4.8 Article

The intergenerational sources of the U-turn in gender segregation

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2121439119

关键词

gender segregation; intergenerational mobility; family processes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the early 1970s, the gender segregation in the US labor market began to decline as more women entered professions and other male-dominated sectors. However, this decline suddenly stalled at the turn of the century and has not resumed since then. Research indicates that the recent stall can be attributed to a resurgence in intergenerational transmission that reinforces segregation. Fathers are now more likely to pass on male-typed occupations to their sons, while mothers have a more neutral transmission outcome. This U-turn in intergenerational processes has contributed to the U-turn in gender segregation.
In the early 1970s, the balkanization of the US labor market into men's occupations and women's occupations began to unravel, as women entered the professions and other male-typed sectors in record numbers. This decline in gender segregation continued on for several decades but then suddenly stalled at the turn of the century and shows no signs of resuming. Although the stall is itself undisputed, its sources remain unclear. Using nearly a half-century of data from the General Social Survey, we show that a resurgence in segregation-inducing forms of intergenerational transmission stands behind the recent stall. Far from serving as impartial conduits, fathers are now disproportionately conveying male-typed occupations to their sons, whereas mothers are effectively gender-neutral in their transmission outcomes. This segregative turn among fathers accounts for 47% of the stall in the gender segregation trend (between 2000 and 2018), while the earlier integrative turn among fathers accounts for 34% of the initial downturn in segregation (between 1972 and 1999). It follows that a U-turn in intergenerational processes lies behind the U-turn in gender segregation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据