Back
to WEEA Digest List
Gender Equity in Vocational Education
AUGUST 1992
Contents:
by Debra J. Robbin, Ed. M.
Vocational education has historically been characterized by a high degree
of sex segregation. Before Title IX of the Education Amendments in 1972
and the Vocational Education Act in 1976, access to nontraditional courses
as well as to some vocational schools was legally denied to females. These
barriers led male students to be concentrated in industrial and agricultural
education and females in home economics and entry level clerical occupations.
The passage of the Vocational Education Act in 1976 specifically addressed
sex equity programming in vocational education.1
Then, in 1984, the Carl Perkins Act gave equity work vital support by
providing funds for program development to eliminate sex-role stereotyping
in vocational education and to promote enrollments in nontraditional
career programs.2
Researchers have found that these early efforts to eliminate sex-role
stereotyping were somewhat successful in raising initial awareness of
the problem.3
Female enrollments did increase. There was still, however, considerable
lack of progress in the area of nontraditional enrollments.
From the "trenches"
In order to investigate if and how equity issues have shown themselves
in vocational education, I went to a vocational school to interview
students. The school I chose is a regional vocational technical high
school, and is located in the New England region. A working class community,
the area has suffered severe hardship from the economic recession, registering
an unemployment rate the second highest in the nation. The school offers
a range of programs, from appliance repair technology and carpentry
to data processing and electronics.
There are currently 1,088 males (64 percent of all the total) and 601
females (36 percent of all the total) enrolled. Of this number, 41,
or 2.4 percent of the students (all females) are considered to be in
nontraditional shops, which is well below the national average (13 percent)
of nontraditional student enrollment.4
I studied 103 students ranging from ages 14 to 17--34 females (33 percent)
and 69 males (67 percent).
The students speak
The students in this school generally agreed that their school environment
is equitable in a number of areas--in teachers expecting the same achievement
from males and females (75 percent agreed); in encouragement to enroll
based on one's abilities and interests (72 percent); in equal encouragement
to participate in athletic activities (75 percent); and in students'
right to enroll in any shop in the school (92 percent). Fewer students
thought that teachers treat males and females the same (55 percent).
Finally, few students felt that their junior high school guidance counselor
helped students consider a wide range of career choices, including nontraditional
(22 percent). The gender differences on these questions were not statistically
significant.
In terms of knowledge or interest in nontraditional careers, there
were both similarities and differences according to gender. While overall
only 18 percent have a family member working in a nontraditional career,
56 percent know someone in a nontraditional career. However, 47 percent
of the females and only 17 percent of the males were interested in learning
more about a nontraditional career.
In opinions about the "working world", there was a general
agreement among males and females that women work for the same reasons
that men work (64 percent agreed). A large portion of the students felt
that equal pay for equal work is not prevalent, showing they know at
least one of the consequences of occupational segregation. Only 30 percent
overall felt that men and women in the same job earn the same pay.
Despite the similarities in these results, there were striking differences
in opinions about the roles of females and males in the workplace. While
64 percent of the students believed that sexual harassment is a serious
problem for many women, 82 percent of the females felt this way compared
with 55 percent of the males. Thirty-six percent overall thought that
only men should work on construction sites because they are stronger,
but this broke down to only 12 percent of the females, compared with
48 percent of the males. And although 44 percent of the students felt
that there are some jobs only men should do, only 21 percent of the
females held this view compared with 55 percent of the males.
While only 23 percent overall felt that women should not work when
they have small children, 15 percent of the females felt this way, compared
with 28 percent of the males.
Twenty-four percent of the males thought that more men should work
in nursing, childcare, and clerical jobs, compared with 56 percent of
the females (34 percent overall). Although only 21 percent considered
the men the primary breadwinners "so women don't need to earn as
much," only 9 percent of the females thought this, compared with
28 percent of the males.
There was general agreement among males and females concerning career
plans. Eighty-nine percent planned to have a career, with 77 percent
planning to combine this with a family. Seventy-eight percent viewed
their career as a way to use and develop their skills and 79 percent
felt their families would support them in whatever career they chose.
However, when asked if their family encouraged them to explore different
career possibilities, 62 percent overall said they did--but only 52
of the males reported this support, compared with 82 percent of the
females.
