This case study of the banking industry, 1940–1980, examines three competing theories of increases in women's labor force participation. Combining census and industry regulatory data, three models of the feminization process are compared: human capital, dual labor market, and gender queuing. The gender queuing model best explains empirical variation in industry-level feminization. Clerical intensity (the proportion of clerical jobs to all jobs in the industry), especially, makes the substitution of female labor a cost-cutting alternative. Theories of feminization must incorporate spatial and temporal variation in the causal strength of relevant social forces. Gender queuing theory is best equipped to do this, as it allows for better historical interpretation of how varied social forces, both economic and patriarchal, impinge on class and gendered actors. Gender queuing theory subsumes determinants of feminization found in other theories while rejecting both their untenable assumptions and their interpretations of how labor markets actually function.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshenfelterOrleyHannanTimothy1986. “Sex Discrimination and Product Market Competition: The Case of the Banking Industry.”Quarterly Journal of Economics101: 149–173.
BarronR. D.NorrisG. M.1976. “Sexual Divisions and the Dual Labor Market.” Pp. 47–69 in Dependence and Exploitation in Work and Marriage, edited by BarkerD. L.AllenS.New York: Longman.
4.
BeckerGary S.1957. The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BeckerGary S.1985. “Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor.”Journal of Labor Economics3(1): S33–S58.
6.
BlauFrancine D.JuseniusCarol1976. “Economists' Approaches to Sex Segregation in the Labor Market: An Appraisal.” Pp. 181–190 in Women and the Workplace, edited by BlaxallMarthaReaganBarbaraChicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BridgesWilliam1980. “Industry Marginality and Female Employment: A New Appraisal.”American Sociological Review45: 58–75.
8.
CainGlen G.1966. Married Women in the Labor Force: An Economic Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
CancianFrancesca M.1995. “Truth and Goodness: Does the Sociology of Inequality Promote Social Betterment?”Sociological Perspectives38(3): 339–356.
10.
ClarkRogerRamsbeyThomas W.AdlerEmily Stier1991. “Culture, Gender, and Labor Force Participation: A Cross-National Study.”Gender and Society5(1): 47–66.
11.
CohnSamuel1985. The Process of Occupational Sex-Typing: The Feminization of Clerical Labor in Great Britain. Philadelphia: Temple University.
12.
CollinsRandallChafetzJanet SaltzmanBlumbergRae LesserColtraneScottTurnerJonathan H.1993. “Toward An Integrated Theory of Gender Stratification.”Sociological Perspectives36: 185–216.
13.
DaviesMargery W.1982. Women's Place is at the Typewriter: Office Work and Office Workers 1870–1930. Philadelphia: Temple University.
14.
DickensWilliam T.KatzLawrence F.1987. “Interindustry Wage Differences and Industry Characteristics.” Pp. 48–89 in Unemployment and the Structure of Labor Markets, edited by LangKevinLeonardJonathanNew York: Basil Blackwell.
15.
EdwardsRichard C.ReichMichaelGordonDavid M.1975. Labor Market Segmentation. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
16.
EnglandPaula1984. “Socioeconomic Explanations of Job Segregation.” Pp. 28–46 in Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimination, edited by RemickHelenPhiladelphia: Temple University Press.
17.
EnglandPaula1992. Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
18.
EnglandPaulaBrowneIrene1992. “Trends in Women's Economic Status.”Sociological Perspectives35: 17–52.
19.
GilbertGary A.LongbrakeWilliam A.1973. “The Effects of Branching by Financial Institutions on Competition, Productive Efficiency, and Stability—An Examination of the Evidence, Part I.”Journal of Bank Research (Autumn): 154–167.
20.
GilbertGary A.LongbrakeWilliam A.1974. “The Effects of Branching by Financial Institutions on Competition, Productive Efficiency, and Stability—An Examination of the Evidence, Part II.”Journal of Bank Research (Winter): 298–307.
Haavio-MannilaElinaKauppinen-ToropainenKaisaKandolinIrja1988. “The Effect of Sex Composition of the Workplace on Friendship, Romance, and Sex at Work.” Pp. 123–138 in Women and Work: An Annual Review, Vol. 3, edited by GutekBarbara A.StrombergAnn H.LarwoodLaurieNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
23.
HartmannHeidi1976. “Capitalism, Patriarchy and Job Segregation by Sex.”Signs1(3): 137–169.
24.
