Talk:Pink-collar worker

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pink-collar worker article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Organized Labour Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Social Work B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Pink ghetto page were merged into Pink-collar worker on October 31, 2011. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anderson.kylie, Kate.bickett, Taylorwatson, AReallyCuteSloth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ErikaKuti. Peer reviewers: Jc2064.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UrkeI Grue.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexischiribao.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited for slightly more NPOV. -Ash. (November 4, 2005)

• Oppose - This term has been re-purposed and no longer applies to "pink collar" workers which are much lower paid positions. It's now used by female managers to describe being routed in to managerial positions that do not have a track to the board room - HR, Marketing, Customer Service, etc. It allows a company to have plenty of female managers for the counts but none of them are in a position that contributes to the bottom line and its highly unlikely that any of them will ever get a seat at the "big table".

129.119.81.135 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Angry in Pink[reply]

I see this is listed as unreferenced. Two useful references might be Pink-collar worker in the Financial Dictionary at specialinvestor.com or the less detailed but canonical definition in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition, 2000). - Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have put them both in, but I think in terms of the article's content it is still a little under-referenced. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cut the following because it is pretty incoherent. I imagine that, if better put, it would belong in the article:

Even though Pink-collar refers to women working in their traditional roles in the Western wolrd, this term carries the meaning of fashing and a new kind of lifestyle. Those female workers that are being referred to with this term often dress fashionably and clean. They are mostly in their 20's or 30's.

Some of the problems would be easily fixed (e.g. "wolrd" ==> "world"), but I didn't just copy edit because there are bigger problems:

• "Even though Pink-collar refers to women working in their traditional roles in the Western world…": So does this mean to say "Even though in the Western world Pink-collar refers to women working in their traditional roles…"? or does it mean something about Asian women working in traditionally Asian roles in the Western world? or what?
• "fashing"?? Perhaps "fashion"? But I wasn't sure.
• "…a new kind of lifestyle…": Pretty vague. What does this mean to say?
• "workers that are being referred to with this term often dress fashionably and clean": "Clean" comes with the territory. As the article begins "A pink-collar worker works in a relatively clean, safe environment…"

So what is the contrast supposed to be? That Asian pink-collar workers are somehow fashionable in a way that Western ones are not? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was traditionally high prestige, surely. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07 3 October 2006 (GMT).

Not in many parts of the U.S., at least not below the university level. As recently as the 1960s there were running jokes about teachers quitting to become migrant farmworkers and improve their status. And this was a job that many men considered "beneath them". - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I was thinking, that careers like Midwifery, Teaching, & Prostitution should be include here as well. And probably other suppouse pink-collar worker jobs as well, that had been miss out. And do you agree with that?-Jana

"Waitress" should be changed to the more gender neutral term "waiter" or "server." - Benjamin Mulroney —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin mulroney 414 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shop assistant should be listed too, one of the most common careers for women in Australia is retail work. Seamstress is another job that should be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.35.106 (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just (re-)added Librarian to the list. I have noticed over the years that someone takes it out, and someone puts it in. To me (I am a librarian), it qualifies as a pink-collar job because (a) it is clearly female dominated (~85% in the US), and (b) it is, in part because of its feminized status and our society's prejudices, underpaid relative to the educational requirements and societal contributions. Librarians have been fighting for more recognition and better pay for years, and have tried to re-brand the profession as a "Profession" on par with "manager" etc. This has been successful in some areas (in academic librarianship the pay has improved and often tenure track systems have been added), but it is still woefully lacking in public librarianship, where pay may barely exceed minimum wage. My guess is that the person or people who remove it from this list are doing so in order to differentiate it from "those menial" positions that also populate the list, but wishing something to be so, and the on-the-ground reality are two different things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.37.175 (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking the argument out of context.

You can be Asian and still have a pink collar. The clean dress is not in reference to a "clean environment" but to a "clean dress" - almost but not quite literally because it doesn't have to be a dress. (so don't go running off out of context on me).

To be clean a manner of dress it would be neat, orderly, appropriate looking for the job, professional, and tasteful or flattering to one's appearance. - clean does not go with the territory of a "clean working environment".

The opposite of a dressing cleanly is to dress in a trashy manner, or looking very distasteful or in a non-flattering manner. When speaking of the feminine, looking like a hooker or whore is the opposite of clean.

