altogether) once children are born.
The “breadwinner” role basically requires that partner to be more aggressive about promotions and raises. And male “care-takers” in the family are still the exception – for a variety of structural reasons.
My experience with having a family suggests that one partner down-shifting or quitting is beneficial overall for a variety of reasons, but there isn’t a good reason that that partner couldn’t be male. (All assuming heterosexuality)
Really, it’s sexist towards both genders I think.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That makes sense to me. I just generally believe working as a “care-taker” is perceived as weak and that concept is detrimental to people of any gender.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My uncle was a fabulous teacher who became a principal for a short while before deciding it wasn’t for him, so I’m sympathetic to the idea that it should be easier for men not to get pushed up into management roles; unfortunately I’m also a woman trying hard to find a library supervisory position because librarian salaries are too low. (I do believe the cultural pressure for men to earn more money contributes to men taking management positions they otherwise would prefer not to take.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
“To not be given the chance to choose emotional satisfaction with your work over monetary reward is exactly the same as to not be given the chance to choose monetary reward over emotional satisfaction with your work.”
Let me guess: you’ve never spent a day in your life worrying about money?
LikeLike
From what I understand, Ozy used to make zir living as a camperson– which can be a lucrative profession, but also a very uncertain one. (Really, just like any other service job where people depend on the whims of tippers.) I suspect that ze has some experience with financial insecurity, or at least with not having very much money.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Having to work for a living != financial insecurity. Kids from well-off families who work at the local cafe may be working service jobs and dependent on the whims of tippers, but I suspect their opinion on the worth of ’emotional satisfaction’ from a job differs greatly from that of a single mom with nothing to fall back on if inflation eats her paycheck.
I find it boggling that anyone who has faced financial insecurity would think that being prevented from promotions, better pay and more security and power at work is just like being giving promotions, better pay and more security and power at work at the cost of some emotional satisfaction. Emotional satisfaction is a great thing, but it does not pay the rent and it does not make up for being deprived of advancement at work.
Also, Ozy is opposing career advancement and patient care, and assuming that people who go into the caring professions do not want to advance out of the hands-on areas of those professions into management, because duh they want to CARE FOR PEOPLE. To assume that, we’d have to assume that nobody in (say) nursing management really wants to be there. And we’d have to also assume that (say) men who become nurses are totally immune to the societal and career pressures that teach them they really should be managers and leaders and primary wage-earners.
So to the extent that Ozy is decrying an ‘up or out’ mentality that punishes men who are happy staying in the caregiving end of caregiving professions, and that assumes men should be unhappy in a caretaking or less-prestigious role – I am with zir 100%, as I hope anyone with half a brain would be. What I disagree with is this false equivalence, and particularly given that “but emotional satisfaction is so important!!!!!” is the same happy horseshit that is used to justify a lack of pay and respect in female-dominated professions (like elementary school teaching and nursing), and to try and convince women that really, they’re better off than those poor men who have to go and make money and stuff.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I actually agree that this is a false equivalence– in fact, I think that this is one of the weaker cases for anti-male sexism that Ozy makes. (I’ve liked many of the others she’s posted, but I think that she’s a bit off -mark here). But surely you can disagree with somebody without making patronizing claims about their class status. It’s unnecessary, it’s dickish, and it opens your argument up to all kinds of embarrassing failure states.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a reason men commit suicide more often that women, and getting more money isn’t it. I agree that Ozy’s statement is hyperbole, but you are underestimating the importance of emotional well-being.
LikeLike
@InferentialDistance: Women attempt suicide far more often than men do; men are just vastly better at it, in that they’re far more likely to use highly reliable methods.
