A fascinating article in today’s Toronto Star Men stand out as daycare workers about men in professions dominated by women.
Well, perhaps not dominated, if you use the language as reported in the article, it’s “a job pretty well the domain of women.” Those who study gender in our culture tell us that language matters. Dominate – a word clearly tied to aggression and subjugation - is the word we use to describe fields where men are employed in disproportionately high numbers. Where women enjoy such privilege, even in whopping imbalance, such as here where the College of Early Childhood Educators awarded 599 certificates to men, out of a total of 41,700 (that’s 1.4%), we use a much softer word like “domain.” Interesting.
Also interesting is to consider the actions taken in fields which are the domain of men, where outreach and public education and sometimes even affirmative action-style programs are crafted to welcome women. And when the field is dominated by women, what actions are taken to attract men?
Angela Gauthier, associate director of academic affairs at the Catholic board, said a male role model, for both boys and girls, is desired in the early grades, where it’s still largely women. She said the board sends out a clear message that men are welcome. But if there are no candidates, there are no hires. As well, a member of the school’s public relations team said Durham isn’t actively pursuing male candidates. Both Gauthier and Hartwell point to what some may consider a low salary for a potential “main breadwinner,” with pay ranging from as low as minimum wage to just above $30 an hour, all depending on experience and employer.
In other words, nothing is done. It’s not that the program directors disagree that men are necessary to increase the diversity of role models, especially for boys who are by nearly every measure fairing increasingly poorly in school compared to girls. Instead we invoke as an excuse the differential salary enjoyed in this particular female dominated profession. Yet such an excuse is rarely invoked to justify the low numbers of women in engineering.
Our discourse on gender in the workforce consistently fails to appreciate the complex interplay of forces that result in different rates of men and women in certain professions. Ironically acknowledged as a means of excusing male absence from early childhood professions, the fact is men still do overwhelmingly enjoy the burden of serving as “main breadwinner,” and that is to deprive men of options, to force many men to abandon potentially meaningful careers in order to take on jobs that might be more empty, tedious or dangerous – but which for all those reasons pay more. If we want to increase the numbers of women in male-dominated fields, we must also be equally interested in increasing the numbers of men in female-dominated fields. If we were to take on this far more holistic approach we might appreciate the real substantial issues at the core of both problems, namely those societal gender expectations that are every bit as burdensome on men as they are on women, resulting for example in men constituting 97% of all workplace fatalities.
What would such a social education project look like. Well it might model itself on successful programs that have changed the public’s perception of what women are capable of in the workforce. Just as images of women working as engineers, architects or miners (well less so that last one for some reason) have broken down our sexist stereotypes of women, we must see more images of men as nurses, preschool teachers and babysitters. Societal perception of men in these professions is every bit as sexist as that which prevented women from entering male dominated professions.
Western University professors Dr. Rebecca Coulter and Dr. Margaret McNay are authors of a reference article that explored men’s experiences working as teachers with young children. Their research evolved around seven men and their experiences teaching early grades at elementary schools, but Coulter said the findings could easily be applied to male ECE workers. The paper concludes: “valued as that rare commodity, men in elementary teaching, their motives, abilities and sexuality were nonetheless often viewed with suspicion.” She said it’s not just the parents but even some principals and fellow teachers who looked with apprehension at males teaching early grades, for myriad reasons.
We have a lot of work to do. Imagine if women constituted 1% of engineers and defending that number with this kind of statement:
. . We are focused on the public interest and professionalism, and do not take gender into account, although it is an interesting question.”
Yet that is part of the written statement issued by Julia Lipman of the College of Early Childhood Educators:
“since the college’s inception in 2008, the number of new members each year who identify themselves as male has consistently been observed at approximately 1 per cent of the total membership. . . . We are focused on the public interest and professionalism, and do not take gender into account, although it is an interesting question.”
If this kind of statement would be unacceptable in justifying 1% of women in a male dominated field like engineering, where gender diversity actually brings very little benefit to the public interest as such, why is it acceptable in the case of early childhood education, where gender-based role models clearly are important. For Lipman to suggest the lack of men in early childhood education has no connection with public interest, while boys are failing schools in record numbers at least partly because of a lack of male role models, is disingenuous at best and ignorant of her own professional commitments at worst.
Fantastic article. Hard to beleive it was in the Toronto Star though.
My issue is not with them pointing out the low pay-grade for males in the profession, it is in the labelling of men as potential “main breadwinners”. This touches on the burden placed of men of feeling they need to be the main, if not sole, breadwinner for a future family. They do not even mention this burden for the females in the occupation, although they may already be the main or sole breadwinner for their family unit already.
Personally I’d be happy with a job that could potentially pay me just over $30 an hour.
This is what happens when I post before reading the next paragraph…
I recall a sesame street cartoon where two siblings are discussing school, and the one who hasn’t gone to school yet is shocked that their siblings teacher is of an unexpected sex (I honestly forget if they made the male or the female the more expected sex to fulfill a teacher role).
