SOCIAL PROBLEMS, Vol. 26, No.

5, June 1979

MALE AND FEMALE: JOB VERSUS GENDER MODELS

IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK*

ROSLYN L FELDBERG
EVELYN NAKANO GLENN
Boston University

Work has been seen as the central social process that links individuals to in-
dustrial society and to each other. Although work issues are considered universal,
the actual study of work has proceeded along sex-differentiated lines, so that (1)
women are rarely studied as workers; (2) studies that do include women offer biased
interpretations; and (3) the entire analysis of work is distorted. We argue that these
problems arise from the use of sex-segregated models of analysis: the job model for
men and the gender model for women. Further, we argue that these models lead
researchers to ask different kinds of questions according to the sex of the workers,

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

to treat men as uniform in relation to family and women as uniform in relation to
employment and, implicitly, to use the patterns of men's relation to employment as
the standard in analysis. Two case studies are examined in detail to illustrate the
varying ways in which job and gender models have distorted investigation and inter-
pretation. The paper ends with suggestions for reconceptualizing work to include
forms of unpaid as well as paid work and for incorporating gender stratification into
the analysis of work.

Work has long been viewed as a central aspect of people's lives. It determines their daily ac-
tivities, the rhythm of their days, the people they meet and the relationships they form. In addi-
tion, work largely defines a person's class and status in the social structure. While issues of work
are framed as universal ones, the actual study of work has proceeded along sex-differentiated
lines.
These sex-differentiated lines lead to three problems which characterize the sociological
literature on work. First, women are rarely included in research. Studies of work concentrate on
white males, particularly those in managerial, blue-collar and professional occupations
(Hesselbart, 1978). Second, when women are studied, the analysis is shaped by sex-biased inter-
pretations. Third, the entire analysis of work is distorted because certain factors are defined as
appropriate either in the study of women's work, or in the study of men's work, but not in both.
Recently, the sociology of work has been criticized for its treatment of employed women. The
critics argue that women have been excluded from the study of work, and that, when they are
studied, the analyses have been distorted by sexist assumptions (Acker, 1977; Acker and Van
Houten, 1974; Brown, 1976; Kanter, 1975, 1977; Oakley, 1974). While these writers have
documented many specific instances of sexist interpretations, they have not identified the
underlying paradigm that gives rise to sex-differentiated approaches to men's and women's
employment.
In this paper, we attempt to spell out the paradigm. First, we describe two principal models
that have been used in the sociological analysis of work.1 The first, the job model, has been ap-
plied principally to men; the second, the gender model, has been applied principally to women.

* We would like to thank Judith Long Laws, S.M. Miller, Hanna Papanek, Natalie Sokoloff, Michael
Useem, Harry Bularzik and Karen Sacks for comments. Preparation of this paper was partially supported by a
grant from the Center for the Study of Metropolitan Problems, NIMH. An earlier version of the paper was
presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, 1978.
1. This paper does not offer a quantitative analysis of the proportion of studies exhibiting the use of this
dominant paradigm. The reason for not doing so is that the paradigm is so pervasive that it is difficult to
identify any studies which do not reflect its influence. This influence has been lessened by the growth of
criticisms of particular aspects of the paradigm. While we credit these attempts to correct particular aspects
of the paradigm, we aim toward more basic restructuring.
 Job vs. Gender Models of Work 525

We then specify the assumptions underlying these sex-segregated models. Next, we examine the
connections between these models and the interpretations offered in two important case studies.
We argue that a spelling out of the basic assumptions and an understanding of the way they con-
nect to biased interpretation are the most promising aids in developing a more valid framework
for the sociological study of work.
Finally, we argue that this more valid framework must integrate those factors which have been
defined as applicable only to employed women and those which have been defined as applicable
only to employed men. We reach this position from our analysis of the problems in the dominant
paradigm and our own experience. From personal experience, everyone knows that men and
women have personal lives and that they work (whether paid, unpaid or both), and that ex-
periences in each area have a continuous and closely linked impact on feelings and behavior
related to work. We believe that a valid analysis of work must be able to account for this range of
experience.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

SEX-SEGREGATED MODELS
Separate models for men's and women's relationship to employment are a logical outcome of
the sexual division of labor characteristic of the middle period of industrial capitalism. Although
the separation of male and female spheres had long been part of the prescriptive literature in the
United States and Britain, as well as elsewhere, the expansion of industry in the late 19th and ear-
ly 20th centuries made the realization of the ideal possible for middle- and upper-class women.
During this period the division of labor became more rigid as women were pressured to withdraw
from production and to devote their attention to domestic concerns (Chafe, 1976). Women who
remained in the labor force were primarily young and unmarried. Employment of married
women (primarily black and some immigrant women) was viewed as the outcome of personal
misfortune (Smuts, 1971). The dichotomy became men = breadwinners and workers, women =
wives. It was assumed that all male-female differences flowed from that dichotomy. Rather than
trying to determine the extent to which this dichotomy applied to particular groups of men and
women in specific historical periods, sociologists tended to incorporate it into their basic assump-
tions and concepts. Thus, even when women were employed, their employment was seen as
atypical or as secondary to their "real" roles. The result is the creation of two sociologies of
work: the job model for men and gender model for women.2

Job Model
The job model treats the work people do as the primary independent variable. Researchers
have used it to explain workers' behavior on and off the job.
Many aspects of the immediate job situation have been found to have an impact on workers'
subjective reactions to their jobs (Kohn, 1976). Blauner's (1964) study of male industrial workers
found that highly mechanized, routine, repetitive work was associated with higher levels of
alienation, which he defined as powerlessness, meaninglessness, social isolation and self-
estrangement. Variations on this pattern have been confirmed for factory (Cotgrove, 1972), of-
fice and computer (Shepard, 1971, 1973), and professional workers (Pearlin, 1962).
In addition, quality of life "off the job" has been seen as affected by conditions and ex-
periences in the work place, at least for men (Seeman, 1967,1975; Kornblum, 1974; Israel, 1971;
Oilman, 1971; Mortimer, 1976; Aronowitz, 1973). Kornhauser (1965) argued on the basis of his

