Occupational gender segregation--the tendency for women and men to work in different occupations--is an important feature of all societies, and particularly the wealthy industrialized ones. To understand this segregation, and to explain its significance, we need to distinguish between vertical segregation entailing inequality and horizontal segregation representing difference without inequality, with overall segregation being the resultant of these components. Three major theoretical approaches to understanding occupational gender segregation are examined: human capital/rational choice, patriarchy, and preference theories. All are found to be inadequate; they tend to confuse overall segregation with its vertical component, and each entails a number of other faults. It is generally assumed or implied that greater empowerment of women would reduce gender segregation. This is the reverse of what actually happens; in countries where the degree of women's empowerment is greater, the level of gender segregation is also greater. An alternative theoretical approach based on processes of social reproduction is shown to be more useful.

No abstract

No abstract

In this article I explore the theoretical and policy implications of direct state intervention into the constitution of corporate boards as a means to addressing institutional gender injustice. I consider the work of three prominent thinkers on affirmative action and institutional injustice, Ronald Dworkin, Anne Phillips and Iris Marion Young, and present an argument in favour of a specific form of state-administered female quota model which I shall call the Critical Mass Marker approach. I argue that this is a more refined and effective approach to institutional gender injustice than current affirmative action models.