I agree with what you are saying Adam but, would just like to add to one of your points. I read this recently somewhere and for the mot part I believe it to be true. Even though women are now making up the majority of most work forces and no sign of that slowing down soon and at all levels I might add. No glass ceiling to contend with anymore for the most part and they are in some of the highest office’s in the land, one just has to look at women in government, elected or otherwise. Having said that, it was pointed out to me hat men still work and if they have a family, they eel that the income they make is the families, wherein women who work and have a family are often made to feel at the income they earn is theirs first, family second. I am not trying to women bash, I love my wife, mother, sister and female friends and know many lovely females but, it is the politics of the day that is creating the atmosphere we are now seeing and the extreme in-equality between men and women and men are on the in-equality end, have been for a long time. I hope that soon, society will wake up and begin to treat men as people too!
Speaking of affirmative action, here’s a good one. In my hometown of Sudbury, ON, College Boreal has a pre-apprenticeship program for 309A Construction Electricians available to women only. But that’s not the best part…the icing on the cake is…are you ready for this?
It’s free.
Have a look at the course directory on their website:
http://www.collegeboreal.ca/programs-courses/apprenticeship/course-repertory/
It’s the first course listed on that lengthy page and is easy to find.
How you like them apples?
And when you’re done your program, there’s plenty of affirmative action so you won’t have to compete for the available jobs either.
I currently work as a 309A Electrical apprentice, 5th term, and will be starting my third and final trade school program at College Boreal on March 4th. I can’t wait. Once I’m done the 10 week course, I will be able to write my exam for my ticket.
- tuition….$6000
- books & tools….$3000
-6 applicants taken every 6 months with over 200 applicants per cycle at my particular place of employment
-8 years of commitment
Being taken seriously once I’ve reached my goal because I had no other avenue than to earn my way through…..
Priceless.
Earning something by merits & hard work is the reason men are looked upon as more competent generally, try explaining that narrative to a feminist.
If they could open the free training to everybody that would be great. There are hard working poor parents who couldn’t afford, no matter how hard they tried, to pay tuition fees for their kids. Opening it up to everybody would be fair.
Feminists may claim it isn’t, but I guess they would be forgetting the many poor families out there who can’t afford tuition for their children. Mysandry DOES exist and in a truly equal society education aid such as this should be available to ALL genders. Boys need help too, since the parents tend to be the ones springing for tuition and free tuition would mean no added debt to the individual or family… Critical in today’s world to avoid debt. There also is NO patriarchy! The problems of the world are FAR more complex to blame on gender issues only. Lots of info on what’s going on out there, stop blaming the men for all of this world mess, it’s very complex and both men and women who are corrupt are to blame NOT just one gender!!!
To claim mysandry doesn’t exist is to forget the true nature and definition of discrimination. To discriminate is to treat others differently based on a defined characteristic. Gender, skin color, hair and eye color even, religion, etc. Since there are various genders, there can be various types of discrimination against those genders. It is simple. I don’t understand why feminists can’t understand it. And please don’t bring up emotionalism and women, I AM a woman and I understand mysandry exists! It seems to be very human to be in denial. Or to not see other’s point of view and get “locked into” a way of thinking, though that can change over time. I have seen men do it too, out there in the various activist circles over many issues outside of men’s issues. Frustrating. I’m not perfect either, I’ll admit.
I find it miss-leading to talk about female dominated areas of work, when in most cities, towns and areas, be it Tim Horton’s, schools, hospitals, banks, most office’s, HR and employment counselling places of business, all levels of government office’s, etc…, are all female dominated areas of employment today, to the tune of upwards of 80, 90 and 100% female staffed. Males are almost exclusively restricted to areas of labour intensive work and females are beginning to make in-roads into that.
When employment equity for women started, it was the result of societal developments over hundreds and thousands of years, wherein men went out and worked in the work force and women stayed at home and raised the family, there was nothing intentional on anyone’s part to create a in-equality within the work force. Today, employment equity for women has for the first time in the history of the species created intentionally an employment in-equity against men. What makes this so much the worse is that no one is pointed it out and if they do, they are essentially ignored or you get some vile, mean person, male or female, making condescending remarks about men having rights, as if only women should have rights.
Over all, to talk about female dominated work forces in Canada today you are talking about most employment or businesses in Canada, where equity no longer has a meaning, and women simply dominate and at all levels, they smashed the glass ceiling years ago. Instead of speaking about the in-equity created towards men as a result of women getting their equity needs met, they make up issue so women continue to be kept in the spot light and men fall to the way side, increasing the numbers of the homeless and the down and out in Canada, wherein in this area, men far out number women.
Truly, we are in a sad state and one of extreme denial. I think we are well over due to make this a national, international issue and beginning addressing it, with honesty and all mechanism that gave women a chance at equity, men are people to and what is right for women, surely should be right for men.
The barriers to male employment in the caring professions are complex but IMO centre on 2 distinct areas;
1. The existing workforce is resistant to the inclusion of greater numbers of males, and seek to draw upon irrational objections by parents (primarily mothers) and the allegation that due to the need to safeguard children from potential abuse male employees need to be supervised at all times by a female employee.
2. Recruitment marketing is female-centric that fails to recognise that males have different concerns regarding employment (See US campaign “Man Enough to Be A Nurse”) and interpret statements and imagery as being implicit statements that males are not actually welcome.
The arguments about pay are almost entirely disingenous.