Yet More about sexism and division of labor

[cindysphynx]

David asked:

>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?

Well, you know, I'm no *expert* or anything, but I'll take a shot at 
this.  I think that "sexism" (assumptions about the abilities and 
inherent traits of women) led to the belief that women are best 
suited for certain things:  schoolteacher, nurse.  If you take 50% 
of the population and limit them to just a few occupations like 
these, there won't be much scarcity in these fields.  In fact, you 
will hardly have to pay people in these occupations anything at all, 
as they have nowhere else to go.

So I think women (and racial minorities) were forced into 
underappreciated positions (based at least in part on sexist or 
racist assumptions or beliefs).

Although . . . I really have no idea, and I'm just guessing, and I 
fully expect to be set straight by someone who knows what they're 
talking about.  ;-)


I wrote:

> > 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?
> > 

David asked:

> 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.
 
Ah, but I was challenging the idea that encouraging women to move to 
traditionally male occupations will have a net effect of *reducing* 
the respect women receive.  So even if society decides doctors are 
no longer worthy of respect now that the job is being done by women, 
we still don't have a net effect of a *reduction* in the respect 
women receive, right?  In this hypothetical, the women are trying to 
hit a moving target, to be sure, but they are no *worse* off than 
they when they were all nurses.  

Actually, I was thinking more about why I'm not too happy about the 
idea that arbitrary gender restrictions on occupational choice are 
not especially troublesome if they do not favor one gender over the 
other.    

Not too long ago, there were laws in the U.S. prohibiting 
interracial marriage between whites and blacks.  These laws applied 
to both races equally, didn't they?  These laws didn't favor or 
advantage one race over another or even one individual over 
another.  Everyone's choice of a mate was restricted:  a white who 
wanted to marry a black was just as constrained as a black who 
wanted to marry a white.  Nevertheless, these laws were struck down 
because of their inherent racism -- they limited opportunity based 
on race, despite their "equal application" to all citizens.  

So it seems to me that whether an arbitrary law or rule "favors" one 
gender or race over another isn't the end of the analysis at all.  
In the case of arbitrary gender rules, the restriction itself is 
offensive and objectionable, even if the restriction applies to both 
genders equally and results in no favoritism at all.

Cindy (who was pondering this debate while mowing the lawn)