A broader picture
Although the students in this school felt it equitable in terms of
expectations, enrollment, and encouragement in athletic activities,
one must carefully weigh these perceptions with other evidence. We have
numerous studies that have indicated considerable differences in the
ways in which males and females are treated in schools.5
I feel that the students are limited in their ability to make this
assessment. Their youth, inexperience in critiquing their educational
environment along gender lines, and lack of exposure to other models
of vocational education are all factors that may have elicited these
responses. Whether or not a student is in a nontraditional shop can
also affect how these issues are perceived. In talking with the school's
nontraditional support group - a group that meets weekly to share strategies
and resources for increasing the girls' participation in nontraditional
careers--I heard views that expressed a somewhat different experience,
especially in terms of achievement expectations.
There is tremendous societal pressure against men doing what are considered
"feminine" jobs. That there is a sizeable majority of males
in the school and none in the nontraditional shops such as childcare,
suggests subtle pressures not to violate the "norm". There
was very mixed feeling among the students on whether men should even
work in these areas. Often, in discussing nontraditional occupations,
we place more emphasis on encouraging women rather than men, because
these jobs pay better. But income is not the sole reason for advocating
equity, and it is important to remember the benefits of promoting flexibility
of sex-roles and reducing sex-role stereotyping on the whole.
I found that the female students feel strongly and positively that
they have a significant role in the working world. They are not advocates
of occupational segregation, despite many of them having chosen traditional
shops in this school. This was, in some respects, a surprising finding
for me. Although further study is needed to explain what motivates both
males and females to attend a vocational high school, it may be that
males and females have different reasons for obtaining the skills they
are studying in vocational school. Without doubt, these students are
aware that they are learning an employable skill.
Students generally felt that the hardest part of choosing to enroll
in a nontraditional shop was the peer pressure one would have to endure.
The most common comment was that other students would laugh. Though
the nontraditional students I met did not mention this kind of treatment
specifically, they did indicate that it was an isolating experience
and that they did not feel generally accepted.
The issue of sexual harassment must also be dealt with. There were
significant differences in whether males and females defined sexual
harassment as a serious problem. In an open-ended question asking for
"the best way to deal with sexual harassment," many students
answered, "Tell someone" or "Report it." However,
several males, but no females, answered with the comments such as "leave
the job," "avoid it," or "don't bother with it,"
indicating a stronger belief that harassment is easy to eliminate or
that leaving one's job is an option for most women.
In conducting this project, I had the support, openness, and interest
of the superintendent, the head of guidance counseling, the head of
academic instruction, and the nontraditional guidance counselor. They
have also decided to have their first inservice on these issues. It
is my hope that their interest will continue and expand.
The road ahead
Despite the fact that women workers make up 45 percent of the U.S.
labor force, more than three-quarters of them are employed in traditionally
female-dominated occupations.6
Our vocational schools begin to model this early.
This investigation provided useful information on students' perceptions
of their environment and their choices. Much of the significant results,
and where much research is still to be done, lie in those responses
that showed substantial gender differences.
Rebecca Douglass has cited the lack of research in vocational education
as a major obstacle to developing quality educational strategies. She
has also pointed to the need to look beyond legal compliance when working
to improve vocational education.7
With supporting legislation now in place, educators must continue to
move programs toward their potential of promoting positive and empowering
role models for both females and males.
A graduate of the masters program at the Harvard Graduate
School of Education, Debra J. Robbin has been active in women's issues
for the past 15 years.
Notes
- American Association of University Women, Vocational Education:
Equity in the Making? (Washington, D.C.: American Association
of University Women, 1988), 2.
- American Association of University Women.
- Rebecca S. Douglass, "Access to Quality Vocational Education:
A Sex Equity Perspective," Design Papers for the National
Assessment of Vocational Education (1987): II-32.
- Judy A. Beck, Step by Step: Educational Equity Options Project
(Washington, D.C.: Wider Opportunities for Women, 1989), 2.
- Myra Sadker and David Sadker, Sex Equity Handbook for Schools,
2d ed. (New York: Longman, 1982); Katherine Hanson and Sundra Flansburg,
Empowerment education: The WEEA Program and Its Lessons for the
National Educational Goals (Newton, Mass.: Education Development
Center, 1990, unpublished); Beverly A. Stitt, Building Gender Fairness
in Schools (Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press, 1988); and Elinor
Horowitz, "Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America,"
American Association of University Women Outlook 85 (April-May
1991); 16-19.
- Beck.