2. The basic assumptions of the sex-segregated models have never been wholly appropriate to men's or
women's employment. As more women have become employees for longer periods of their lives, and as more
questions are being raised concerning the division of labor by sex (in both paid and unpaid work) these
models have become more of a barrier to understanding both men's and women's relationship to work.
526 FELDBERG AND GLENN

findings that job conditions in the automobile industry were the source of workers' mental health
problems (cf. Gross, 1970). Finally, Meissner (1971) found that skills and the degree of judgment
used on the job carry over to shape the off-the-job activities of male industrial workers (cf. Kohn
and Schooler, 1978).
As important as the relationships the studies cover are the ones they ignore. First, they pay little
attention to the effects of historical or geographical variations in the labor market (Kessler-
Harris, 1973). Second, they overlook aspects of the life situation outside of work, such as ethnic
culture and lifestyles or family ties and resources.

Gender Model
While analyses of men's relationship to employment concentrate on job-related features, most
analyses of women's relationship to employment (which are rare by comparison) virtually ignore
type of job and working conditions. When it is studied at all, women's relationship to employ-

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

ment is treated as derivative of personal characteristics and relationships to family situations
(Oakley, 1974; Laws, 1976). This type of analysis is referred to here as the gender model.
Until the mid-1970s, researchers paid little attention to how the occupations or industries of
employed women affected their responses to work. Instead, they used personal characteristics
and family circumstances to explain the attitudes and behavior of employed women. For exam-
ple, women's labor force participation rates were attributed to characteristics such as educational
level, marital status, the number and ages of children, husband's income and husband's attitude
toward wife's employment (Mahoney, 1961; Myers, 1964; Mincer, 1962; Sweet, 1973; Parnes et
al., 1975). Laws (1976) points out that in this literature the decision to seek employment (or re-
main employed) and the choice of occupation are seen as products of unique "female" motiva-
tions, rather than of the structure of the local labor market and related factors (e.g., Eyde, 1962,
1968; Rosenfeld and Perrella, 1965; Psathas, 1968; Sobol, 1963; Williamson and Karras, 1970).
Consistent with the emphasis on the female role, a large number of studies have tried to
establish the effects on family life of married women "being employed" (Nye and Hoffman,
1963; Hoffman and Nye, 1974; Howell, 1973; Safilios-Rothschild, 1970). Other studies have ex-
amined the impact of women's employment on division of household labor (e.g., Howell, 1973;
Berk, 1976; Szalai, 1972) and on power distribution in the family (e.g., Blood and Wolfe, 1960;
Heer, 1963; Scanzoni, 1970; Bahr, 1974). In all of these "family consequence" studies, the sup-
posed effects of women's employment are studied without reference to the actual activities of
women on the job. Thus, they provide little information on how consequences vary for families
of women doing different jobs under different working conditions.
Some recent research has been aimed toward correcting distortions created by applying the
gender model to women. In most cases the approach taken is to apply the job model to women.
Particular attention has been paid: to the impacts of institutional opportunity structures on
women's evaluations of work and their aspirations for mobility (Wallace, 1976; Kanter, 1977b);
to the effects of differential treatment of men and women, including different methods of worker
control on women's work behavior (Acker and Van Houten, 1974;3 Langer, 1972; Coser and
Rokoff, 1970; Epstein, 1970); and to the influence of conditions of housework on women's
assessments of paid employment (Oakley, 1974; Lamphere, 1973; Walshok and Walshok, 1978).
While these researchers realize the inadquacies of the gender model, they tend to overlook the
shortcomings of the job model. Perhaps they are assuming that whatever model has been used to
study men must be valid for all workers.4 This is a reflection of the tendency to use men as the

3. This article is one exception to exclusive reliance on a job model and is, therefore, not subject to this
criticism.
4. This tendency to rely exclusively on the job model in analyzing workers' responses to employment is not
new, it is seen as early as the Hawthorne studies (Acker and Van Houten, 1974), as well as in Crozier (1964).
 Job vs. Gender Models of Work 527

Assumptions Job Model Gender Model

1. Basic social relationships de- Work Family
termined by:
2. Family structure is: Male-headed, nuclear Male-headed, nuclear
3. Connection to family is: As economic provider/worker As wife/mother
4. Social position determined by: Work Family
5. Sociopolitical behavior and at- Occupational socialization, Gender role socialization, family
titudes derived from: class/status of occupation, roles, activities and relationships
social relations of work of household work
6. Central life interest9 is in: Employment + /Earnings Family
FIGURE 1
Varying Assumptions in the Job Model and the Gender Model

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

standard to define normal human behavior. However, we argue that the job model is, by itself,
inadequate and that exclusive reliance on it leads to distorted conclusions about the meaning of
work for both men and women. What is needed instead is an integrated model which takes into
account the interaction between job and gender factors. The development of such an integrated
model must begin with a careful analysis of the assumptions underlying each model and a
systematic examination of their implications.

