Yet More about sexism and division of labor

[davewitley]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> And it also says that, in my experience, there are many 
> traditionally female roles that haven't been valued all that much 
by 
> society (using the measures I mentioned above, such as pay, status, 
> stability) -- which suggests that society has long been sending a 
> message that traditionally female roles aren't valued all that 
> much.  Many traditionally female roles *were* underappreciated, and 
> many traditionally female roles *still are* underappreciated, IMO.  
> So perhaps the focus on women achieving in traditionally male roles 
> hasn't changed society's message about traditionally female roles 
> all that much.

Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?  Were the roles 
underappreciated because done by women, or were women forced to do 
the underappreciated roles?
> 
Cindy again:
> 
> Let's say 100% of women used to be nurses, and this traditional 
> female role was accorded little respect.  Now only 50% of women are 
> nurses, and 50% have moved on to the traditionally male occupation 
> of doctor.  How is there a net effect of a reduction in the respect 
> women receive?
> 
That depends on how public perception works.  Either women doctors 
will get respect, or doctors generally will lose respect on the 
grounds that they are women.  The men will then leave.

It gets most interesting with those jobs where the *work* is 
identical but there is a different perception based on gender.  What 
exactly is the difference between a cook and a chef?  

David