Gender inequalities in highly qualified professions: A social psychological analysis

Author:

Santos Maria Helena,Amâncio Lígia

Abstract

Research in social and political psychology contributes towards understanding the persistence of job market gender segregation prevailing in recent decades, the consequences for those involved and their reactions when having to cope with gender inequality. Within the framework of the literature on shared ideologies that justify and legitimize discrimination against women, this article focuses on Portugal and analyses the particular case of women in two highly qualified professions traditionally carried out by men – politics and medicine. Drawing on the results of quantitative and qualitative studies, our analytical approach demonstrates how while a majority of participants show awareness of the existence of gender inequality in these markedly masculine professions, meritocratic individualism and personal attributions to discrimination are the recurring explanations rather than any gender-based account. These results allow us to highlight the relevance of gender-based analysis as an ideology and furthermore to argue that ignoring this perspective not only diminishes individual responsibility for social change but also perpetuates gender asymmetries.

Publisher

Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID)

Subject

Sociology and Political Science,Applied Psychology,Social Psychology

Reference79 articles.

1. Measuring the Quality of Politicians Elected by Gender Quotas – Are They Any Different?

2. Amâncio, L. (1995). Social identity and social change: The case of gender relations. In L. Amâncio & C. Nogueira (Eds.), Gender, management and science (pp. 33-42). Braga, Portugal: University of Minho.

3. The importance of being male: Ideology and context in gender identities.;Amâncio;Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale,1997

4. IV. Men as Individuals, Women as a Sexed Category: Implications of Symbolic Asymmetry for Feminist Practice and Feminist Psychology

5. Bacchi, C. L. (2006). Arguing for and against quotas: Theoretical issues. In D. Dahlerup (Ed.), Gender, quotas and politics (pp. 32-51). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Cited by 10 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3