How women and men function in professions unusual for their genders

Male preschool teachers or women in working in car shops are still relatively rare, as the labor market remains divided into stereotypically "female" and "male" professions. The former are usually characterized by lower salaries, worse working conditions and lower prestige. Additionally, each gender is stereotypically assigned specific traits and innate qualifications. In the case of "male" professions, these are traits such as physical strength and rational thinking, while in the case of "female" professions, they include are the ability to recognize emotions or to work with children.

Despite the prevailing stereotypes, some people choose jobs that are not consistent with the expectations of their gender, thus becoming gender minorities in their professional groups.

The authors of a paper published in the journal Qualitative Sociology Review analyzed the experiences of "occupational gender minorities" in the Polish labor market, as well as their roles within their professional groups. The sociologists focused on highly qualified employees: women working in IT/new technologies and men working in childcare/education

What the researchers say: “We focused on the employees’ professional lives and how choosing a gender-atypical occupation translated into career development opportunities, professional identity and interactions with co-workers and recipients of work - students, patients and clients,” the lead author explained. “We also took into account the impact of gender-atypical occupation on private life.”

The first interesting conclusion from the study is that the surveyed men, to a greater extent than women, had a sense of being unique and standing out in the workplace. Men often assumed that their physical appearance was responsible for their recognition, distinguishing them from their female colleagues. Men also noted that their status was associated with certain benefits, especially in terms of better treatment by co-workers, but also helped them establish contacts in professional life. However, there were no clear references to a “glass escalator,” meaning an easier advancement path for men in typically feminized work environments.

This sentiment also emerged in the stories of interviewed women. For example, one woman working in IT felt that she was "getting great support and also a lot of advice .....due to the fact that I am a woman who is present online, somewhere in the IT environment".

The people in the study also felt that being an outlier spared them some of the less pleasant aspects of their jobs. In the case of women in IT, these included conflict situations (especially dealing with aggressive or rude clients). In turn, one of the male preschool teachers said that he was told that the cleaning lady would be ready to help him with the children and he should not be ashamed to ask for her help.

Still, those situations also show that, despite positive interpersonal relations and friendly atmosphere in the workplace, members of occupational gender minorities are seen by their work environment via the lens of gender stereotypes. Consequently, they may be perceived as incapable of dealing with some aspects of the job; their status, therefore, is simultaneously "privileged" and weakened by the lack of trust in their competencies, the researchers emphasize.

The presence of women in masculinized professions and men in female-dominated work environments may also be significant for both their colleagues and the organization as a whole. Both groups felt that they had a special role to play in their workplace's social life. In both cases, there were references to improving the atmosphere in the workplace due to their presence.

In addition to their social roles, occupational gender minorities may also have different tasks assigned based on gender stereotypes. The "masculine" role in education generally focuses on teaching concrete skills and knowledge—this is why male teachers work mostly with older children. Even in preschools and primary education, men tend to teach children measurable skills in limited time periods (e.g., English, music) rather than spend a whole day with them. Men also emphasized their role in providing children with male role models.

It is worth noting, however, that this is a model of caring masculinity, as opposed to the aggressive models promoted in some of the media. The interviewees said that parents saw the lack of men in care settings as a problem and were keen to have a male teacher in charge of their children.

Meanwhile, the stereotypically "feminine" role in the IT/new technologies sector was associated more with social skills and contact with clients (front-end, design, UX) and less with the technical aspects of the work.

Interestingly, the interviewed women did not indicate specific elements of work as directly related to their gender, unlike men who spoke, for example, about the male role model they represented. Women also placed much less emphasis on their gender—in their narratives, they focused more on their professional identity, and unlike men, they did not mention physical difference as being important.

The authors point out that the stereotypical division into "feminine" and "masculine" occupations is still changing. In their opinion, it would be interesting to include other professional groups in future studies, especially occupations based on physical work.

So, what? In hunter gatherer times—up to 10,000 years ago—there was not such a rigid idea of gender suitability for “work.” In studies of modern hunter-gatherers’ researchers (myself included) have witnessed hunting bands comprising both men and women, and men in gathering bands. With farming, hierarchy, warfare, and private ownership all that changed. Maybe now we can revert to an idea of work that aligns with our design specs. Work is supposed to be fun, communal, voluntary and exciting no matter what gender you are.