Feminization of a profession

This is quite an interesting article. By the way, both for and against the original idea by professor Clark - that feminization of medicine profession could lead to losing of influence and status - could be labeled as pro-women, and therefore, of course, anti-women. It depends on the gender of the speakers primarily and also on which side of the political spectrum you are coming from. Thus, men can always be labeled “sexist” whether you are for or against the original position – if you agree with Prof. Clark, you are sexist since you think that occupations consisting primarily of women have less stature, and if you oppose her view, you are denying the fact that those feminine fields are regarded in lower status than predominantly male profession, thus wanting to perpetuate the inequality.

Anyway, there is also a feminists’ favorite line that teachers’ salaries are low because it is a predominantly female occupation. I wonder if they ever care to consider some facts and numbers (which maybe difficult for women as Lawrence Sommers explained);

-Do the salary of teachers decline in real terms since the time when it was primarily male occupation?

-Or is it when compared to private sectors that teachers’ salaries are considered to be low?

-Or is it when compared to other public, government sectors?

-Would local governments be able to afford to pay law firm or hedgefund companies-like salaries to teachers?

-Do teachers and schools make huge financial profits from which they could be reimbursed as their salaries and bonuses?

-What are the qualifications of teachers and difficulties of getting in the field?

But of course, crunching numbers and talking data would not be as sexy and has as much headline-grabbing potential as simply shouting at the top of their voice that “Teacher’s salaries are low because of gender discrimination against predominantly female profession!”



http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/412