Assumptions of the Models

The sociology of work is essentially the study of how work connects individuals to the social
structure. The models used in this field are, therefore, concerned with the nature of these links
and their consequences. The most common topic for investigation is workers' response to work.
However, the assumptions underlying the explanations encompass not only the work setting, but
also the basic connections of individuals to the larger social structure. These assumptions are dif-
ferent for men and women.
For men, it is assumed that economic activities provide the basis for social relationships within
the family and in the society generally. For women, it is assumed that family care-taking activities
determine social relationships. These different spheres of activity are, in turn, assumed to be
combined in a nuclear family through sexual division of labor—that is, man as economic pro-
vider and woman as wife and mother. Furthermore, male-female differences in relation to the
family are expected to lead to differences in the nature of men's and women's connection to other
parts of the social structure. For example, social class is assumed to be determined by economic
position (i.e., relation to means of production, occupation) for the male, and by position in the
family (i.e., wife, daughter) for the female. Similarly, work attitudes and behavior of men are
seen as consequences of occupational experiences (e.g., conditions of employment or occupa-
tional socialization), while responses of women are viewed as outcomes of family experiences
(e.g., household burden, feminine socialization). The major assumptions are diagrammed in
Figure 1.
Two further points require emphasis. First, these differences in assumptions are themselves
connected. They are complementary aspects of a single conception of social structure: what is
held to be true for males is, by definition, held not to be true for females and vice-versa. Second,

5. This assumption exemplifies the tenacity of beliefs which are congruent with the prevailing ideology of
gender differences (cf. Laws, 1978). Dubin (1956) and Orzack (1959) showed that the degree of "central life
interest" in work varied by occupation for men and women. Dubin and his associates (1976) have continued
research in this area for over twenty years, yet the assumption persists that gender role, rather than occupa-
tion, is the primary variable which determines the degree of "central life interest" in work.
528 FELDBERG AND GLENN

each model assumes homogeneity among members of each sex. Variations in the situations of
members of each sex are ignored, and no allowance is made for class and ethnic differences or for
changes over time.

TWO STUDIES IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK

In this section, we will analyze distortions arising from the use of the job/gender models in two
major studies. These studies share the rare characteristics of studying men and women in similar
job settings, thus making possible a comparison of the conceptual frameworks developed to ex-
plain men's versus women's work attitudes and behavior. The authors of the two studies show
differing degrees of awareness that they are using job and gender models.
The first study by Blauner (Alienation and Freedom, 1964) compares men and women in
somewhat different jobs within the textile industry. It illustrates the explicit use of a job model

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

for men and a gender model for women. The job model is used to explain variations between
groups of men; the gender model, applied only to the women, is used to explain differences be-
tween men and women. Beynon and Blackburn's study of English factory workers (Perceptions
of Work, 1972) incorporates both job and gender variables. They recognize that differences in
domestic situations and in job conditions affect the work concerns of both men and women.
Nevertheless, they tend to emphasize job factors for men and gender factors for women. Where
women's behavior departs from sex stereotypes, they either deemphasize the behavior or discount
its significance. Detailed specification of the use of job and gender models in these studies is re-
quired because the differences are subtle, and because the authors tend to shift between models at
various points in their analyses.

Maimer's Alienation and Freedom

Blauner's classic study of the relationship between the type of technology which characterizes
an industry and the degree of worker alienation rests on the job model. Generally, he finds that in
mechanized industries, where jobs are less skilled and more subdivided, workers experience more
alienation. When automated technology is used to create more integrated jobs, worker alienation
is reduced, although it remains higher than in craft industry.
Blauner uses that model for industries which employ almost exclusively male workers. In
studying the textile industry, the only one with large numbers of women, Blauner switches to the
gender model to analyze the women's responses to employment. By doing so, he obscures the
relationship between the conditions of employment and the degree of alienation.
Initially, Blauner emphasizes the traditions of the southern textile town, which stress communi-
ty ties. Next, he examines the conditions of work in men's and women's jobs in the industry.
Women are observed to be "especially unfree": performing "most of the unrewarding jobs,"
and working under the most objectively alienating conditions. Then, he compares men's and
women's perceptions of their work. More women than men complain about their job conditions:
42% of women (vs. 24% of men) say they have to work too fast; 49% of women (vs. 29% of
men) say they are "too tired" at the end of the day; and 49% of women (vs. 27% of men) com-
plained of "too much pressure" at work (pp. 71-72).
To be consistent with his overall emphasis on job conditions, Blauner should attribute the dif-
ferences between women's and men's perceptions to differences in their working conditions. In-
stead, he shifts, without warning or justification, to a gender model to interpret the women's
responses. He notes, "Since women have, on average, less physical stamina than men, and work-
ing women often double as housewives and mothers, it is to be expected that they would be more
fatigued by their work" (p. 71).
This interpretation has two problems. First, by attributing complaints about work to female
biology and family responsibilities, he obscures the previously argued link between working con-
 Job vs. Gender Models of Work 529

ditions and workers' responses. Second, he ignores data which show that women's work condi-
tions are more demanding because they do more machine-paced work which requires constant
movement and is more closely supervised.
Blauner is either unaware of his shift to a gender model, or takes it for granted as appropriate
for employed women. He provides no evidence in support of the model. Thus, we do not know
what proportion of the women are mothers and housewives, what family responsibilities the
wives and mothers have, nor whether the most tired women are, in fact, wives and mothers. At
the same time, again without apparent awareness of his inconsistency, Blauner maintains the job
model for analyzing men. He does not even mention differences in tiredness among men, or raise
the possibility that any such differences could arise from variations in their levels of family
responsibility.
If job conditions are poor, what are the workers' subjective responses to them? Blauner's
analysis finds relatively little dissatisfaction and low levels of aspiration. This departure from the

