THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF SOCIOLOGY NAN HUA UNIVERSITY THE CHANGE OF SEX OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION A CASE STUDY ON COSMETICIANS GRADUATE STUDENTYANG CHUNG-HUA ADVISTORPH.D. YANG CHING-LI
Title of ThesisThe Change of Sex Occupational SegregationA Case Study on Cosmeticians Name of InstituteSociology, Nan Hua University Graduate datejune 2003 Name of studentyang Chung-Hua Degree ConferredM.S. AdvisorPh.D. Yang Ching-Li Abstract Due to inherence of sex and cultural construction of gender. Men and women usually voluntarily or compulsorily choose jobs embedded to gender-stereotype. Those choices has not only enforced the gender-stereotype in labor force market but also created occupational segregation. Nowadays, there are more and more people participating jobs against gender-stereotype: not only for women s selection on men s job, inverse trend also sparkled in recent years. In the past, most related studies focused on female workers experiences of entering men s work. This thesis discusses the contrary path: men goes into women s work. A case study of cosmetician is presented. Three questions are answered by this thesis: (1) How male cosmeticians influence the content of the job? (2) Would the entrance of male cosmeticians create more hierarchic positions and occupy the higher position? (3) What are the challenges and adaptive strategies for male cosmeticians? This issue discuses former topics by qualitative research method. And we try to understand the options that malesfemalescorporations and customers have. We mainly use in-deep interview and use second data as the collection method. The Result shows that the change of the conservative notion and the enlightenment of the community. Furthermore there are more and more styles of cosmetics came from Europe and America. That not only increases the working opportunities for males but also makes more males entering the cosmetic occupation. Because male cosmeticians just emerge these years, it doesn t cause notable effects on the cosmetic ecological field. And there are no signs show that males entering the cosmetic occupation can raise the occupational prestige or make occupation
revaluation. But this phenomenon still causes two effects. One is de-femininity. That reverses the idea of occupational sex labeling; another is good competition. That offers the stimulations to females. Besides, there are three motivations for males to devote themselves to the job. First, interest the main reason male cosmeticians entry the work. Second, personal characteristic which the condition they wants. Last but not least, the change of occupational structure and older social opinions. After entering the cosmetics occupation, males don t get better treatment not only on their job content but wage. But, the gender makes them catch customers attention easily. Entirely, customers accept the male cosmeticians easily but it differences by area or age. At the same time, we saw the male cosmeticians have followers. This differs from female. There still are some embarrassing situations. For instance, female feels embarrass because of their service. Although the gender brings some advantages or shortcomings, they still work on it by job satisfaction and fulfillment. Totally, effects of structural factors and occupational achievements on the cosmetic occupation aren t very large; the personal characteristic is the main factor. Keywordsgender-stereotypesex occupational segregationthe choice of non-traditional occupationscosmeticians
........ 1 1 2 7 9 9 10 17 21 21 23 26 29 29 33 35 37 37.. 45 51
59 59 61 63. 65 69 73
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 7.1 1995 4 5 6 6 6 13 14 15 22 24 80-90.. 24 25 62
1 1997 gender-stereotype Bradley198947-49ReskinPadavic199418-19Hayghe1998 1997 sex occupational segregation male-dominated occupations female-dominated occupations Coventry199950 1970 Coventry199950
2 1970 1980 1 67.6 59.8 1990 53 Jacobs1989170 cosmeticians 1 index of sex occupational segregation n S 1/2 M I F i i =1 n M I i F i i
3 (induction) (statistical) (quantitative) 1. 2. 3.