Asian or Caucasian, one can still dress cleanly. Just thought I would clarify a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.200.137 (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems bizzare that none of the categories this page is in include the word "woman", "women" or "feamale". Normally I would just add it, but figured I would see if this was a deliberate choice of editors for some reason. Was it? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has great problems with neutrality. It seems as though it was compiled by people with a feminist political agenda. I provide the following excerpts that are entirely unworthy of an encyclpaedia:

"Women who choose stay home as a housewife had the most complicated job a person could have." - How? Who says this? Why is this particular role more difficult than any other role in history? One could justifiably say that women experienced difficulty managing a household if one were to provide evidence of this, but to suggest that managing a household is the most difficult of tasks inevitably requires that it be evaluated against all other tasks/chores/jobs, not only at present but throughout all of history. "Black women suffered far more than their white sisters, their realities were bleak and full of despair." - How were they full of despair? What evidence is there of prevaling despair amongst black women? Perhaps there has been a suitable survey or study conducted, but without such a reference this comment cannot remain. There are much better ways of conveying that black women were disenfranchised/marginalised. Why use the term "sisters" as opposed to "counterparts"? This is a fairly transparent attempt at exciting pathos. "Women who are mothers and wives excel with managerial tasks because they plan and prioritize multiple tasks at home. Most women who juggle duties at home are efficient, focused and organized at work." - A gross generalisation. Where is the source for this assertion? How are women who are mothers and wives necessarily more efficient at managing than men who are husbands and father? How does one know that "most" of these women are efficient/focused/organised? In what ways are they demonstrably and objectively efficient/focused/organised? Pancleon (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egh, yes. For an article as well-sourced as this, the tone and the way it's all tied together is just plain awful - even where they're essentially right (as in your second example), it's written in a totally unencyclopedic manner. It would be good if someone could run through and take an axe to the various questionable assertions of fact here; if they're shifted to the talk we can go through them individually. Rebecca (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly a good portion of the article reads like a first year college argument essay. Needs a good rewrite. --24.23.38.171 (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the section titled "Life in the working world" should be broken up into two or more smaller paragraphs, so that it does not persist as a humongous monolithic paragraph. --Keith111 (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this article seems to be very unencyclopedic and has a sympathetic feminist POV. 75.85.32.224 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the article's lead-in and the "Typical Occupations" section this article doesn't seem to have anything to do with Pink-collar workers. The whole rest of the article is about the history of working women in the United States. Should this be separated into two separate articles, one on "History of working women in the United States" and one on Pink-collar workers? Or should Blue-collar worker be rewritten to include a history of men's labor or the history of blue-collar jobs in the United States? Since this very article defines itself in terms of blue-collar (and white collar) workers it would seem that there should be some level of consistency amongst these articles. The background section editorializes about women working in factories... Are factories pink-collar jobs too? The article that's been written here seems almost completely divorced from the topic. A Pink-collar worker is someone that works in a typically female industry... they don't necessarily need to be a female...--Cybermud (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, adding to the anterior comment, I see that this article was in fact moved from "Pink collar" to "Pink collar-worker" for ostensible parity with the blue and white collar articles even though it is, as noted above, entirely inconsistent with its interpretation of the subject matter and term and seems to be, at present, a coatrack for an article on the history of working women.--Cybermud (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where to put this, I've never edited wikipedia before, but I think "tobacco strippers" should be "tobacco stripers". A stripper is someone who takes their clothes off, I think striper is an archaic word for a salesperson who works only for commission. Google "tobacco striper" to see that it was listed as a profession in 19th century census results. -kmr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.204.148 (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'stripper' has more meanings than just "someone who takes their clothes off". Look up "paint stripper". 2CrudeDudes (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "stripper" (/strip-per/) removes something (clothing, paint, etc). A "striper" (/stripe-er/) would I dunno paint stripes on something?! Or wear striped clothing like a "candy striper". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.147.131 (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "These machines designed by men, using the technology they have always monopolized, are now displacing them and forcing them into feminized pink-collar work," might be politically powerful or delivered for effect but what it is NOT is factual. It does not link to any citations, makes an unproven/unknowable generalization ("designed by men") and also makes a statement contrary to other known facts, such as women's contributions towards technology. Strongly advise removal. --182.191.196.79 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC) (User: CodeCharming)[reply]

These things are probably all factual. But it feels biased towards showing women as victims. It talks about single women getting their pay cut if they were absent or late. Did married women not get their pay cut? Or men? It seems like the early 20th century was not full of worker's rights all around, not just for women.

Also, it mentions that women earn 77 percent of what men do, regardless of education. What about in equivalent jobs with equivalent experience? And what does that have to do with pink collar workers?