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

findings for other industries is attributed to low levels of education and the lack of alternative
jobs; that is, to features of the southern textile town. But again, Blauner offers a separate
gender-based analysis of women, who have even worse jobs, yet express no greater dissatisfaction
than men. He says, "Work does not have the central importance and meaning in their lives that it
does for men, since their most important roles are those of wives and mother" (p. 87). Not only
does Blauner revert to a gender model, he also fails to consider that women's poorer prospects
for advancement may depress their aspirations below those of the men. Here again, assumptions
about the meaning of women's roles substitute for the author's own evidence.
Blauner next turns to a discussion of the impacts of working conditions on the sense of self. He
finds that 59% of men vs. 41 % of women would choose a different occupation if they were start-
ing over. To Blauner, this suggests that men feel degraded by this work, while women do not. His
interpretation is worth quoting at length:
The submissiveness required of male textile workers must be damaging to the maintenance of a sure sense
of masculinity; the low wages and status undoubtedly threaten the sense of worth and success in life.
Despite the greater physical discomforts of her job, textile employment for the female worker is not as
damaging to her sense of identity, since successful work is not part of the traditional female role (p. 87;
emphasis added).
The last two examples are interesting for several reasons. First, they show the author's tenden-
cy to use men's responses as "normal," while women's responses are seen as variants. Second,
they show that Blauner treats the unpaid work of women as "nonwork," implicitly defining women
as "nonworkers." As a result, he is led to conclude that women are little affected by the paid
work they do. Third, they show how reliance on separate job and gender models guides the
analysis into stereotypical molds. In the second example, it is assumed that men's masculinity is
measured by the paycheck. In the rural South, where low wages are endemic, they may not im-
pugn masculinity. Men may establish their masculinity by other criteria—for example, having
many children, or being good woodsmen, hunters, farmers or musicians. Similarly, southern
women's greater submissiveness to male authority on the job may have nothing to do with the
degree of centrality of work roles. It may be due to their socialization in patriarchal families, thus
their submissiveness may be part of an established tradition.

Beynon and Blackburn's Perceptions of Work

Beynon and Blackburn's book represents a conscious attempt to overcome the false separation
between the conditions of work and nonwork life. They criticize analyses that focus exclusively
on either the technology and organization of work, or the "orientations" which workers bring to
work from their position in the social structure. They argue that the combination of these factors
is necessary to explain workers' responses. By implication, one cannot focus only on family situa-
tions for women or only on work conditions for men.
530 FELDBERG AND GLENN

The research setting offered an unusual opportunity for comparisons between men and
women. Four groups of workers were studied: day men who operated the basic production
machinery or assisted the assembly-line workers; full-time women who worked primarily on an
assembly line wrapping and packaging the product; part-time women who did similar jobs in
separate units, but also moved around to fill in for full-time women where extra help was needed;
and night men, who did both the production and packaging, including jobs considered
"women's work" on the day shift. Each of the four groups represented a particular gender and
marital status combination. The day men were mostly single, as were the full-time women. The
part-time women and the night men were mostly married with children. With these four groups
the authors had an opportunity to examine the interrelated influence of conditions of work and
family situations.
For the most part, up to the conclusions at least, Beynon and Blackburn succeed in avoiding
many of the problems found in other studies. Unfortunately, the assumptions underlying the job

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

and gender models are so pervasive that unless one is constantly aware of their influence, they
tend to creep back into the analysis, even when one starts with the intent of rejecting them.
Beynon and Blackburn's study does not completely escape this tendency. Thus, at specific points
in this book, they drift back into a job-gender dichotomy.
This happens in three ways. First, they focus on behavior and attitudes which fit gender
stereotypes and deemphasize those that don't. For example, they don't attach much significance
to the fact that the full-time women are the most critical of the company and are most likely to
press their grievances. Instead, they focus most of their attention on the part-time women who
are the least critical of the company, and who, therefore, fit the stereotype of the uninvolved
worker.
Second, they overlook job factors that could explain women's responses, preferring to fall
back on explanations based on "women's characteristics." In one chapter, they point out that
the company accords special treatment—including leniency about work hours, leaves of absences
and the like—to the part-time women so they can carry out their domestic responsibilities. Yet,
they fail to suggest that it is the company's paternalistic policies toward them, rather than the
women's commitment to family responsibilities per se, that explains these women's lack of
criticalness toward the firm. Again, they fall back on a gender stereotype.
With regard to the women's attitudes toward the union, Beynon and Blackburn overlook the
influence of union policies and structure which they earlier admitted ignore women and their con-
cerns. Instead, they view women's critical stance toward the union as a reflection of a "different
style of trade unionism." (Perhaps, a product of feminine psychology?)
Finally, Beynon and Blackburn, at times, explain similar behavior of men and women dif-
ferently. In separate parts of the book, they point out that the day men and both groups of
women express a concern with social aspects of the job. The men's focus on sociability is ex-
plained by the alienating job conditions and lack of opportunities for mobility which turn the
men's interests away from intrinsic job concerns (Chapter 3). The women's interest in social
aspects is interpreted as a product of low commitment to work resulting from their primary com-
mitment to family roles. This interpretation ignores the fact that job conditions and mobility are
even worse for the women and that, therefore, their orientation can be explained in the same
terms as the men's.
Moving away from the details of specific points of analysis, we find a more general pattern
emerging: the authors devote substantial attention to describing and analyzing differences be-
tween the men and women, but pass lightly over differences within sex—that is, between the day
and night men and between the part-time and full-time women. As a corollary, little attention is
paid to the similarities between the full-time women and the day or night men.
Throughout the various areas of response the data presented indicate that the part-time women
 Job vs. Gender Models of Work 531
differ most from the other three groups. The full-time women's responses differ from those of
the part-time women at least as much as they do from the two groups of men. In many
areas—such as the meaning of work or sources of satisfaction—the full-time women's responses
fall between those of the day men and the night men. Sometimes they're more similar to the day
men, sometimes they are more similar to the night men. Thus, the question should not be why
women differ from men, but why part-time women differ from the other three groups.
Moreover, the answer should be sought not only in these women's family commitments, but also, in
possible differences in their experiences in the work place. Thus, we might ask, is the experience
of doing part-time work, irrespective of family situation, sufficiently distinct that it leads to a
divergent pattern of responses? Since there are no part-time men, this possibility cannot be
tested. However, Beynon and Blackburn do not even mention it. Presumably, they are comfort-
able using gender assumptions to "account for" the results.
While assumptions from the job and gender models pop up throughout the book, it is in the