4 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 snow ball bbs post 1.1 1995 84 84 83 154,693 14 1 1 63,738 16.1 2 2 55,136 24 3 6 54,948 2. 4 5 54,232 12 5 4 54,003 33.7 6 7 49,549 48 7 9 46,282-6.9 8 3 43,288 20 9 8 1996p.541
5 1 2 5 3 2 bbs 7 2 5 1.2 2 3 1.2 A1. 50 30 A2. 39 10 A3. 29 6 A4. 28 89 A5. 39 12 A6. 25 4 A7. 28 4
6 1.3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 * 1 1.4 C1 C2 C3 1.5 D1 25 D2 25
7
8 2 EL bobbi brown CDM.A.COriginsX.A.CSisley Sonia Rykiel
9 Bradley198929 1996Reskin and Padavic 199415-19 60 80 20 30 Bradley198928-29 1996 Bradley198929 1996 Bradley198930-31
10 1996 19 Bradley198939-40 Clark and Ehrenreich Bradley198941 (sex occupational segregation)
11 Birkelund199248-49Watts1998489 198763 1970 Jacobs1989Coventry1999 Reskin(1993245-246) 1910 1970 69 67.6 sex labeling male-dominated occupations female-dominated occupations neutral-dominated occupations devalue dual labor market theory 198765 1996152Anker1997319 horizontal segregation vertical segregation 1999 2001Anker1997325
12 gender theory human capital theory market discrimination 1987 2001 1999 1996 Olson1990Anker1997 gender sex gender 199718 3 2.1 3 2000
13 1998 2000Wood1999 2.1 2.1 2000 286 Wood 1999364 2003
14 Anker199720-22Cejka and Eagly1999 Anker1997316-317 2.2 1978 1990 2002 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2003 2.3
15 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002 2003 Wood1999 occupational gender-stereotyping Gatton Dubois and Faley1999568 Pierre HerendeenMooreNagle1994GattonDuboisFaley1999 / GattonDuboisFaley1999568
16 1996154 199720 statistical discrimination 199938Olson1990162 group data 4 rationally Olson1990162 / theory of gender organization 199720-22 20015 GattonDubois and Faley1999569 / 4 group data Paulette Olson1990
17 2001 1900 Jacobs1989 161 1910 1970 69 67.6 2 Reskin1993245-246 1970 Jacobs1989 171Jacobsen1994154-155Greenwood1999341Coventry199947 Rosenfeld and Spenner1992Coventry1999 Rosenfeld and Spenner1992 425 masculinity image Bradley199315-16
18 1970 20 1999 20 1995 1-3 1996 2 1999 Jacobsen1994 Woodland1995Lazarsky1999Glass1990779-782 Bradley199317-24 infiltration 5 invasion 6 takeover 7 5 infiltration 6 invasion 7 takeover
19 Bradley1993William1993 30 1995 1996 42 52 6070 GDP 40 75 47.1 76 GDP GDP 46-48 76 50 84 60 90 67.2 199640
20 76 1553 90 708 6070 80 90 5298 67 24.92 7.55 35 80 84 50 57
21
22 MISASA KANEBO SHISEDO SHU UEMURA IPSA KOSE CLARINS YSL GIVENCHY CARITA BIOTHERM HR LANCOME ORLANE GUERLAIN CHANEL ELIZABETH ARDEN CLINQUE BORGHESE ESTEE LAUDER BOBBI BROWN M.A.C. ORIGINS X.A.C CHRISTIAN DIOR SISLEY SONIA RYKIEL MAX. FACTOR
23 Bobbi Brown ESTEE LAUDER M.A.C. Christian Dior 3.2 8 9
24 97 3 Total 88 3579597.54 9022.46 36697100 89 3221797.06 9772.94 33194100 90 3003796.45 11043.55 31141100 Total 0 0 0 Total 117599.83 20.17 1177100 12108799.367800.64121867100 12226299.367820.64123044100 10 http://www.evta.gov.tw/
25 3.4 40 SONIA RYKIEL CHRISTIAN DIOR X.A.C 1 2 BOBBI BROWN M.A.C. 13 5 10 / 1. X.A.C/ 2 2. ESTEE LAUDER 7 3. BOBBI BROWN 11 4. M.A.C./ 16 5. ORIGINS 1 6. SISLEY 3 7. SONIA RYKIEL 8. CHRISTIAN DIOR 1 1
26 20 30 B1 B6 30 3 30 50 4 2 1 1
27 20 B1 A2
28 B2
29 1 2 3 D2 A3
30 B3
31
32 7 11 B1 B4
33 40
34 B8
35 Bradley199317-24 infiltration invasion takeover Bradley Bradley
36
37
38 D1 D2
39 11 A5 11 1987Cejka Eagly 1999416
40 A7 12 B1 12
41 1988 A2
42 A2 A4 A4 A2 A7
43 B4 B4 B2
44 B1
45 B1 B1 Truss Goffee Jones1995 2001 199855
46 13 A3 A5 13 line staff 19955
47 A3 A1 A1 B2 /
48
49 B3 30000-35000 B2 B3 B2
50 SHISEDO KANEBO SISLEY MAX FACTOR ESTEE LAUDER BOBBI BROWN M.A.C. 14
51 the choice of nontraditional occupation D1
52 D2 D2 199857-61
53 B1 A3 A3
54 D2 1
55 2 A5 D1
56
57 1990 A3 A3
58 A5
59 7 8 3 2 Bradley invasion takeover
60
61 7.1 15