- Douglass.
by Sundra Flansburg
Center for Equity and Cultural Diversity
Reform agendas and strategies for improving education in the U.S. have
not generally focused on vocational education as an integral part of
the education picture. Many of the challenges vocational educators are
grappling with, however, are very similar to those being faced by reformers
looking at other areas of our education system.
The equity lens
The changing demographics of our citizenry are forcing us to examine
how well our educational system serves those who are not white, middle-class
males, as well as how changing workforce needs should be addressed within
schools. Vocational education in particular has seen two decades of
legislative efforts designed to increase access and expand the definition
of vocational education.
This article will highlight some of equity issues being raised in the
larger educational reform discussions, and note some of the implications
of these issues within vocational education. By beginning to examine
some of these critical issues, we can begin to develop new approaches
to vocational education that benefit all of our students.
Role of the teacher
For over two decades we have known that teachers, like the rest of
us, have learned well the biases present in our dominant culture. This
fact has been reaffirmed in How Schools Shortchange Girls, a recent
study by the American Association of University Women.1
Vocational teachers are subject to the same messages about who is most
"able" and who has little promise.
Although most teachers don't consciously act on, or even hold, biases
about students determined by their skin color or gender, students do
pick up unconscious signals and perform according to teachers' expectations
of them. Researchers Myra Sadker and David Sadker have found a hierarchy
at work in the classroom, with white males receiving the most attention
from teachers, and females of color receiving the least, and this while
the teachers studied felt they treated their students equitably.2
Tracking and ability grouping
Tracking of students by academic ability, although widely used across
the United States, has been criticized by reformers and equity advocates
alike. Although this issue is larger than this article, some major criticisms
have been that students of color are disproportionately placed in the
lower tracks. The criticism of racial segregation within tracking is
supported by the fact that the practice of tracking students gained
favor widely only after 1954 desegregation order from the Supreme Court.3
Rather than helping students placed in lower tracks build skills, this
approach relegates them to failure. In fact, the system does not improve
performance of lower and average tracked students, and only improves
performance of higher tracked students by a small fraction, in any.
While the standardized tests often used to separate students by "ability"
are biased against females, males of color, and low-income students,
these tests are one of the primary instruments used to determine tracking
position. This, coupled with unconscious bias in teacher perceptions,
means that placement in tracks cannot be free from the biases and prejudices
of the dominant culture.
Historically vocational education has been part of this tracking system,
with "high ability" students placed into the college preparatory
track, and students who were assumed couldn't "make it" academically
placed in vocational education or general education. Many vocational
schools are still fighting the image that their students are less intelligent
and that "smart" students can't benefit from vocational instruction.
It's clear that the answer to addressing students' needs lies not in
more extensive tracking systems as some educators propose,4
but in making our instruction equitable, accessible, and intellectually
challenging to students with varying learning styles and abilities.
"Special" students
Much of the recent legislation affecting vocational education the Vocational
Education Act of 1963, the Education Amendments of 1968, the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975,
the Education Amendments of 1976, and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
Education Act of 1984 has contained provisions for eliminating discrimination
against certain populations of students, including females, low-income
students, students with disabilities, and students of color. This legislation
has been important for opening the doors for students not traditionally
well served by vocational education (as it has been within the larger
educational structure).
Much of the literature that focuses on vocational education and select
populations looks at females and at students with disabilities. Research
on females has highlighted a number of areas related to vocational education
that require immediate and continuing attention, for example, sex-segregation
of class enrollment, sex-biased assessments and counseling, sexual harassment
within the school, and others. Several of these issues are discussed
in other articles within this issue.
Other research looks at students with mental and physical disabilities.
This attention is partially the result of federal legislative requirements,
as well as the fact that many students with disabilities are tracked
into vocational education. Studies have shown that vocational training
helps to ease the transition between school and work for disabled students.
But female students with disabilities face hurdles both because of
their gender and because of their disabilities. A recent study by researcher
Mary Wagner found that young women with disabilities do not receive
either the same quality or quantity of vocational education as male
students with disabilities. For example, vocational training for female
students with disabilities falls mainly in the low-paying service sectors,
like food service and office work, while that for male students with
disabilities falls mainly in skilled professions, like construction.