This article makes it seem like women are poor victims of men's suppression and are incapable of doing more satisfying work. And who is to say that the women in pink collar jobs are dissatisfied with their pay or their work? There are certainly women who work in these fields because they like the work and are willing to sacrifice the pay. Karlysalisbury (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Physician Assistants are not pink-collar workers (unless physicians themselves are). Unlike what the title sounds like, Physician Assistants ("PAs") do not "assist" physicians like Medical Assistants, techs, Patient Care Associates, or other unlicensed assistive personnel do (supervised delegation of specifically-trained tasks); nor as RNs or LPNs do (delegation and off-loading of more complex and independent duties and tasks). Rather to put it bluntly they're "junior doctors", performing most duties and tasks of full physicians, but under a full physician's (direct or indirect) supervision, very similar if not equivalent to a Nurse Practitioner (NP) -- depending on the state. NPs however are licensed for independent practice unlike PAs. PAs extend the abilities of physicians by allowing them to serve more patients per hour, and cost the practice less in salary while (usually) allowing for physician-level billing. They also extend the reach of medical care to under-serviced or remote areas. Both PAs and NPs should be classified as the same collar rank as Physicians.

This article focuses entirely too much on the history of the working American Woman! Women who migrated to the United States for paid work (mainly care work) following deindustrialization are completely excluded from this article. It might be beneficial to the credibility of this article to add a section on the feminization of transnational labor migration. Alexischiribao (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pink-collar worker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050505194045/http://bartleby.com/61/52/P0315200.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/P0315200.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.worlddata.com/datacard/viewdatacard.asp?ID=2609
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209072059/http://www.womenwork.org/policy/factwomenwork.htm to http://www.womenwork.org/policy/factwomenwork.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add a section on or link to how the Lily Ledbetter Law came about? I think it would inform the Pink-collar entry because Lily Ledbetter experienced initial pay discrimination, which compounded throughout her career because her raises depended on her initial pay. When a male colleague told her how much lower her pay was than his, she was unable to recover back pay because the initial discrimination happened so long before. The Lily Ledbetter Law enables future female pay discrimination to be recovered, but ultimately did not directly benefit her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.90 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For instance the article on Valet begins: "A valet or varlet is a male servant who serves as personal attendant to his employer." - How is that a "pink collar worker?" The are many more here that don't make sense as "traditionally women's work": Actor, Landscape designer, Book keeper, the list goes on...

Remove duplicate rederence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:D8FA:35E:7A82:56D3 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few quotes from reference 57 (Kalokerinos, Elise) which would benefit the topic.

Suggestions:

- Add in the more masculine tasks of men in pink collar jobs: "feelings among men in pink-collars that they were expected to engage in masculine job-relevant tasks, such as dealing with angry and potentially violent clients."

- Add in difficulty in recruiting and retaining men in pink collar jobs: "that there may be important problems in recruiting and retaining men in pink-collar jobs."

- Mention that women in male-dominated jobs may have similar stereotypical thread concerns: "feelings of stereotype threat were associated with more negative job attitudes among older workers (von Hippel, Kalokerinos, & Henry, 2013) and women in male-dominated workplaces (von Hippel, Issa, Ma, & Stokes, 2011)"

From: Kalokerinos, Elise K.; Kjelsaas, Kathleen; Bennetts, Steven; von Hippel, Courtney (1 August 2017). "Men in pink collars: Stereotype threat and disengagement among male teachers and child protection workers". European Journal of Social Psychology. 47 (5): 553–565. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2246. hdl:11343/292953. ISSN 1099-0992.

Quotes of interest related to pink collar jobs:

"Male employees are a traditionally advantaged group, but when working in a female-dominated industry they may be vulnerable to negative gender stereotypes."

"feelings of stereotype threat were related to negative job attitudes for men but not women"

"In turn, stereotype threat was associated with intentions to resign and feeling expected to perform stereotypic masculine work tasks."

"Indeed, Steele (1997) theorized that in the short-term stereotype threat would lead to performance decrements, and in the long-term to disidentification or disengagement from the stereotyped domain. The possibility that stereotype threat might lead to disengagement is likely to be particularly important to organizations because work disengagement is associated with negative outcomes, such as more negative job attitudes (Riketta, 2008) and increased turnover (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).:

"The relationship between stereotype threat and work disengagement has been demonstrated using various methodologies. Correlational research demonstrated that chronic feelings of stereotype threat were associated with more negative job attitudes among older workers (von Hippel, Kalokerinos, & Henry, 2013) and women in male-dominated workplaces (von Hippel, Issa, Ma, & Stokes, 2011). Research using a daily diary methodology found that daily experiences of stereotype threat predicted psychological burnout in female engineers (Hall, Schmader, & Croft, 2015)."

