Introduction
The contemporary system of medical service has its respective roots in the health care system of the 19th century, where the dominating industrialization has resulted in the occurrence and further development of scientific medicine (Connerley and Wu, 2016). From the historical point of view, medical services have been provided by anyone who possesses enough skill/knowledge to be capable of healing people. In fact the majority of those people were the women (Evetts, 2000). According to the statistics of those days, it was less than 5% of women comprising the number of physicians working in the United States. The highest percentage of female doctors was 6% in 1910 maintaining this level till the end of 1950s. (Gabe, Monaghan and Gabe, 2013). As a result of massive wars taking place in the second half of the 20th century, the importance of nurses has respectively increased along with the creation of American Nurses Association and establishment of special educational programs to train efficient nurses (Porter, 1992). Still, it is also worth mentioning that a variety of professional activities and occupations remains gendered and associated with their lower status and payment along with related image of “feminine” type of work (Kulik and Olekains, 2011). Thus, the following paper discusses the following issues related to gender segregation: horizontal and vertical segregation in accordance with the preference and glass ceiling theories.
Main body
Nevertheless, the statistics states that during 1970s there was less than 11% of female students entering medical universities (Jolliff et al., 2012), while the same number equals approximately 47% according to the latest data (Bedi and Gilthorpe, 2000). In other words, the increase of female presence in medicine is dramatic (Kilminster et al., 2007); for example, in a period between 1975 – 2010, the number of physicians offering medical services in the US grew from 36 to 297 thousand people, which is more than 8-time increase (Smart, 2012). However, the official records of the licensed physicians registered in America in 2012 show the proportion of 30% of the female doctors also emphasizing on the fact that they are younger (Woloschuk, Harasym and Temple, 2004), more effectively educated compared to their male colleagues and that their number is growing (Young et al., 2015). As a result of these social events, the racial and gender prejudices have been banned for implementation by any education and professional institution including the ones of medical profile (Riska, 2011). Nevertheless, it is still worth remembering that according to the reports of the specialists it remains unclear whether the number of female physicians will reach parity with their male colleagues despite the fact that the number of the first is continuously growing (Connerley and Wu, 2016).
Still, according to the studies and researches of in this field of studies, gender-based prejudices are being imposed against both female students of medical institutions and physicians (Gjerberg, 2001). The following paragraph proves that the females are not equally presented in several specializations along with leadership positions (Connerley and Wu, 2016). In terms of horizontal segregation, it is worth stating that males and females are represented in different specializations (Hojat, Gonnella and Xu, 1995). In particular, the last tend to become specialists in less-paid fields of medical studies (general practice, family medicine, pediatrics etc.) (Center for Workforce Studies, 2012). Furthermore, according to the respective data from the Association of American Medical Colleges, approximately 80% of specializations related to pediatrics, gynecology comprised of female students, while its slightly more than 13% of female students in orthopedic surgery and less than 19% in thoracic surgery (Center for Workforce Studies, 2012). As for the education institutions, by the end of 2013 there was only 35% of faculty being comprised of female specialists in the America (AAMC, 2013). Even despite the fact that the number of educational and professional staff in medical institutions is growing (Nonnemaker, 2000), the parity within specialties remains the same: female physicians, both theorists and practitioners rarely tend to reach the higher levels in their specializations compared to their male colleagues and counterparts (Connerley and Wu, 2016).
The same trend remains actual in terms of vertical segregation, as the male medical specialists tend to be more advancing in their career and holding higher positions in both educational institutions and medical facilities providing health care services (Riska, 2001). This has resulted in appearance of “pink collar” term meaning the lower salaries and maintaining lower status for females in this industry (Heru, 2005). In addition, the empirical studies have proved the decreasing percentage of female professors advancing their careers despite a growing supply of candidates for those positions (Sexton et al., 2012). The same trend is actual for the hospitals’ staff, representing only 11% of females chairing the clinical departments in the US medical facilities (AAMS, 2012).
