ABSTRACT
Ending occupational sex segregation has been a major feminist cause for much of this century. This cause has been fueled at least in part by a large research literature showing that “women’s work” is low-waged work even after controlling for differences from “men’s work” in skills and other productivity-related characteristics; that is, women earn less than men do even when working in jobs requiring the same skills. Such evidence goes a long way toward pinpointing women’s segregation into separate and devalued occupations as the root source of their lower wages. Feminist policies have seized on these findings and sought to remedy the harms of occupational segregation in two ways: by bringing women’s wages in line with men’s when they work in jobs requiring comparable skills, and by creating opportunities for women to move into men’s occupations. Thus the two main anti-inequality feminist policies-comparable worth and affirmative action-place occupational sex segregation at the center of analysis and, as a consequence, both evaluate women’s wage deficits against a presumed male occupational and wage standard. For the most part, these two policies are appropriate devices to combat exactly the kind of discrimination they were meant to.
