Feminizacja zawodu nauczycielskiego – „różowe kołnierzyki” i paradoksy rynku pracy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/PBE.2017.020Słowa kluczowe
zawód nauczyciela, feminizacja, nierówność płciowa, stuktura rynku pracy, różowe kołnierzykiAbstrakt
Statistical dominance of women in the teaching profession, particularly at the level of elementary education in almost every country of the world is a fact. The author in the article tries to find the reasons for low status of this profession, at present and in historical context as well as and its social consequences. The feminization of teaching profession is considered taking into account two dimensions. First is purely statistical, referring to the absolute and the percentage of women in the teaching profession. Second one regarded as a sociologicalphenomenon with its implication to education.
There are two possible approaches to the relationship between the feminization of the teaching profession and its place in the occupational stratification, expressed e.g. in prestige and income. The first results from the conviction that feminization of teaching profession is a consequence of its permanently weaker position in the occupational structure. This belief dominates many theoretical analyzes and also common sense of millions people. In the field
of academic discussion this approach is expressed by gender segregation and desegregation theory, and the inverted hierarchy mechanism theory. However, a closer analysis of this phenomenon makes possible to support radically different interpretation of this problem. So,
proponents of the second approach argue that this is not the case that feminization of the teaching profession has brought its degradation. They are convinced that weak status of this profession in occupational structure is a consequence of its feminization. Growing number
of women diminishes the attractiveness of this job. At he end of article author concludes that this context, generally the growth of women within this “pink-collar profession” is either a reflection of its historically low prestige in the structure of employment or it is connected with the reduction of its prestige because of social or economical reasons.
Bibliografia
Arkfen D. E. (1998). W: Eisenmann L. (red.) Historical Dictionary of Women’s Education In the United States. Oxford.
Arnot M. (2002). Reproducing Gender? Essays on Educational Theory and Feminist Politics, London.
Arnot M., David M., Weiner G. (1999). Closing the Gender Gap. Postwar Education and Social Change, Oxford.
Beck U. (2004). Społeczeństwo ryzyka. W drodze do innej rzeczywistości. Warszawa.
Beecher C. E. (2002). W: Edwards J. Women in American Education, 1820–1955. The Female Force and Educational Reform. Westport. Connecticut, London.
Bourdieu P. (2004). Męska dominacja. Tłumaczenie: L. Kopciewicz. Warszawa.
Budrowska B., Duch-Krzystoszek S., Titkow A. (2003). Bariery awansu kobiet. W: Titkow A. (red.). Szklany sufit. Bariery i ograniczenia karier kobiet.Warszawa.
Delamont S. (1989), Knowledgeable Women. Structuralism and the Reproduction of Elites. London.
Domański H. (1999). Zadowolony niewolnik idzie do pracy. Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii PAN.
Drudy S. (2008). Gender Balance/Gender Bias: The Teaching Profession and the Impact of Feminisation, Gender and Education, vol. 20, nr 4.
Duby G., Perrot M. (red.) (1993). A History of Women. London.
Epstein D., Elwood J., Hey V., Maw J. (1998). Schoolboy Frictions: Feminism and ‘Failing’ Boys. W: Epstein D., Elwood J., Hey V., Maw J. (red.). Failing Boys? Issues in Gender and Achievement. Buckingham.
Fourth Annual Report of the Secretary of the Board of Education. W: Horace Mann (red.) The Common School Journal, nr 109, tom 3, Boston.
Giddens A. (2004). Socjologia. Warszawa.
Gromkowska-Melosik A. (2011). Edukacja i (nie)równość społeczna kobiet. Studium dynamiki dostępu. Kraków.
Gromkowska-Melosik A. (2013). Kobieta epoki wiktoriańskiej. Tożsamość, ciało i medykalizacja. Kraków.
Gromkowska-Melosik A., Melosik Z. (2006). Wielkopolanki 2006. Sukces społeczno-zawodowy kobiet: czynniki, kontrowersje, paradoksy. W: Gromkowska-Melosik A., Melosik Z., Hadaś K., Nowakowska H., Siodłak-Potocka H., Społeczno-ekonomiczne konteksty sukcesu zawodowego kobiet. Poznań.