Some of that might reflect a greater commitment to self-annihilation, but a lot of it is that massive physical destruction is traditionally masculine, while concern for the appearance of one’s body (before or after death) is traditionally feminine. Also (and because of this), stereotypical images of male suicide feature more effective methods than stereotypical images of female suicide, so a man who just goes with the first method that pops into his head is more likely to be successful than a woman who does the same. Ready access to effective means may also play a (more limited) role, since men are more likely than women to own firearms.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Henry Gorman: I don’t think I was patronizing, but I freely admit that I am on my last nerve when it comes to the idea that economic advantage is a terrible burden that destroys personal growth, and so I am less likely than I should be to make an extra effort to be gentle and affirming and ask “Perhaps you should consider whether this is coming from a place of economic and class privilege?” And – this is also going to sound patronizing, although it’s not meant to – from the point of view of a young person. Caregiving is hard work. It doesn’t get easier when you get older. I would think it’s pretty easy to see why somebody in their 40s or 50s might find it preferable to advance up into a position with more desk time and less walking rounds or physically handling patients.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your claim here is “Bad Thing A is worse than Bad Thing B.” I don’t think anyone actually disagrees with this. Sexism clearly sucks more for women than it does for men.
I’m just not really sure how this is relevant. It’s an interesting academic distinction, I guess? But in this case, Bad Thing A and Bad Thing B are both symptoms of a single underlying problem (sexism) and so from a practical standpoint, trying to figure out which is worse is a complete waste of time. That time should instead be spent solving the problem.
On the other hand, there are people who deny that Bad Thing B even exists, or is even a bad thing. Since these people are denying one of the symptoms, they won’t be able to properly diagnose the problem, and so they won’t be able to fix it and solve Bad Thing A. Ozy is using hyperbole here to establish to such people that Bad Thing B is real.
LikeLiked by 3 people
How does that work, exactly? Genuine question, because I have seen that argument made before – that it is OK to say untrue/hyperbolic things to Draw Attention to a Serious Problem – and it seems like people who have heard of Problem B are going to react the same way most people do in the face of obvious hyperbole, i.e., to say “Wait, that’s not true.”
And using hyperbole backfires. When people perceive what you’re saying is exaggerated or just plain incorrect, they are less likely to trust you, and to accept that what you ‘really’ meant to say is true. That’s particularly so when the hyperbole appears to show that you are talking from behind an enormous blind spot.
Also, while I may disagree with Ozy on some things, I believe that zie is intelligent, well-spoken, considerate, thoughtful and honest, and therefore if zie meant to say “A is terrible, and B, the flip side of A, is also terrible”, zie would have done so, because 1) zie understands there is a difference between that and “B is just as bad as A”, and 2) zie is honest, and is therefore not adopting a deliberate strategy of exaggeration and hyperbole in order to persuade.
(As a side note, the ‘hyperbole’ claim is what The Art of Deception recommends as a last-ditch response when one’s arguments have been thoroughly dismantled: rather than admit you were wrong, insist that you deliberately chose a weak or questionable argument in order to draw attention to an important principle.)
LikeLiked by 4 people
I have a job that pays very little. I worry about money a lot. It is a totally awesome job, I love my coworkers and clients. My boss lets me be flexible with my hours.
Someone I know has a job that pays much more than mine does. She does not have to worry about money like I do. It is a miserable job with a narcissistic boss, ungrateful clients, and unfriendly coworkers. She works tons of unpaid overtime.
She is constantly asking me if my employer is hiring. She is completely willing to take a massive downgrade in pay to get the kind of job I have. I am much happier and more satisfied with life than she is, the suffering my money worries cause me is far outweighed by my job satisfaction. The suffering her job causes her far outweighs the financial security it generates.
I know what it feels like to worry about money. But there is no way in hell I would trade what I have now for a miserable and unsatisfying job, even if it paid more than triple what I currently make.
Worrying about money sucks. Having an emotionally unsatisfying job also sucks. Which one sucks more depends heavily on individual circumstances. It is ludicrous to suggest that money worries are categorically a bigger problem than job satisfaction. Sometimes they are bigger, sometimes they are smaller. Ozy is not being hyperbolic at all.