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

conclusions that they emerge as the dominant framework. The contrast between specific analyses
in the text and the summary statements in the concluding chapter illustrates this shift in
framework. In Chapter 4, the women's specific dissatisfactions with their work are described
graphically. One woman said that it is "terrible just thinking about coming to work in the morn-
ings. It's not hard work, but it seems to wear you o u t . . . " (p. 75). Another said, "You can't im-
agine how boring it is. It can really get you down. The girls are O. K.—they're great. It's just the
job. The job is terrible." Yet, in the concluding chapter the conditions that are complained about
are minimized as a cause of major dissatisfaction. "Many of them found the work boring and
tedious. However, they did not have high expectations of the intrinsic job, so that was not a ma-
jor cause of dissatisfaction. Where they did expect some satisfaction was in social relationships,
and it was here that they were critical of the firm" (p. 149).
This interpretation seems strangely distant from the data. Knowing that they have little hope of
finding more interesting jobs, ths full-time women concentrate on deriving satisfaction from their
social relationships. One suspects that were men to respond similarly, their dissatisfaction would
be fully acknowledged. Their emphasis on social rewards would be recognized as a tactic for cop-
ing with powerlessness. Further, their social ties might be seen as potentially useful in establishing
solidarity and group control in the work situation.
At various points, the authors recognize and give lip service to the variety of oppressive condi-
tions the women face in employment: limited job opportunities, paternalistic policies of the firm
and the labor union, assignment to the poorest paying and most boring jobs and, for some, heavy
family responsibilities. Yet, the overall picture of women they construct is one of women as vic-
tims, rather than as "serious workers". They fail to appreciate that the women's responses may
be strategies for wresting some satisfaction and autonomy from basically unsatisfying cir-
cumstances. Thus, the reader is left to fall back on "uniquely female characteristics" to account
for the findings.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The review of the two studies demonstrates the different ways in which the job and gender
models inform analyses of men's and women's responses to work. In some cases (e.g., Blauner)
Jhe models are explicitly incorporated into the analysis; in others (e.g., Beynon and Blackburn) the
models are never explicitly elaborated, but some of the assumptions of the models slip in as
"taken for granted." Some analyses rely exclusively on job or gender variables to explain the
behavior of one or the other sex, as does Blauner's treatment of women textile workers. Other
analyses include a variety of other factors, such as labor market structure, as does Beynon and
Blackburn's examination of women factory operatives.
Despite these differences in the mode of incorporation, the studies demonstrate similar distor-
532 FELDBERG AND GLENN

tions. First, data which do not fit the models are overlooked and ignored. Second, the
significance of data which violate the models' assumptions is discounted or deemphasized in the
interpretation. Third, when several alternative explanations could plausibly be invoked, the one
that is most consistent with job or gender models is favored without adequate discussion. Finally,
the search for alternative interpretations is short-circuited. The models offer a ready-made ex-
planation and the researcher follows the path of least resistance.
These distortions are serious enough. An even more serious consequence of the models is that
they bias the entire direction of research. As is the case of basic paradigms in science, the job-
gender paradigm determines what is studied. The models direct attention toward particular issues
by defining them as problematic. The job-gender paradigm defines job conditions as problematic
for men and family responsibilities as problematic for women, thereby directing research into
these areas. The complementary issues, the impacts of specific work conditions on women's
responses to work and the relationship of men's family roles to their work attitudes and behavior,

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

are viewed as nonproblematic and, therefore, have not been studied systematically in the
mainstream literature.6
It is true, of course, that phenomena can be studied even in the absence of a supportive
paradigm. This occurs when phenomena become sufficiently visible or widespread that they com-
mand public attention. Thus, in response to rising labor force participation among married
women, increased research has been conducted on women in specific occupations (Epstein, 1970;
Walshok and Walshok, 1978), and on work-family linkages (Hunt and Hunt, 1977; Lein et al.,
1974; Mortimer, 1976; Rapaport and Rapaport, 1971). However, the research continues to focus
on issues that are defined as problematic under the old paradigm. Both types of studies em-
phasize the strains for women and their families resulting from women's "two jobs," while giv-
ing little consideration to the impacts of conditions of women's employment in specific jobs.
What this suggests is that a new paradigm is needed. Such a paradigm will emerge, perhaps
suddenly, as new findings which are inconsistent with the old one accumulate. In the meantime,
we need to engage in a dialectical process of empirical exploration and theoretical development.
Pursuit of research which describes and analyzes the changing conditions of work will provide an
empirical base, while the movement toward a new theoretical paradigm will direct attention
toward new questions for research. Our review of the literature and our own research on women
clerical workers has suggested to us some directions for theoretical development to take.
First, we need to reconceptualize work. The concept of work needs to be made more inclusive,
to cover unpaid as well as paid work. Moreover, it needs to be formulated so that the work people
do can be located within the context of their whole lives. The development of separate job and
gender models rests on a concept of work which arbitrarily separates out paid employment from
other work, identifying it as the only form of "real" work. As a result, other work tends to be
treated as "nonwork" and women workers as "nonworkers." This narrow conception leads us
to ignore much of the work that is actually done. When we do this, we lose sight of the distinct
features of different forms of work, overlook the connections between types of paid work, as
well as between paid and unpaid work, and fail to understand the impacts of these connections on
workers' experiences and responses. These connections are ignored not only at the individual
level, but also at the level of the political economy.
A more inclusive concept of work would render the distinct features of various kinds of work
more visible. A beginning point is found in recent analyses of housework, in which some of the
analytic categories ordinarily used to examine paid work are applied to the study of housework.

