Indulging Our Gendered Selves? Sex Segregation by Field of Study in 44 Countries

Abstract

Data from 44 societies are used to explore sex segregation by field of study. Contrary to accounts linking socioeconomic modernization to a "degendering" of public-sphere institutions, sex typing of curricular fields is stronger in more economically developed contexts. The authors argue that two cultural forces combine in advanced industrial societies to create a new sort of sex segregation regime. The first is gender-essentialist ideology, which has proven to be extremely resilient even in the most liberal-egalitarian of contexts; the second is self-expressive value systems, which create opportunities and incentives for the expression of "gendered selves." Multivariate analyses suggest that structural features of postindustrial labor markets and modern educational systems support the cultivation, realization, and display of gender-specific curricular affinities.

Preferences, constraints, and the process of sex segregation in college majors: A choice analysis

“…Despite this fact, our results suggest that gender differences in occupational choice are mostly due to differences in preferences. Our study is thus consonant with recent calls for understanding educational choices as expressive assertions of identity, and not solely as instances of instrumental action (Charles and Bradley, 2009;Frye, 2012;Cech, 2014). Coding based on the survey question "What subjects have you enrolled for?…”

“…The conception of gendered choices as a form of expressive behavior is a crucial feature of the essentialism conjecture because it puts the theory in the position to provide a plausible explanation for the persistence of horizontal sex segregation despite seemingly countervailing egalitarian trends in liberalizing societies and to predict its continued importance in the future: In the highly individualistic cultural contexts prevalent in most affluent countries, essentialist segregation continues to be viewed as a legitimate form of inequality because it results from deliberate individual decisions rather than involuntary adaptation to external social or economic constraints (Grusky and Levanon, 2008;Charles and Bradley, 2009;Cech, 2014). The validity of this explanation and the prediction of stability, however, hinges on the crucial assumption that women's and men's choices indeed express different preferences rather than genderspecific constraints.…”

“…Based on the argument that sex segregation results from the "indulgence of gendered selves" (Charles and Bradley, 2009), rather than from normative or material constraints, scholars predict that sex segregation will stay at its current high levels because, in a culture that celebrates individual choice, sex segregation as a result of internalized preferences is regarded a legitimate form of inequality that does not conflict with principles of gender egalitarianism (Grusky and Levanon, 2008;Cech, 2014). In line with this argument, recent studies show that differences in men's and women's occupational and educational plans (Mann and DiPrete, 2013;Morgan et al, 2013) account for a large share of horizontal segregation in college.…”

Perceptions of the Social Relevance of Science: Exploring the Implications for Gendered Patterns in Expectations of Majoring in STEM Fields

“…Specifically, Charles and Bradley [27] argue that in contemporary Western societies such as the United States, egalitarian beliefs that all individuals should have equal opportunities in the public sphere, including access to education, exist alongside persistent cultural beliefs that men and women are essentially and fundamentally different [16,28]. Such beliefs are manifest in decisions such as the selection of a college major, where choices reflect societal beliefs about the types of work and activities for which men and women are each presumed to be differentially and innately suited to perform.…”

“…In doing so we build on insights from gender scholars [9,16,17] as well as those in science education [18][19][20], as each provides different predictions regarding the role of gender. Specifically, gender theories would predict that, consistent with dominant cultural beliefs about women's presumed innate preferences, perceptions of science as a domain that has broad applicability for improving human life would be much more important for influencing female students' decisions to enter STEM fields compared to male students.…”