LoweGraham S.1987. Women in the Adminstrative Revolution: The Feminization of Clerical Work. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
25.
MilkmanRuth1987. Gender at Work: The Dynamics of Job Segregation by Sex during World War II. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
26.
OppenheimerValerie K.1970. The Female Labor Force in the United States: Demographic Factors Governing Its Growth and Changing Composition. Berkeley, CA: Institute of International Studies.
27.
PolachekSolomon1976. “Occupational Segregation: An Alternative Hypothesis.”Journal of Contemporary Business5: 1–12.
28.
ReskinBarbara F., ed. 1984. Sex Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29.
ReskinBarbara F.1988. “Bringing the Men Back In: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women's Work.”Gender and Society2: 58–81.
30.
ReskinBarbara F.1991. “Labor Markets as Queues: A Structural Approach to Changing Occupational Sex Composition.” Pp. 170–192 in Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology, edited by HuberJoan A. S. A. Presidential Series. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31.
ReskinBarbara F.HartmannHeidi I.1986. Women's Work, Men's Work: Sex Segregation on the Job. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32.
ReskinBarbara F.RoosPatricia1990. Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's Inroads into Male-Dominated Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
33.
RichBrian L.1993. “Class, Patriarchy or Human Capital? Determinants of Labor Feminization in the United States Banking Industry, 1940–1980.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
34.
RoosPatricia A.ManleyJoan E.1993. “From Matron to Maven: The Changing Sex Composition of Human Resource Professions.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Miami, August.
35.
RoosPatricia A.ReskinBarbara F.1992. “Occupational Desegregation in the 1970s: Integration and Economic Equity?”Sociological Perspectives35: 69–92.
36.
RosePeter1987. The Changing Structure of American Banking. New York: Columbia University Press.
37.
RotellaElyce J.1981. From Home to Office: U. S. Women at Work, 1870–1930. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.
38.
SnyderDavidHaywardMarkHudisPaula1978. “The Location of Change in the Sexual Structure of Occupations, 1950–1970: Insights from Labor Market Segmentation Theory.”American Journal of Sociology84: 706–717.
39.
StroberMyra H.1984. “Toward a General Theory of Occupational Sex Segregation: The Case of Public School Teaching.” Pp. 144–56 in Sex Segregation in the Workplace, edited by ReskinBarbaraWashington, DC: National Academy Press.
40.
StroberMyra H.1990. “Dynamics of Occupational Segregation.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
41.
StroberMyra H.ArnoldCarolyn1987. “The Dynamics of Occupational Segregation among Bank Tellers.” Pp. 107–158 in Gender in the Workplace, edited by BrownC.PechmanJ. A.Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
42.
StroberMyra H.CatanzariteLisa1988. “Occupational Attractiveness and Race-Gender Segregation, 1960–1980.” Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
43.
SzafranRobert F.1984. “Female and Minority Employment Patterns in Banks.”Work and Occupations11(1): 55–76.
44.
TaylorJeremy F.1989. The Banking System in Troubled Times: New Issues of Stability and Continuity. New York: Quorum.
45.
TolbertCharlesHoranPatrick M.BeckE. M.1980. “The Structure of Economic Segmentation: A Dual Economy Approach.”American Journal of Sociology85: 1095–1116.
46.
TreimanD. J.TerrellK.1975. “Women, Work and Wages: Trends in the Female Occupational Structure Since 1940.” Pp. 157–199 in Social Indicator Models, edited by LandK. C.SpilermanS.New York: Sage.
47.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1972. United States Census Data for 1970: Public Use Microdata Samples [MRDF]. Washington, DC: The Bureau [producer and distributor].
48.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1979. United States Census Data for 1960: Public-Use Microdata. One-in-One Hundred Sample [MRDF]. Made available by the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. Originally collected by the Bureau.
49.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1983a. Census of Population, 1940: Public Use Microdata Samples [MRDF]. Prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: The Bureau [producer and distributor].
50.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1983b. Census of Population and Housing, 1980: Public-Use Microdata, Sample C [MRDF]. Prepared by the Bureau. Washington, DC: The Bureau [producer and distributor].
51.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1984. Census of Population, 1950: Public Use Microdata Samples [MRDF]. Prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: The Bureau [producer and distributor].
WardKathryn B.PampelFred C.1985. “Structural Determinants of Female Labor Force Participation in Developed Nations, 1955–1975.”Social Science Quarterly66(3): 654–667.