This segregation may lock females with disabilities into a cycle of
poverty and dependence. Indeed, the study found that only 1 percent
of employed women with disabilities earned more than $6 an hour (compared
to 11 percent of employed men with disabilities).5
Finally, recent studies have shown that students who speak languages
other than English are increasing in number within the vocational education
system, although these students are still under represented. The Carl
Perkins Act stipulates that vocational schools must actively recruit,
counsel, assess, and provide support services for students who have
little or no English. While many new approaches are now being tested
to meet this legislative requirement, many schools are still not in
compliance.6
We also need to look beyond the formal curriculum, to the "informal"
curriculum in our schools. This informal curriculum includes activities
and benefits not in the formal, or "written down" curriculum,
but that are available to and benefit some students. For instance, are
African American females as likely to receive mentoring from teachers
as white, male students? What about school assistance in job placements
after graduation? Or access to after-school jobs through teachers connections
with their field? In addition, are there other supports we can put in
place that will both encourage and support racial and ethnic minorities?
Would the formation of a support group for female students in nontraditional
courses help encourage and support young women exploring these fields?
Answers to these kinds of questions are vital as we consider how to
make vocational education truly equitable.
While schools may still be working as if large groups of students are
"special" students, they are, in fact, the majority of students
in our schools. Hopefully, as we move to ensure that instruction, services,
and benefits are equally available and accessed by all groups of students,
we need no longer consider them as "special."
Counseling and assessment
Interest and skill assessment is part of every student's entry into
vocational school. And, although it is now illegal to use the assessment
materials that differ by gender, a practice which was popular prior
to Title IX and the Vocational Education Act of 1976,7
assessment still depends on the assessor's interpretation of data and
on the student's interests. Students respond to the many unconscious
signals sent by assessors and through the materials they are shown.
If the information they are given about courses shows only males in
small engine repair and the assessor and/or materials use the pronoun
"he" when discussing student requirements, most girls will
be unwilling to even consider such a course.
In terms of counseling, research has shown that, compared to adolescent
male, adolescent females were aware of many fewer occupations open to
them, and they had lower expectations for their probability of succeeding
in them.8 We must
work very hard to ensure that all students are aware of the possibilities
open to them, and that it is students' abilities and interests that
decide their course of study rather than biases of the school and society.
One of the ten policy recommendations in a report by the National Center
for Research in Vocational Education is that "school counselors
must . . . '[lean] over backward' to avoid being influenced by stereotypes
that pervade the entire culture when they offer educational and labor
market advice to young women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds."9
Student self-segregation
Although schools no longer have different requirements based on gender
or race, vocational education remains one of the most segregated areas
of education. Females make up more than 90 percent of the students in
programs for training in nursing assistants, cosmetology, and secretarial
training. Males make up over 90 percent of the students in electrical
technology, electronics, appliance repair, auto mechanics, carpentry,
welding, and small engine repair. The division concentrates females
in training for fields with low pay, while males were in courses with
more high-paying job opportunities.10
There is also a substantial difference when transferability and career
ladders are examined. One of the discussions currently taking place
within vocational education concerns the questions of whether vocational
instruction should be training students for a specific job, or in broader
job skills that are more readily transferable. This issue takes on particular
significance when considered in terms of the segregation now in place.
A student trained in electronics has more chance for transferring skills
to another job, as well as advancement in the workplace, than someone
who is trained in cosmetology.
Although on the surface students are, for the most part, selecting
the areas they are interested in, students do not operate in a vacuum.
For many of the same reasons female students self-select out of math
and science courses, students often pick programs that place them in
traditional, sex-segregated classes. The reasons females tend to select
female-dominated courses span the range from wanting to be with their
friends to experiencing sexual harassment when trying nontraditional
classes. Additionally, students seem to self-segregate in response to
issues already raised here-teacher expectations, tracking, and counseling.
Another key reason is lack of female teachers as role models for young
women. Female instructors are concentrated in traditionally female job
areas, while making up less than 10 percent of all the teachers in industrial
arts, agriculture, trade and industry, and technical occupations. And
teachers of color are significantly under represented among vocational
school faculty.11
While the lack of role models for students of color overall, and for
females in nontraditional courses, does not automatically exclude them,
many students feel more enthusiasm for trying something new when they
see "someone like me" as a classroom leader.
Educators need to actively encourage students to explore new areas
and support students who try nontraditional programs. Educators concerned
with the gender distribution among courses have found that by talking
to girls realistically about job opportunities, advancement, and salaries,
girls become much more interested in exploring nontraditional areas.
At the same time, however, we need to create a supportive, accepting
behavior on the part of male students. Without focusing on this, many
classrooms may remain unfriendly to female students.