Grumet M. R. (1988). Bitter Milk: Women and Teaching. Massachusetss.
Holter Ø. G. (2005). Social Theories for Researching Men and Masculinities. Direct Gender Hierarchy and Structural Inequality. W: Kimmel M. S., Hearn J., Connell R. W. (red.). Handbook of Studies on Men & Masculinities, London.
Kennelly I. (2002). „I Would Never Be A Secretary”. Reinforcing Gender In Segregated and Integrated Occupations. Gender and Society, vol. 16, nr 5.
Mahony P. (1998). Girls Will Be Girls And Boys Will Be First. W: Epstein D., Elwood J., Hey V., Maw J. (red.). Failing Boys? Issues in Gender and Achievement, Buckingham.
Martino W., Maria Pallotta-Chiarolli M. (2007). Schooling, Normalisation, and Gendered Dobies: Adolescent Boys’ and Girl’ Experiences of Gender and Schooling. W: Thiessen D., Cook-Sather A. (red.). International Handbook of Student Experience In Elementary and Secondary School. Dordrecht.
Maruani M., Nicole C. (2004). Au Labeur des dames. Metiers masculins, employs feminins. Paris
Mayeur F., Mayeur F. (1993). The Secular Model of Girl’s Education. W: Duby G., Perrot M. (red.). A History of Women, London.
Miller J. (1992). More has Meant Women: The Feminisation of Schooling. London.
Mills M., Martino W., Lingard B. (2004). Attracting, Recruiting and Retaining Male Teachers: Policy Issues in the Male Teacher Debate, British Journal of Sociology of Education, vol. 25, nr 3.
Morain T. (1980). The Departure of Males from the Teaching Profession in Nineteenth Century Iowa. Civil War History, vol.26, nr 2.
Oram A. (1989). A Master Should Not Serve under the Mistress: Women and Men Teachers 1900-1970. W: Acker S. (red.). Teacher, Gender and Carieers, Philadephia.
Oram A. (1996), Women Teachers and Feminist Politics: 1900–1931. New York.
Papers by Command (1924). Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, tom 12.
Plantenga J. (2003), Europejska konstanta i specyfika poszczególnych państw: pozycja kobiet na rynku pracy w Unii Europejskiej. W: Dijkstra A. G., Plantenga J. (red.). Ekonomia i płeć. Pozycja zawodowa kobiet w Unii Europejskiej. Gdańsk.
Raport OECD (2004) „The Quality of the Teaching Workforce”, February.
Reskin B. F., Ross P. (1999). Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women Inroads Into Male Occupations. Philadelphia.
Schriewer J. (2000). Discourse Formation in Comparative Education. Contributions and Challenges of Feminist Theory. Frankfurt am Main.
Segalen M., Charmarat J. (1983). La Rosiere et la ‘Miss’: les ‘reines’ des feses populaires, L’Historie 53.
Smulyan L. (2004). Redefining Self and Success: Becoming Teachers and Doctor, Gender and Education, vol. 16, nr 2.
Thomas M. C. (1904). Education of Women. Columbia.
Titus J. J. (2004). Boy Trouble: Rethorical Flaming of Boys’ Underachievement. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, vol. 25, no 2, s. 153.
Vinnicombe S., Colwill N. L. (1996). Dyrektorzy i sekretarki. W: Vinnicombe S., Colwill N. L. (red.). Kobieta w zarządzaniu. Wrocław.
Weber S. J., Mitchell C. (1995). That’s Funny You Don’t Look Like as a Teacher Interrogating Images, Identity and Popular Culture. London.
Weir R. E. (2007). Pink-Collar Workers. W: Weir R. E. (red.). Class in America. Tom 3, Westport.
Yonge Ch. M. (1882). Womankind. New York: Macmillan.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Jak cytować
Numer
Dział
Statystyki
Liczba wyświetleń i pobrań: 2825
Liczba cytowań: 0