6. Interestingly, the relationship between men's employment and their family roles has been studied
primarily for unemployed or underemployed men. Apparently, the problematic aspects of this relationship
become more visible when the expected pattern does not hold.
 Job vs. Gender Models of Work 533

Categories such as degree of control over the work process, types of work standards, extent of ra-
tionalization and hours and pace of work have been found to be useful in examining women's
behavior in and attitudes toward housework (Oakley, 1974; Dalla Costa, 1972; Glazer, 1976).
This kind of analysis needs to be extended in several directions. First, there are other types of un-
paid work, such as community activities and dealing with social agencies and child care, that are
not encompassed by the term "housework." These types of unpaid work are also part of the con-
text within which paid work takes place. Thus, their contextual meanings should be included in
the analysis of paid work. Second, the forms and conditions of these types of unpaid work need
to be investigated, so that the kinds of work involved and the impacts of doing that work become
visible, no longer masked under the emotionally charged labels of "family responsibility" or
"civic duty." Third, it is evident that men, as well as women, engage in unpaid work. The kinds
of unpaid work commonly performed by men and the conditions of that work need to be studied,
both independently and in comparison to women's unpaid work. Finally, when considering paid
work, closer attention must be paid to the actual conditions of work commonly assigned to

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

women. Understanding women's responses to paid work requires a clearer, more precise picture
of their work: again, hours and pace of work, extent of rationalization, kinds of skills, types of
work standards. In the absence of such information, attempts to analyze women's responses to
employment must continue to rely on stereotypes, not only of female character, but also of
"women's work."
A reformulated concept of work would also facilitate analysis of the connections between
various forms of work and make clearer the distinction between work and "nonwork." Again,
there are beginnings in existing research. Studies of women clerical workers suggest that women's
evaluations of the conditions of their jobs are based on comparison with the conditions of
housework, as well as of previous jobs (cf. Lamphere, 1973; Walshok and Walshok, 1978). At
the macrolevel, historical research indicates some important connections between the conditions
of paid and unpaid work for women: women's low wages and limited job opportunities in the
labor force reinforce and are reinforced by women's disproportionate involvement in domestic
labor (Kessler-Harris, 1973; Hartmann, 1976; Caplow, 1954). This research should be expanded
to include the connection between paid and unpaid work for men. The relationship between
variation in the extent and type of men's unpaid work and their responses to employment needs
to be looked at more closely. For example, responses of men whose paid work is similar, but
whose unpaid work differs, could be compared. Parallel historical research needs to be con-
ducted on changes in the types and conditions of men's unpaid work and on shifts in the relation-
ship between their paid and unpaid work.
A second area for major theoretical reformulation is the systematic incorporation of gender
stratification into the analysis of work. Because male domination and female subordination have
been taken for granted, gender stratification has remained largely invisible and unproblematic in
the sociology of work. Changes in the economy and in social life have been accompanied by
changes in men's and women's structural and interpersonal situations. As feminist analysts have
pointed out, these changes reveal the extent to which gender stratification is socially created,
rather than "natural." These analysts have begun detailed examination of the processes by which
gender stratification is created and maintained in the family and other sociopolitical institutions.
Similar examination must be made of work and the organization of work.
A beginning is found in recent studies which look at the consequences of differential assign-
ment of men and women to positions in work organizations (see especially, Kanter, 1977a, b).
This research attempts to show that differences in men's and women's responses to employment
are the outcome of their locations in hierarchies, their numerical proportions and other structural
features of organizations. The analysis stops short, however. It ignores the ways in which gender
stratification, aside from its expression in organizational patterns, is structured into interpersonal
534 FELDBERG AND GLENN

relations. Acker and Van Houten's (1974) reexamination of the Hawthorne studies points out the
different forms of social control imposed on men and women, independent of their organiza-
tional positions. For example, the controls imposed on female assembly workers were closer and
more paternalistic than those imposed on male assemblers. Some observers have remarked on the
parallels between paternalistic treatment of women in the work place and their treatment in the
family and other institutions (e.g., Langer, 1972; Glenn and Feldberg, 1977).
A fuller theoretical and empirical treatment of gender stratification would involve detailed con-
sideration of both formal structures and informal processes. Examination of hierarchies and
policies in specific types of organizations would help identify the conditions which create and
maintain gender differences in work behavior and attitudes. Special attention needs to be paid to
entry points for different hierarchies, the number of levels within them, access to experience or
training needed for mobility, and the points of linkage between various hierarchies. This kind of
detailed analysis is crucial to uncovering the less visible forms of stratification that do not appear

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

as formal organizational categories. Analysis of informal processes is needed to identify norms
governing interpersonal relationships between men and women in work organizations. An ex-
amination of interpersonal behavior among peers and between superordinate/subordinate pairs
would enable us to sort out the impacts of formal organizational hierarchies and informal gender
hierarchies, and the interaction between the two.
In what ways would these reformulations enhance the analysis of work? The kind of basic
restructuring we have suggested would, we believe, lead researchers to frame different questions,
to view as problematic behavior that they have previously taken for granted. They would,
therefore, seek new sources of data because they would be less inclined to rely on unstated and
pervasive gender assumptions. The change in questions and in forms of data, in turn, would
make it possible for researchers to construct more inclusive, and ultimately more valid, inter-
pretations of data.
As an illustration, let us look at how the two studies we examined might be changed by the
reformulations. First, let us consider how a more inclusive concept of work would improve
Blauner's understanding of men's and women's responses to paid work. Had Blauner seen the
unpaid work women do as "work," he could not have dismissed them as "nonworkers" who are
unaffected by the conditions of employment. Thus, for example, he would have had to think
more carefully about the meaning of the extreme submissiveness required of the women who
worked in the southern textile mills. The impacts of such conditions might have been analyzed in
relation to the cultural prescriptions for women and their limited opportunities for other paid
work. Overall, in analyzing the women's responses to this work, a more inclusive concept of work
would have led Blauner to examine the actual conditions of employment, rather than relying on
general beliefs about the priority of women's family (unpaid work) responsibilities.
Similar analysis could have been done of the impacts of "required submissiveness" on the male
workers. Using this more inclusive concept of work, the analysis of men's responses would take
into account men's family roles and the conditions of employment and labor market oppor-
tunities. Thus, the analysis of paid work for men and for women would take account of the con-
text of their total life situations and would reflect the variations of life cycle, gender and regional
economy that characterize workers' lives.
Next, let us consider how more systematic attention to gender stratification would have enriched
Beynon and Blackburn's analysis of men's and women's work attitudes. An example is their
treatment of differences in aspirations for mobility. They show clearly that full-time women, for
the most part, do not want to become supervisors, while the men desire such promotions. The
difference is reported without apparent awareness that it requires explanation. By failing to
analyze the sources of women's reluctance, Beynon and Blackburn leave the impression that their
response stems from feminine character or socialization. An analysis incorporating gender
 Job vs. Gender Models of Work 535

