Women, careers, and work-life preferences

Abstract

There are no sex differences in cognitive ability but enduring sex differences in competitiveness, life goals, the relative emphasis on agency versus connection. Policy-makers' and feminist emphasis on equal opportunities and family-friendly policies assumes that sex discrimination is the primary source of sex differentials in labour market outcomes *notably the pay gap between men and women. However, some careers and occupations cannot be domesticated *examples are given *and this also poses limits to social engineering. Recent research shows that high levels of female employment and family-friendly policies reduce gender equality in the workforce and produce the glass ceiling. Preference theory is the only theory that can explain these new trends, the continuing pay gap and occupational segregation. Preference theory implies that there are at least three types of career rather than one. However, the differences between men and women's career goals are smaller than sometimes thought.Society is man-made [1], and human beings are malleable, in the sense of responding to incentives and sanctions, at least in the short run (Levitt & Dubner, 2005). It does not follow that social engineering [2] works on a completely blank slate (Pinker, 2002). Many differences between men and women that were believed to be fixed, and probably innate (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974), have recently been shown to be socially constructed and artificial. Most notably, once women gained access to higher education after the equal opportunities revolution, sex differences in cognitive abilities evaporated. Today, females regularly outperform males in educational qualifications obtained at secondary school level, especially during compulsory schooling (EOC & OFSTED, 1996). Sex differences in verbal, mathematical and spatial abilities have now shrunk to small and insignificant levels (Hyde, 1996). However, some sex differences remain unchanged*notably in attitudes to sexuality, and what is often labelled as 'aggression' but extends to and includes rivalry and competitiveness as well as physical violence (Dabbs, 2000; Hyde, 1996 p. 114; Archer, 2004). A widely admired book by Gilligan (1982) argues that there are important sex differences in moral judgements affecting behaviour, which are sometimes summarised as differing emphases on agency versus connection. Reviews

Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable

“…In contrast, women tend to be more motivated by affiliation-the desire for warm, close relationships with others (32). Reinforcing this point, in studies using samples of talented individuals, the life values and personal views of men and women have been found to differ (33), with men tending to assume a more agentic, career-focused perspective, whereas women generally favor a more communal, holistic perspective (34)(35)(36). These differing views seem to cause differences in how men and women allocate their time and attention (33).…”

Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations.

“…Whether the direct effects of biological sex on the brain, and hence on motivation/interests/activities and abilities, are a major contribution to the dearth of women in math-intensive fields, however, is unclear, hence, the paleness of the arrows marking these pathways. For example, if women are more home-centered and innately more interested in raising children (Hakim, 2006), then biological sex feeds directly into brain development/ functioning and hence into motivation/interests/activities, which in turn affect career status through life choices ( Figure A3 in the supplemental materials). It is possible, however, that any direct biological impact is small, with the bulk of the gender-interests relationship indirect, mediated by factors such as cultural expectations ( Figure A3 in the supplemental materials).…”

“…Available evidence points to a special fertility penalty for mothers of young children in getting promoted in some math-intensive fields (e.g., Ginther & Kahn, 2006, reported that women were 9.6% less likely than comparable men to get promoted to full professor in the physical sciences). Encouragingly, the "childbearing penalty" is probably the most malleable of the factors we considered: If society deemed it desirable to increase the representation of women, various strategies could be implemented (see Shalala et al, 2007), such as deferred start-up of tenure-track positions and part-time work that segues to full-time tenure track work when children are no longer in need of intensive care, designed flexibly to keep these women from opting out entirely, although one cannot assume that such changes will have the desired result if women disproportionately prefer home-centered and adaptive work lifestyles rather than single-minded commitment to career lifestyles (Hakim, 2006(Hakim, , 2007. Moreover, the viability of such a policy may vary from field to field, corresponding to the rate of knowledge obsolescence.…”

Gender stereotyping within career and technical education : exploring relationships among gender, coursetaking, and outcomes of high school CTE students.

“…From social role theory (Eagly, 1997) to circumscription and compromise (Gottfredson, 1981) to preference theory (Hakim, 2006) to tokenism (Kanter, 1977) to educational tracking (Ainsworth & Roscigno, 2005;Eardley & Manvell, 2006), there are no shortages of premises offered to explicate the problem and propose solutions. Although scholars remain divided on the cause, there is little dispute that gender segregation in the workforce is a genuine concern that warrants a resolution.…”

“…Whether or not men and women select careers based upon internal preferences (Evans & Diekman, 2009;Hakim, 2006) or if their choices are a byproduct of early gender socialization (Bussey & Bandura, 1999;Tobin et al, 2010) remains a healthy debate amongst scholars. Historically, early studies of gender were primarily concerned with understanding the differentiating behaviors and belief systems that separated males and females.…”