GENDER SEGREGATION AND THE DUAL ECONOMY: A STUDY OF BLUE‐COLLAR OCCUPATIONS IN U.S. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Abstract

Gender divisions are embedded in and essential to the structure of capitalist production. While most men and women in the United States both now work for wages, they rarely work together. Gender segregation has been identified as one of the major issues of the earnings gap between men and women. An explanation of the forces responsible for this has been difficult to achieve. Most theories fail to consider the contribution of demand‐side factors to gender segregation. Neo‐Marxist analysis of labour market segmentation and theories of the dual economy have provided new frameworks for investigating these structural or demand‐side features of industrial organisation. The pattern of blue‐collar segregation in US manufacturing industries is examined drawing on these theories. Employment data from the US census is used to identify how the levels of blue‐collar segregation in manufacturing industries are influenced by the industry's location within the core or peripheral sector of the US economy. Many of segregation's proposed remedies stress the role of supply‐side factors. These strategies focus attention almost exclusively on male and female workers and ignore the structure of the workplace. Strategies that ignore the dualistic nature of the US economy offer only partial solutions and may be counter‐productive. If forced to eliminate or reduce segmentation, employers may simply restructure their labour processes in a way that undermines rather than contributes to gender inequality. It is apparent that the pursuit of gender equality in the workplace is intrinsically related to and dependent on the broader efforts of workers to achieve greater control over production, both at the workplace and in the economy as a whole.

Citation

Wharton, A.S. (1986), "GENDER SEGREGATION AND THE DUAL ECONOMY: A STUDY OF BLUE‐COLLAR OCCUPATIONS IN U.S. MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES", International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb013006