62 7.1 68 5403 5970 80 12167 12404 69 5982 6164 81 14307 13965 70 8073 6292 82 18096 14586 71 8672 8068 83 19705 15962 72 8370 8631 84 21188 17949 73 8248 9017 85 22220 18005 74 7693 8561 86 22513 18119 75 7445 8506 87 22802 20202 76 7446 9018 88 24050 21335 77 7169 9473 89 25308 21526 78 8876 10381 90 23341 22438 79 11165 11425 91 23835 22884 2003
63
64
65 1995 226 65-112 1996 93 36-43 1987 1995 / 25-31 2001 26p163-210 2001 2000 23 285-312 1998
66 25 477-516 1998 5 99-105 1996 1999 () 255-297 1996 541 30-33 1996 1951-1995 5 147-176 1997 49 18-22 Anker, Richard 1997 Theories of occupational segregation by sex: an overview, International Labour Review, 1363, p 315-339. Birkelund, Gunn Elisabeth 1992 Stratification and segregation, Acta Sociologica, 351, p 47-62. Bradley, Harriet 1989 Men s workwomen s work, Polity Press. 1993 Across the Great DivideThe Entry of Into Women s Job, In C.L. WILLIAMS (Ed.), Doing Women s Work : Men in Nontraditional Occupations, p10-27, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
67 Cejka, Mary Ann and Eagly, Alice H. 1999 Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment, Personality and Social Psychology, 254, p413-424. Coventry, Barbara Thomas 1999Do Men Leave Feminizing Occupations, Social Science Journal, 361, p 47-71. Gatton, D. S, Dubois, C. L. Z, Faley, R. H 1999 The Effects of Organizational Context on Occupational Glass, Jennifer Gender-Stereotyping, Sex Roles, 40, p 567-582. 1990 The Impact of Occupational Segregation on Working Conditions, Social Forces, 683, p779-797. Greenwood, Adriana Mata 1999 Gender and jobs: Sex segregation of occupations in the world, Hayghe, H. V International Labour Review, 1383, p341-344. 1998 Women s Labor Force Participation, Family Economics and Nutrition Jacobs, Jerry A Review, 114, p55-56. 1989 Long-Term Trends in Occupational Segregation by Sex, The American Jacobsen, Joyce P Journal of Sociology, 951, p160-174. 1994 Sex segregation at work: Trends and predictions, Social Science Journal, Lazarsky, Mary G. H. 312, p153-168. 1999 Men s Work,Women Work : A Sociological History of the Sexual Olson, Paulette Division of Labour in Employment, Labor Studies Journal, p.69-70. 1989 The Persistence of Occupational Segregation: A Critique of Its Theoretical Underpinnings, Journal of Economic Issues, 241, p 161-171.
68 Pierre, R., St. Herendeen, N. M., Moore, D. S. Nagle, A. M. 1994 Does occupational stereotyping still exist, The Journal of Psychology, 128, p589-598. Reskin, Barbara 1993 Sex segregation in the workplace, Annual Review of Sociology,19, p 241-270. Reskin, B and Padavic, I. 1994 Women and Men at Work. Thousand Oak: Pine Forge Press. Rosenfeld, Rachel A. and Spenner, Kenneth I 1992 Occupational Sex Segregation and Women's Early Career Job Shifts, Work and Occupations, 194p 424-452. Truss, CatherineGoffee, Robert and Jones, Gareth 1995 Segregation Occupations and Gender StereotypingA Study of Secretarial Work in Europe, Human Relations, 4811, p1331-1354. Watts, Martin 1998 Occupational gender segregation: Index measurement and econometric modeling, Demography, 354, p 489-496. William, C.L. 1993 Doing Women s Work: Men in Traditional Occupations, Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications. Wood, Clare 1999 Gender and Choice in Education and Occupation, Gender and Education,113, p363-366. Woodland, Stephen 1995 Gender Segregation and Social Change: Men and Women in Changing Labour Markets, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 334, p692-694. http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/census~n/welcome.htm http://www.evta.gov.tw/ http://www.edu.tw/statistics/search/search.ht
69 / 1 a b 2 1 1 2 3 2 12 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3
70 4 / 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15000-20000 20000-25000 25000-30000 30000-35000 35000
71 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
72 1 2 3 4 /. 5 6 7 8 ex. 9 10 / 11 / 12
73
74 1 2