LikeLiked by 4 people
My personal anecdote is similar. Three years ago I left a job that I actually liked, it also paid very well, coworkers were great etc., but it was not my passion. I got a job with a much smaller salary (I even had to move to a cheaper and worse flat to make ends meet), but in my specific profession. Also, I live in one of the poorest European countries, and I come from a rather poor family, so I know very well what it means to worry if you will have money to buy food. However, I am much happier doing what I really love and making less money than doing what I like and making more money. Priorities are very individualistic.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, Ozy is being completely hyperbolic, and did not actually make the very different argument you are making. Zie did not simply say that emotional satisfaction is very important, and for many people more important than money, or that plenty of people would take a less-well paying job in a functional company than a well-paying job that’s a nightmare of emotional abuse. Ozy’s premise is that it is exactly as bad to promote men for sexist reasons as it is to refuse to promote women for sexist reasons, and zie grounds that on the assumption that men in caring professions don’t really want those promotions because (unlike women, I guess?) that can’t be why they got into the profession in the first place.
Of course it’s true that sometimes job satisfaction is more important than money. And sometimes money is way, way more important than job satisfaction. Do you think your friend would be begging you for a job if she needed her current income to pay for medical bills or child support? Or if her income weren’t actually enough to pay off her student loans and the electric bill at the same time?
“Do what you love and the money will follow” is a mantra I hear a lot from friends who, frankly, don’t actually have real-world worries about money. It’s not something I hear from friends who need every penny they can get.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a really, really good post.
Usually I’d be nitpicking in the comments, but I genuinely have nothing else to say about it. So: thank you for writing this.
LikeLike
I find this argument a little sketchy. I don’t think “men being given promotions” can really count as sexism against men. Regardless of the motives. Especially since I am sure there are alot of women who would like those promotions.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I think it does, when declining the promotion is not an option. Offering men promotions certainly isn’t sexism against men, but that’s not always what’s going on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In some cases, it also turns into a perform-or-get-out situation, either due to company architecture or due to local environment. There are also a few areas like education where higher ranks are better-renumerated in dollars, but sacrifice other benefits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But we don’t know, here, that ‘enforced promotion’ is actually what’s going on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like the discussion and I believe, that you can easily find instances of the problem. However you wrote:
“In general, women are assumed to be better at nurturing tasks and men are assumed to be better at instrumental tasks such as delegation, planning and organization.”
What if those assumptions are right? And by right I mean that the the cultural norm incorporating those assumptions makes people more happy than a cultural norm that assumes a random distribution? What if this imperfect map fits the territory better than no map?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What value does this map deliver? How is it better than treating individuals according to their actual abilities and preferences?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Now there’s a comment I can get behind.
Come to the individualist side. We have gift certificates to an artisanal foods store that includes a bakery.
LikeLike
“Bad map vs. no map” is a false dilemma.
LikeLike
Minor quibble, in the same way that women in stereotypically traditionally male professions tend to be above the average of that profession,* presumably the same would be true of men in female-stereotyped positions? And that might then result in them being disproportionately promoted?
*[An article that I now can’t find gave a good intuitive ananlogy. If you need to have 5/10 competence points to get into a profession and stereotypes mean that you are percceived as 2 points less competent, then the minimum level for a member of the stereotyped group will be 7/10. ]
LikeLiked by 1 person
The flaw in that argument is that the perception gap would have to disappear after entry. That is, we’d have to assume that a woman with 7 points is only perceived as having 5 when she’s being hired, but that once she’s considered for promotion, she is correctly perceived as having 7 points. That seems a rather optimistic assumption. If it were true, we’d also expect that women in traditionally male professions would be promoted disproportionately to their numbers. That doesn’t seem to be an actual phenomenon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Precisely. For a women in STEM, every new meeting with men is *another episode* where you are assumed incompetent until you prove otherwise. It’s a burden men do not carry to the same degree.
LikeLike
@veronica: Every? That seems rather hyperbolic, at least from my observations. Admittedly my field is less heavily male than most of STEM.
LikeLike