Another factor explaining the existence of gender segregation is the so-called “glass ceiling” effect that represents a characteristic that becomes an unclear but inevitable barrier for the individuals to participate in particular activity (Cotter et al., 2001). According to the developers of this theory, the effect generally represents four characteristics: it is a difference not explained and reasoned by other employee’s characteristics relevant to her job, it grows greater with the career advancement. It creates obstacles for career advancement, which also increase in due time (Nevill, 1990). The researchers have proved this effect to take place for African-American women, while the equal evidence for African-American males has not been found. As a result, this social and psychological effect makes women believe that they are not worthy of higher-paid and more complicated jobs to take (DAVIES-NETZLEY, 1998).
Another factor is the prevalent gap of salary between the male and female specialists. In academic medicine, the females tend to receive less salary for the work compared to the men holding the same rank and expertise (Ash et al., 2004). However, this particular trend is being explained by the aforementioned fact that the females tend to be the specialists in lower-paid specialties (gynecology, family medicine, pediatrics etc.) (Hojat et al., 2000), while the males are concentrated in the field of surgery, radiology etc. (Jagsi et al. 2012). The same gap is being explained by the fact that the working hours of males and females are different, as the first tend to work more hours per day (Whitcomb, 2004), conduct more studies and publish more reports, as a result (Lo Sasso et al., 2011). The practitioners show the same trend, as the females tend to receive only 63% of the salary received by males (Connerley and Wu, 2016). Further, the officially reported gender gap in salaries in 2009 was $24,000 (Carvajal, 2011).
Conclusion
Therefore, summarizing everything that has been stated above, the gender segregation in the industry of medical services is not a myth and remains actual, as the female specialists tend to receive less paid specializations, less advancements in their career and less salary, as a result. It is worth concluding, that the number of female medical students should first reach parity with the male students in the majority of specializations. Thus, once it is achieved, the improvement on the aforementioned trends will be only a matter of time. In other words, the changes in the aforementioned trends of gender segregation will become true once more female students will enter the medical specializations that have been initially monopolized by their male colleagues.
Still, the aforementioned theoretical statements concerning the gender segregation tend to explain the women’s unwillingness to enter the complicated specializations on the one hand, while also stating that the female attitude towards career and life may also change. In other words, it is always up to each woman to enter a particular specialization, especially nowadays, when the gender peculiarities appear to matter much less, when a person practically proves that he or she is a professional.
Bibliography
Aamc.org. (2013). U.S. Medical School Faculty, 2013 - Reports - Faculty Roster - Data and Analysis - AAMC. [online] Available at: https://www.aamc.org/data/facultyroster/reports/367218/usmsf13.html [Accessed 27 Mar. 2016].
Ash, A., Carr, P., Goldstein, R. and Friedman, R. (2004). Compensation and advancement of women in academic medicine: Is there equity?. American Journal of Ophthalmology, 138(5), pp.903-904.
Bedi, R. and Gilthorpe, M. (2000). Ethnic and gender variations in university applicants to United Kingdom medical and dental schools. British Dental Journal, 189(4), pp.212-215.
Blackburn, R., Browne, J., Brooks, B. and Jarman, J. (2002). Explaining gender segregation. British Journal of Sociology, 53(4), pp.513-536.
Carvajal, D. (2011). The Changing Face of Medical Care. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/europe/08iht-ffdocs08.html?_r=0 [Accessed 27 Mar. 2016].
Center for Workforce Studies, (2012). 2012 physician specialty data book.
Connerley, M. and Wu, J. (2016). Uncovering the Complexities of the Relationship Between Women and Well-Being in the Workplace: An Introduction. Handbook on Well-Being of Working Women, pp.3-13.
Cotter, D., Hermsen, J., Ovadia, S. and Vanneman, R. (2001). The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces, 80(2), pp.655-681.
DAVIES-NETZLEY, S. (1998). Women above the Glass Ceiling: Perceptions on Corporate Mobility and Strategies for Success. Gender & Society, 12(3), pp.339-355.
Ehrenreich, B. (1974). Gender and Objectivity in Medicine. International Journal of Health Services, 4(4), pp.617-623.
Evetts, J. (2000). Analysing Change in Women's Careers: Culture, Structure and Action Dimensions. Gender Work & Org, 7(1), pp.57-67.
Gabe, J., Monaghan, L. and Gabe, J. (2013). Key concepts in medical sociology.