Making vocational education equitable
Educational administrators and teachers can do much to change the inequities
that now exist. By placing equitable education as a priority within
schools and school systems, the visibility of this problem will be raised.
Training programs that have proven effectiveness are already available
to help change this pattern (GESA-Gender/Ethnic Expectations and Student
Achievement-is but one).12
And individual teachers who seek additional training on their own should
not only be supported, but rewarded for making a positive contribution
to school climate.
Vocational education is entering a challenging and exciting period,
when big questions are being asked, and new approaches proposed. As
vocational educators discuss and evaluate the directions to go looking
at issues such as the relationship they have with traditional schools,
whether or not students should be encouraged to mix vocational and academic
courses, how to prepare and support teachers-the equity issue must remain
central to the discussion. Many of these issues take on new light, and
sometimes new urgency, when considered in terms of how they affect different
kinds of students.
Notes
- Wellesley College Center for Research on Women, The AAUW Report:
How Schools Shortchange Girls (Washington, D.C.: The AAUW Educational
Foundation, 1992).
- Myra Sadker and David Sadker, Sex Equity Handbook for Schools,
2d ed. (New York: Longman, 1982), 105.
- Kenneth J. Meier, Joseph Stewart, Jr., and Robert E. England, Race,
Class, and Education: The Politics of Second-Generation Discrimination
(Madison, Wisc.: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 24.
- Gerald D. Cheek, "The Secondary Vocational Program,"
in Vocational Education in the 1990s: Major Issues, ed. by Albert
J. Pautier, Jr. (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Prakken, 1990), 57.
- Mary Wagner, "Being Female: A Secondary Disability?"
(Menlo Park: SRI International, 1992), cited in "Disabled Women
Don't Receive Enough Voc Ed, Study Says," Vocational Training
News 23, no. 18 (April 30, 1992): 3.
- J. E. Friedenberg, The Condition of Vocational Education for
Limited English-Proficient Persons in Selected Areas of the United
States (Columbus, Ohio: National Center for Research in Vocational
Education, 1987), cited in Jeanne Lopez-Valadez, "Training Limited
English Proficient Students for the Workplace: Trends in Vocational
Education," New Focus: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education 11 (Summer 1989): 2.
- Barbara A. Bitters, "Sex Equity in Vocational Education,"
in Sex Equity in Education: Readings and Strategies, ed. by
Anne O'Brien Carelli (Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1988),
232.
- C. J. Farris, Expanding Adolescent Role Expectations (Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University, 1978), cited in Sex Equity in Education:
Readings and Strategies, ed. by Anne O'Brien Carelli (Springfield,
Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1988), 232.
- Paul B. Campbell, Karen S. Basinger, Mary Beth Dauner, and Marie
A. Parks, "Outcomes of Vocational Education for Women, Minorities,
the Handicapped, and the Poor") Columbus, Ohio: The National
Center for Research in Vocational Education, Ohio State University,
1986), 110.
- Helen S. Farmer and Joan Seliger Sidney, with Barbara A. Bitters
and Martine G. Brizius, "Sex Equity in Career and Vocational
Education," in Handbook for Achieving Sex Equity Through Education,
ed. by Susan S. Klein (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1985).
- National Center for Education Statistics, "Sex and Racial/Ethnic
Characteristics of Full-Time Vocational Education Instructional Staff,
Report no. NCES-82-207B, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Services, 1982), cited in Wellesley College, 43
- GrayMill Consulting, 2029 352nd Place, Earlham, IA 50072; 515-834-2431.
by Susan Eisenberg
Tradeswomen Research and Education Project
The following article gives one woman's perspective on nontraditional
occupations. It offers vocational educators and important view of life
after vocational school.
I remember the first time I heard my business agent refer to us as
"Pioneers of the Industry." It was ten years ago, when I was
a third-year apprentice electrician. It made me feel incredibly affirmed
and claimed, as though, finally, our presence was accepted. As a phrase
that's still being used for women entering the construction trades in
the 1990s, though, "pioneer" has an uncomfortable tone. By
its nature, pioneering is meant to be transitional, a role one moves
on from.
National affirmative action guidelines opened the building trades to
women in 1978. If we look at the definition of pioneer--"those
who clear and prepare the way for the main body"--after 12 years
we have to say that the "main body" has yet to arrive, much
less be heard coming down the road.