stratification of organizations would examine the position of female supervisors in the hierar-
chical structure, the links (or lack thereof) between these positions and higher positions, the
degree of authority these positions command, the responsibilities they entail and the entry points
and career paths of those who reach these positions (e.g., whether or not they usually come up
through the ranks). Comparison of female and male supervisory positions on these dimensions
would yield a more comprehensive, and probably more valid, explanation of men's and women's
different aspirations for promotion.
Similar detailed analysis of gender hierarchies and norms within the company (and the union)
would reveal the sources of patterns of differences and similarities among the four groups of men
and women workers in such areas as attitudes toward unions, dissatisfactions with work condi-
tions and orientations toward work.
In addition to enhancing the validity of specific studies, the suggested reformulations would
enrich the sociology of work by directing inquiry into new areas. Research and thinking would be

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

directed to aspects of work previously taken for granted, or ignored. The analysis of women's
work would include systematic study of both paid and unpaid work throughout the class struc-
ture with careful attention to actual conditions of work and actual behavior of the workers. The
analysis of men's work would involve learning about the kinds of unpaid work men do and the
impacts of various "off the job" concerns (such as family responsibilities or ethnic and cultural
values) on their responses to paid work.
These reconceptualizations should also provide points of entry into an understanding of work-
family linkages for both men and women. In the introduction, we claimed that, since both men
and women work and participate in families, a valid framework for the analysis of work must en-
compass these linkages on a micro and macro level. By reconceptualizing work and incorporating
gender stratification, the study of work can be expanded to take into account the complex rela-
tionships between the organization of the economy, the labor market, and the conditions of paid
and unpaid work and the conditions and structures of family life.

REFERENCES
Acker, Joan
1977 "Issues in the sociological study of women's work." Pp. 134-161 in Ann H. Stromberg and
Shirley Harkess (eds.), Women Working, Theories and Facts in Perspective. Palo Alto: Mayfield
Publishing Co.
Acker, Joan and Donald R. Van Houten
1974 "Differential recruitment and control: The sex structuring of organizations." Administrative
Science Quarterly 19:152-163.
Aronowitz, Stanley
1973 False Promises. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bahr, Stephen
1974 "Effects on power and division of labor in the family." Pp. 167-185 in Lois Hoffman and F. Ivan
Nye (eds.), Working Mothers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Berk, Sara S., Richard Berk and Catherine Berheide
1976 "The non-division of household labor: A preliminary report." Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston.
Beynon, H. and R. M. Blackburn
1972 Perceptions of Work. London: Cambridge University Press.
Blauner, R.
1964 Alienation and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blood, R. and D. Wolfe
1960 Husbands and Wives. New York: Free Press.
Brown, Richard
1976 "Women as employees: Comments on research in industrial sociology." Pp. 21-46 in Diana L.
Barker and Sheila Allen (eds.), Dependence and Exploitation in Work and Marriage. New York:
Longman.
Caplow, T.
1954 Sociology of Work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
536 FELDBERG AND GLENN

Chafe, William
1976 Women and Equality. London and New York: Oxford University Press.
Coser, Rose Laub and Gerald Rokoff
1970 "Women in the occupational world: Social disruption and conflict." Social Problems 18:
535-554.
Cotgrove, S.
1972 "Alienation and automation." British Journal of Sociology 23 (December):437-451.
Crozier, Michel
1964 The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dalla Costa, Mariarosa
1972 "Women and the subversion of community." Radical America 6 (January-February):67-102.
Dubin, Robert
1956 "Industrial workers' worlds." Social Problems 3 (January):131-142.
Dubin, Robert, R. Alan Hedley and C. Taveggia
1976 "Attachment to work." In Robert Dubin (ed.), Handbook of Work, Organization and Society.
Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Epstein, Cynthia F.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

