{Occupational Gender (2)}[3rd March 1988]

[Redbook5:33-34][19880304:1835b]{Occupational Gender (2)}[3rd March 1988]

19880304.1835

[continued]

A reference in this week's New Scientist* to why women are (or were) not found at the top of certain professions does not, unfortunately, state which professions; the article is about the lack of women in chess. Circles Analysis might place chess as an S~-type game, and suggests that women would be in short supply at the top of medicine, law, the Army, and probably science. This is inconclusive: women are being found more at the top of the legal profession (as judges); the Army has effectively barred them institutionally;** I have no knowledge of the situation in medicine.

The fact is*** that in any occupation where promotion depends on institutional procedures or peer approval, the situation is likely**** to be distorted: either by discrimination against one sex, or by discrimination for it.# Only where individuals can work now with relative independence and where their success is measured directly by the market (for example), can this distortion in practice#* be avoided. If women tend to do well perhaps more often in these occupations,#** men may still predominate at the top; this can be seen as part of the Circle pattern, as well as reflecting institutional tendencies.

*(N[ew] S[cientist] 1602 p72)

**[Except from women-only units such as the Women's Royal Army Corps. The slow overturning of this bar in the British Army was finally completed in or about 2017 with the admission of women to front-line roles.]

***or seems to be!

****at present

#Clearly discrimination against one sex implies discrimination for the other, & vice versa; but in practice the impact on each sex depends on the relative numbers involved (e.g. applying [for a position, presumably]).

#*[The probable meaning of this might have been better conveyed by placing the underlined words at the end of the sentence. <20171013>]

#**ref [[Redbook5:30-31][19880303:1101]{Occupational Gender (1)}[3rd March 1988],] p30-31

[See [Redbook5:30-31][19880303:1101]{Occupational Gender (1)}[3rd March 1988].]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger23122017]