Let's take a leap and claim this new decade as a time to put pioneering
behind us. We have cleared and recleared the same land enough times.
Women entering the trades today need to be seen as settlers.
Let's take a look for a moment at the early history and where we expected
to be by now. This is important because a lot of explaining and justifying
is going on, since things didn't happen according to plan.
Statistics, compliance, goals
In April 1978, in response to lawsuits filed by tradeswomen in Washington,
D.C., within a climate created by a strong women's movement, Jimmy Carter
extended the Executive Order 11246 of the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs to set national job goals for women on federally
funded construction projects over $10,000. These standards were progressive,
increasing every year, so that by 1981, 6.9 percent of the workers on
these job sites were to be female. These goals were meant as beginning
figures, as a way to open up the industry with a wedge where the
federal government could exert pressure. That support was pivotal and
is something we must fight to keep or institute. Most important, Title
29 of the Apprenticeship Regulations of 1978 stipulated that apprenticeship
slots were to be filled by women in numbers equal to half their representation
in the local labor force, or that approximately one-quarter of every
class be female.
Let's stop and do a little math, and we'll appreciate how important
training program statistics are. Imagine that for the past 12 years
the federal regulations had been effectively monitored. If 25 percent
of the apprentices since 1978 had been women (and if we assume a 30-year
rotation of the industry work force) then today there would already
be over 8 percent of women in every trade nationally, with the assurance
that, in twenty more years, women would make up 25 percent of the trades.
Instead of 25 percent, only 3.8 percent of the apprentices since 1978
have been female, so that after 12 years, women make up less than 2
percent of the industry work force. Proceeding at this pace, in 20 more
years--after 30 years of "clearing and preparing the way"--we
would reach 4 percent nationally. We would never reach a critical mass,
the size of settlement that can sustain organization and become comfortable.
It's not hard to figure out that without the tradeswomen population
growing to an acceptably significant size, isolation increases, and
aging pioneers begin to look for more comfortable surroundings.
Temporary isolation, longtime frustration
We entered the industry in 1978 with the reasonable expectation that
our isolation was temporary. For each woman currently in the trade,
three other women belong here as well--not by feminist fantasy, but
by federal regulation. What a different-and more appropriate-discussion
we could be having now if 8 percent of the trained work force were already
women, and we were on a clear path moving forward.
Population forecasters are estimating that only 10 percent of new
U.S. workers in the year 2000 will be white males. By power of numbers,
of who will make up the working population-larger numbers of minorities,
of immigrants, or women working outside the home-it is predicted that
the construction industry will be drastically changed in composition
by gender and race within a decade.
How do we reconcile these two opposite predictions? This is where ideology
and history play a crucial role. On the one hand, I have said that,
continuing at the present rate, women will only achieve 2 or 3 percent
by 2000. On the other hand, I stated that, no matter how much we are
opposed, women will be entering the industry in significant numbers
by 2000. The entrance of women into the work force can occur in one
of two ways. Either we unlock this stalling on women's entry into skilled
and higher paid positions in the trades and really integrate the work
force, which means not just in numbers, but in a more inclusive work
environment, or we follow the other plan, introducing a lot of hierarchies
into the work, segregating it internally, with women and other workers
of color in the least organized, least skilled, least safe, lower-paid
end. We have to make sure that doesn't happen.
I think we'll find that all explanations both of women's historical
absence in the trades and the current low percentages break down into
four basic arguments: (1) women are not able to do the work;
(2) women just don't seem interested in making $25/hour; (3)
women haven't been allowed to enter or consider entering the occupations;
or (4) women shouldn't be allowed to do this work which belongs
by right to men. The first explanations quickly fold into the last.
Ultimately, either one believes that women have a right to be here and
have been unfairly kept out, or one believes that women don't have a
right to be here and should be kept out.
From "Rosie" to today's worker
Looking back to the 1940s can give us a sense of the roots of opposition
to women's integration into the trades. Relying on women's labor to
keep the industrial war effort going during World War II, the government
was forced to admit and propagandize women's ability and desire to do
nontraditional work. What the government refused to acknowledge was
women's right to that work. Women were supposedly holding jobs
for returning soldiers. More than 30 years after trained, skilled women
were fired from their nontraditional jobs, affirmative action guidelines
violated traditional ideology that reserves first choice of jobs to
white males and said that women belonged there, not to save someone
else's place, but to finally fill their own place at a job with decent
pay and benefits
When six female apprentices entered my union local of 2,500 members
in 1978, there was enormous agitation, comments like, "The women
are taking over!" as though the six of us were a full-scale invasion
force. At the time, I found the hysteria bizarre, but now I think that
in some ways it reflects the depth, though certainly not the goals,
of what was at stake.
