Gender and gender socialization influences decisions of various career majors due to some of the cultural expectations which may create the dictation that, females are more nurturing and compassionate than their male counterparts (Harter, p. 21-43). In these instances, teachers, parents, and even counselors steer the female gender towards fields which require concern and patience for other individuals. As a result, they tend to be inclined to major in careers such as social work or sociology. However, females who express the desire in physical sciences and engineering, for instance, would probably not be explicitly discouraged though males with similar desire would most likely receive more encouragement.
It is true that sociology as a discipline is heavily segregated by gender horizontally in the sense that, within a similar occupation level in sociology, females and males are accorded different tasks (Harter, p. 21-43). Gender socialization, of course, would influence girls’ decision to major in sociology, for instance, if males who are working in sociology, (though regarded as a traditionally female career) are still being viewed as more qualified compared to their female counterparts. As a result, these males often get a beneficial edge as they may earn more wages, or receive quick promotions as compared to the female colleagues.
As explained above, while answering the first question- (found in the introductory paragraphs), sociology is a female dominated major. As children join the education system, there are certain traditional expectations for both sexes. Because boys were (and at times still) believed to be more analytical, parents and teachers often encouraged them in joining those careers which require lots of science and mathematics such as engineering and computer science. However, boys who express the desire in traditionally female-dominated occupations like sociology, for instance, would probably not be explicitly discouraged; but girls with similar desire would be greatly encouraged.
Gender impacts male experiences with education in several ways; firstly, a lot of pressure is put on them by their teachers, parents, and counselors to excel and enroll for traditional male courses such as engineering. Secondly, there is the belief that they are more analytical, than girls and as such they are expected to be on top of the girls in subjects like mathematics and physical sciences. Initially, it was thought that teachers were favoring boys in the class by calling on them and challenging them more often than their female classmates. This element, to some extent, implied that boys were to be academically ahead of their female counterparts. However, recent research shows that the current education system does not favor boys, and as can be seen, there are high rates of male dropouts, more boys getting diagnosed with reading/learning disabilities, reduced number of college application for boys among others. On the same note, there has been an argument that girls do mature faster than boys and as such easily integrate into the current educational systems than the boys. Therefore, they concentrate and focus in classrooms more quickly. All these arguments seem hypothetical. The truth is that gender socialization and segregation play a big part in how both sexes view things.
The lack of “female advantage” does impact the educational attainment of the males in various ways. Firstly, it lowers the competitive nature of the boys. If females were to have an educational advantage over the men, I think the males would be working even harder to compensate for such advantages by not being left dragging behind on grades. As such the males would be at their best in taking studies seriously. Secondly, lack of “female advantage” makes males perspective of education as a balanced and equal system and therefore, would be contented even if girls were ahead of them. Hence, they lack the factor for extra motivation to reach their potentials.
Upon graduation, sociology majors become perfectly suited to the 21st-century job market, thanks to their uniquely suited studies in social life, diverse communities, and social change coupled with the use of scientific methods that aims at finding practical answers to the complicated social questions. Some of the specific jobs include but not limited to social services (such as rehabilitation, case management, administration, social work, etc.; community work like non-profit agencies, childcare, community development, advocacy, etc.). Also, in the health services, their earn employment opportunities in areas like hospital admission, substance abuse education among other areas including business, publishing, teaching and law.
Depending on the settings of an organization, gender and gender socialization could influence the type of job earned by a sociologist because of the course’s horizontal nature of segregation. Some tasks are best suited to females while others best-fit the males (Harter, p. 21-43). Jobs segregated by gender are both horizontal and vertical in nature. Males, for instance still earn job promotions at a higher rate compared to their female colleagues. Likewise, individual job specifications get more inclined to one particular gender more than the other.
Gender could be segregated in many ways, for instance, dress colors (e.g. pink is associated more with the girls while blue has a close correlation with the boys), educations (course preferences varying among boys and girls) among others. Socialization, which in most cases is not gender egalitarian, could influence job decisions due to the cultural demands that have been planted into students throughout their upbringing.
Males doing a female-dominated job will mostly benefit from such placements. Firstly, due to the sympathy of the need for gender balancing when it comes to representations in promotions, and secondly, special case categories will favor them as a minority gender in such instances. In most cases these males will be viewed as very competent, and as such may even be entitled to higher pay than their female counterparts.
Work Cited
Harter, Susan. The Construction of the Self: A Developmental Perspective. Guilford Press, (2009): 21-43