1970 Women's Place: Options and Limits of Professional Careers. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Eyde, Lorraine
1962 Work Values and Background Factors as Predictors of Women's Desire to Work. Columbus: Col-
lege of Commerce and Administration, Ohio State University.
1968 "Work motivation of women college graduates: 5-year follow-up." Journal of Counseling
Psychology 15(No. 2): 109-202.
Glazer, Nona
1976 "Housework (review essay)." Signs l(Summer):905-922.
Glenn, Evelyn N. and Roslyn L. Feldberg
1977 "Degraded and deskilled: The proletarianization of clerical work." Social Problems 25:52-64.
Gross, Edward
1970 "Work, organization and stress." Pp. 54-110 in Sol Levine and Norman Scotch (eds.), Social
Stress. Chicago: Aldine.
Hartmann, Heidi
1976 "Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex." Pp. 137-169 in Martha Blaxall and Barbara
Reagan (eds.), Women and the Workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heer, D.
1963 "Dominance and the working wife." In F. Ivan Nye and Lois W. Hoffman (eds.), The Employed
Mother in America. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Hesselbart, Susan
1978 "Some underemphasized issues about men, women and work." Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.
Hoffman, Lois W. and F. Ivan Nye (eds.)
1974 Working Mothers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Howell, Mary
1973 "Employed mothers and their families." Pediatrics 52(August):252-263.
Hunt, Janet G. and Larry L. Hunt
1977 "Dilemmas and contradictions of status: The case of the dual-career family." Social Problems
24(April):407-416.
Israel, J.
1971 Alienation: From Marx to Modern Sociology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Kanter, Rosabeth M.
1975 "Women in the structure of organizations." In Marcia Millman and Rosabeth Kanter (eds.),
Another Voice. New York: Anchor Books.
1977a "Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women."
American Journal of Sociology 82:965-999.
1977b Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kessler-Harris, Alice
1973 "Notes on women in advanced capitalism." Social Policy (July/August): 16-22.
Kohn, Melvin L.
1976 "Occupational structure and alienation." American Journal of Sociology 82(July): 111-130.
Kohn, Melvin L. and Carmi Schooler
1978 "The reciprocal effects of the substantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibility: A
longitudinal assessment." American Journal of Sociology 84(July):24-52.
Kornblum, William
1974 Blue Collar Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Job vs. Gender Models of Work 537

Kornhauser, Arthur
1965 Mental Health of the Industrial Worker. New York: John Wiley.
Lamphere, Louise
1973 "Women's work, alienation and class consciousness." Paper presented at the 72nd annual
meetings of the American Anthropological Association, New Orleans.
Langer, Elinor
1972 "Inside the New York Telephone Company." In William O'Neill (ed.), Women at Work. New
York: Quadrangle Press.
Laws, Judith
1976 "Psychological dimensions of labor force participation of women." Pp. 125-156 in Phyllis
Wallace (ed.), Equal Employment Opportunity and the AT&T Case. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
M.I.T. Press.
1978 "Feminism and patriarchy: Competing ways of doing social science." Paper presented at the annual
meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.
Lein, Laura et al.
1974 "Work and family life." Report to National Institute of Education, Center for the Study of
Public Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mahoney, T.

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

1961 "Factors determining the labor force participation of married women." Industrial and Labor
Relations Review 14(July):563-577.
Meissner, Martin
1971 "The long arm of the job: A study of work and leisure." Industrial Relations
10(October):239-260.
Mincer, Jacob
1962 "Labor force participation of married women." Pp. 63-97 in National Bureau of Economic
Research, Aspects of Labor Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mortimer, Jeylan
1976 "Social class, work and the family: Some implications of the father's occupation for familial rela-
tionships and sons' career decisions." Journal of Marriage and the Family 38(May):241-256.
Myers, George
1964 "Labor force participation of suburban mothers." Journal of Marriage and the Family
26(March):306-311.
Nye, F. Ivan and Lois W. Hoffman (eds.)
1963 The Employed Mother in America. Chicago: Rand-McNally and Co.
Oakley, Ann
1974 The Sociology of Housework. New York: Pantheon.
Oilman, Bertell
1971 Alienation. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Orzack, L.
1959 "Work as a 'central life interest' of professionals." Social Problems 7(Fall): 125-132.
Parnes, Herbert, Carol Jusenius and Richard Shortlidge, Jr.
1975 Dual Careers. U.S. Department of Labor. Washington: G.P.O.
Pearlin, L. I.
1962 "Alienation from work: A study of nursing personnel." American Sociological Review
27(June):314-326.
Psathas, G.
1968 "Toward a theory of occupational choice for women." Sociology and Social Research
52(January):253-268.
Rapaport, Rhona and Robert N. Rapaport
1971 "Further considerations on the dual career family." Human Relations 24(6):519-533.
Rosenfeld, C. and V. C. Perrella
1965 "Study in mobility." Monthly Labor Review 88(9):1077-1082.
Safilios-Rothschild, Constantina
1970 "The study of family power structure: A review 1960-1969." Journal of Marriage and the Family
32(November):539-552.
Scanzoni, J.
1970 Opportunity and the Family. New York: Free Press.
Seeman, M.
1967 "On the personal consequences of alienation in work." American Sociological Review
32(April):273-285.
1975 "Alienation Studies." Annual Review of Sociology 1:91-123.
Shepard, Jon M.
1971 Automation and Alienation: A Study of Office and Factory Workers. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
M.I.T. Press.
538 FELDBERG AND GLENN

1973 "Technology, division of labor and alienation." Pacific Sociological Review 16(January):61-88.
Smuts, Robert
1971 Women and Work in America. New York: Schocken Books.
Sobol, Marion
1963 "Commitment to work." Pp. 40-63 in F. Ivan Nye and Lois W. Hoffman (eds.), The Employed
Mother in America. Chicago: Rand-McNally and Co.
Sweet, James
1973 Women in the Labor Force. New York: Seminar Press.
Szalai, Alexander
1972 The Use of Time. The Hague: Thouton and Company.
Walshok, Mary
1976 "Nontraditional jobs for women: The blue collar world." Paper presented at the annual meetings
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston.
Walshok, Mary L. and Marco G. Walshok
1978 "The personal and social benefits of paid employment for urban women in skilled and semi-skilled
occupations." Paper presented at the Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden.
Wallace, Phyllis (ed.)

Downloaded from [Link] by guest on September 16, 2016

1976 Equal Employment Opportunity and the AT&T Case. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press.
Williamson, T. and E. Karras
1970 "Job satisfaction variables among female clerical workers." Journal of Applied Psychology
54(August):343-346.