"Pink-collar organizations are numerically skewed towards female employees, and the work is conceived in female-gendered terms (Acker, 1990; Sargent, 2005)." is from the longer quote for context "Pink-collar organizations are numerically skewed towards female employees, and the work is conceived in female-gendered terms (Acker, 1990; Sargent, 2005). For example, nurses, primary school teachers, and child protection workers are meant to be gentle and nurturing, traits that are stereotypic of women but not men. Stereotypes about men suggest they are unlikely to have the necessary traits to succeed in pink-collar jobs, in which such stereotypically female traits are thought to be critical for success. Not only are men assumed to lack these feminine traits (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Heilman, 2001), but they are stereotyped as aggressive, dominant, and competitive (Cejka & Eagly, 1999), traits that are problematic in many pink-collar jobs. Stereotype threat might be particularly problematic for men in pink-collar jobs that involve working with young children, as men are perceived as less nurturing than women (Eagly, 1987; Williams & Best, 2000) and more likely to engage in child sexual abuse (cf. Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004)."

Reinforcements and negative expectations from others affects men in pink collar jobs: "Steele (1997) theorized that stereotype threat would apply to members of all groups that are stereotyped in a particular setting, regardless of whether that group was historically stigmatized. Laboratory research supports this claim, finding that members of traditionally advantaged groups also suffer the negative consequences of stereotype threat, although such research has thus far only investigated performance, and not disengagement consequences. For example, White men performed more poorly on math tasks when reminded of stereotypes that Asians are better at mathematics (Aronson et al., 1999; Smith & White, 2002), and more poorly on a golf task when it was framed as diagnostic of “natural athletic ability” (Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999). Additionally, and more closely aligned with the current research, men show stereotype threat effects when completing tasks in stereotypically feminine domains – making more errors on an emotion processing task (Leyens, Désert, Croizet, & Darcis, 2000) and on a test of social sensitivity (Koenig & Eagly, 2005). Thus, the results of laboratory research are in line with Steele’s original theorizing that being a target of a negative stereotype triggers stereotype threat, independent of historical group stigmatization. Nevertheless, stereotype threat among advantaged group members has never been investigated outside of the lab, and there is good reason to think that the privileged status afforded to pink-collar men in the real world may shield them from the experience of stereotype threat."

More masculine tasks in the 2005 citation: "Finally, we also examined feelings among men in pink-collars that they were expected to engage in masculine job-relevant tasks, such as dealing with angry and potentially violent clients. Men in pink-collar industries report feeling that they are expected to perform these more masculine work tasks when they arise (e.g., Sargent, 2005)."

"Men are increasingly entering female-dominated professions (Dewan & Gebeloff, 2012), but this rate of growth does not match the increasing number of women entering traditionally male-dominated professions (Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor, 2008), suggesting that there may be important problems in recruiting and retaining men in pink-collar jobs. Increasing male representation in these jobs may help address negative stereotypes about men in feminine professions, provide counter-stereotypic role models for the boys with whom they work (Hood, 2001), and help reduce the rigidity of gender stereotypes (Eagly & Steffen, 1984)."

"there is a paucity of research investigating barriers to men working in traditionally feminine roles (Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015)."

References cited in those quotes

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158. doi: 10.1177/089124390004002002

Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When White men can't do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29-46. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1371

Bosson, J. K., Haymovitz, E. L., & Pinel, E. C. (2004). When saying and doing diverge: The effects of stereoytpe threat on self-reported non-verbal anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 247-255. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00099-4

Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413-423. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025004002

Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men's engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343-370. doi: 10.1177/1088868314564789

Dewan, S., & Gebeloff, R. (2012, May 20). More men enter fields dominated by women. The New York Times, p. A1.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735-754.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234

Hall, W. M., Schmader, T., & Croft, E. (2015). Engineering exchanges: Daily social identity threat predicts burnout among female engineers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 528-534. doi: 10.1177/1948550615572637

Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52(7-8), 489-496. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3714-x

Leyens, J. P., Désert, M., Croizet, J. C., & Darcis, C. (2000). Stereotype threat: Are lower status and history of stigmatization preconditions of stereotype threat? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1189-1199. doi: 10.1177/0146167200262002

Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472-481. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.472

Sargent, P. (2005). The gendering of men in early childhood education. Sex Roles, 52(3/4), 251-259, doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1300-x

Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It's not just a woman's issue. Sex Roles, 47(3-4), 179-191. doi: 10.1023/A:1021051223441

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.52.6.613

Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1213. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1213

von Hippel, C., Issa, M., Ma, R., & Stokes, A. (2011). Stereotype threat: Antecedents and consequences for working women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 151-161. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.749

von Hippel, C., Kalokerinos, E. K., & Henry, J. D. (2013). Stereotype threat among older employees: Relationship with job attitudes and turnover intentions. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 17-27. doi: 10.1037/a0029825

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (2000). Cross-cultural views of women and men. In K. A. Keough & J. Garcia (Eds.), Social psychology of gender, race and ethnicity: Readings and projects (pp. 168-173). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor. (2008). Nontraditional occupations for women in 2008. Washington, DC. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:DC70:9A75:D5AC:ABB4 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]