We are a movement that by its very nature confronts the gender division
in our personal as well as economic lives. I remember a carpenter on
one of my first jobs saying, "You know why guys don't want you
here? Every day they go home, they tell their wife how hard they worked,
then they sit down while she fixes dinner. They've got a good thing
going. What's she going to think when she finds out a girl can do his
job?" And, taking it one step further, if she herself could have
an earning power equal to his, would she still choose the relationship
at all?
Tradeswomen issues fall at the fulcrum of the contemporary feminist
movement. That is why, I believe, the opposition has been so determined,
and why it is important for blue-collar affirmative action to be part
of any progressive agenda for women or labor. We are a movement that
unifies issues of class, gender, race, and sexual preference as our
only path of growth. A gauge for our success as settlers will be not
whether women who are extraordinary can enter the building trades, but
whether it has become a reasonable option for any woman to consider.
Let's admit that we've gotten stuck, we've been out-maneuvered, and
we may have to get ornery again and give up some of the comfort we've
achieved if we're going to regain the initiative. As settlers, we'll
all need to be analytical thinkers. Anyone who can figure out the most
efficient way to run pipe and how best to support it, who can figure
out how to get something that weighs ten times their own weight up in
the air and down safely, is an analytical thinker. We need to envision
the kind of settlement we would feel comfortable in, where we
feel as comfortable and at home as the most accepted person does on
the jobs we're on now.
To order WEEA materials call our distribution center at 800-793-5076.
Prices are subject to change.
Hand in Hand: Mentoring Young Women,
Guide for Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating a Mentoring Program
#2685 Book 1: Guide $27.50
Ideabook for Mentors #2686 Book 2: Ideabook $22.50
Student Career Journal #2742 Book 3: Journal $9.00
Guide for Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating a Mentoring Program
provides guidelines for setting up the program and establishing an active
partnership between schools and businesses. Ideabook for Mentors
contains the basics for workshop activities, as well as guidance for
mentors and students. A Student Career Journal helps students
record insights as they learn about themselves.
Working Papers Series
Working papers present in-depth discussions on cutting-edge issues in
gender equity:
Teaching Mathematics Effectively and Equitably to Females
Discusses achievement history and trends, higher education experience,
and gender research; looks at student gender differences; explores learning
styles and classroom behaviors, attitudes toward mathematics learning,
mathematics course taking, and social expectation. Moves from research
to practical recommendations for creating an environment that encourages
the mathematics development of both females and males. (37 pp.) By Katherine
Hanson, WEEA Equity Resource Center 1992 #2744 $6.00
Building Self: Adolescent Girls and Self-Esteem
Explores research about girls' self-esteem during the difficult transition
to adolescence and discusses what we might learn from young women who
are able to maintain their self-esteem.
Outlines the key factors that make up self-esteem and reviews those
that put young women at risk for low self-esteem. (45 pp.) By Sundra
Flansburg, WEEA Equity Resource Center 1993 #2745 $6.00
Legislation for Change: A Case Study of Title IX and the Women's
Educational Equity Act Program
Uses Title IX and WEEA to explore education and the impact to civil
right legislation addressing gender. Examines successes, failures and
points to consider for promoting equity legislation. (22 pp.) By Sundra
Flansburg and Katerine Hanson, WEEA Equity Resource Center 1993 #2745
$6.00
Publishing
Information
The WEEA Digest is published by the WEEA Publishing
Center, a project at Education Development Center, Inc., under contract
with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement. Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect
the position of the U.S. Department of Education and no official endorsement
should be inferred.
About Us
| Our Services | Resources
to Infuse Equity
Publications | Women
of Achievement | News
Links | Contact
Us | Calendar of Events | Recursos
en Espanol
Home
Gender
Equity Works for All
WEEA
Equity Resource Center
EDC
55 Chapel Street
Newton, MA 02458-1060
Telephone: 800-225-3088 / 617-969-7100
TTY: 800-354-6798
Fax: 617-332-4318
E-mail: WEEActr@edc.org
Send comments, questions, concerns to weeactr@edc.org.
©2002 Education Development Center,
Inc.
|