Gjerberg, E. (2001). Medical women — towards full integration? An analysis of the specialty choices made by two cohorts of Norwegian doctors. Social Science & Medicine, 52(3), pp.331-343.
Hakim, C. (1998). Developing a Sociology for the Twenty-First Century: Preference Theory. The British Journal of Sociology, 49(1), p.137.
Heru, A. (2005). Pink-collar medicine: Women and the future of medicine. Gender Issues, 22(1), pp.20-34.
Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. and Xu, G. (1995). Gender comparisons of young physiciansʼ perceptions of their medical education, professional life, and practice. Academic Medicine, 70(4), pp.305-12.
Hojat, M., Gonnella, J., Erdmann, J., Rattner, S., Veloski, J., Glaser, K. and Xu, G. (2000). Gender comparisons of income expectations in the USA at the beginning of medical school during the past 28 years. Social Science & Medicine, 50(11), pp.1665-1672.
Jagsi, R., Griffith, K., Stewart, A., Sambuco, D., DeCastro, R. and Ubel, P. (2012). Gender Differences in the Salaries of Physician Researchers. JAMA, 307(22).
Jolliff, L., Leadley, J., Coackley, E. and Sloane, R. (2012). Statistics - Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) - Member Center - AAMC. [online] Aamc.org. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/members/gwims/statistics [Accessed 27 Mar. 2016].
Kilminster, S., Downes, J., Gough, B., Murdoch-Eaton, D. and Roberts, T. (2007). Women in medicine�?�is there a problem? A literature review of the changing gender composition, structures and occupational cultures in medicine. Med Educ, 41(1), pp.39-49.
Kulik, C. and Olekalns, M. (2011). Negotiating the Gender Divide: Lessons From the Negotiation and Organizational Behavior Literatures. Journal of Management, 38(4), pp.1387-1415.
Lo Sasso, A., Richards, M., Chou, C. and Gerber, S. (2011). The $16,819 Pay Gap For Newly Trained Physicians: The Unexplained Trend Of Men Earning More Than Women. Health Affairs, 30(2), pp.193-201.
Moliner, C., Martínez-Tur, V., Ramos, J., Peiró, J. and Cropanzano, R. (2008). Organizational justice and extrarole customer service: The mediating role of well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(3), pp.327-348.
Morantz-Sanchez, R. (2000). Sympathy and science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nevill, G. (1990). Women in the workforce. London: Industrial Society.
Porter, S. (1992). Women in a women's job: the gendered experience of nurses. Sociol Health & Illness, 14(4), pp.510-527.
Rath, T. and Harter, J. (2010). Wellbeing. [New York]: [Gallup Press].
Riska, E. (2001). Towards gender balance: but will women physicians have an impact on medicine?. Social Science & Medicine, 52(2), pp.179-187.
Riska, E. (2011). Gender and medical careers. Maturitas, 68(3), pp.264-267.
Robertson, I. and Cooper, C. (2011). Well-being. Basingstoke, Hampshire [England]: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rogers, J. and Hakim, C. (2002). Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory. Contemporary Sociology, 31(2), p.154.
Sexton, K., Hocking, K., Wise, E., Osgood, M., Cheung-Flynn, J., Komalavilas, P., Campbell, K., Dattilo, J. and Brophy, C. (2012). Women in Academic Surgery: The Pipeline Is Busted. Journal of Surgical Education, 69(1), pp.84-90.
Smart, D. (2012). Physician characteristics and distribution in the US.
Tonon, G. (2013). M. Joseph Sirgy: A review of The Psychology of Quality of Life: Hedonic Well-Being, Life Satisfaction, and Eudaimonia. Applied Research Quality Life, 8(2), pp.263-264.
Whitcomb, M. (2004). The Future of Academic Medicine Has Begun. Academic Medicine, 79(4), pp.281-282.
Woloschuk, W., Harasym, P. and Temple, W. (2004). Attitude change during medical school: a cohort study. Med Educ, 38(5), pp.522-534.
Young, A., Chaudhry, H., Pei, X., Halbesleben, K., Polk, D. and Dugan, M. (2015). A census of actively licensed physicians in the United States, 2014. JOURNAL of MEDICAL REGULATION, [online] 101(2 (8). Available at: https://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/Census/2014census.pdf.
