THE CONTRIBUTION OF FEMINIST

APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING

OCCUPATIONAL SEGREGATION

- The German Sociological Debate on Labour Market

Segmentation and Social Inequality 1

PROF. DR. KARIN GOTTSCHALL

UNIVERSITÄT BREMENZentrum für Sozialpolitik -

Abteilung Geschlechterpolitik im Wohlfahrtsstaat-Parkallee 39, D- 28209 Bremenphone:++49-(+)421-218-4402 fax:++49-(+)421-218-9567

The Paper was presented at the 21st Conference of theInternational Working Party on Labour Market Segmentation,

The Transformation of Labour Markets and Employment Systems since the Seventies: A Reflection on theTheoretical Implications

Bremen (Germany), September 9th to 11th 1999

1Revised version of a paper given at the 21st Conference of the International Working Party onLabour Market Segmentation:The Transformation of Labour Markets and Employment Systemssince the Seventies: A Reflection on the Theoretical Implications, Bremen (Germany), Sept. 09-11th, 1999.

2

There are good reasons for the assumption that the still high level of horizontal and vertical

gender specific segregation on national labour markets will persist in the course of the

flexibilisation of labour markets and the transformation of employment systems beyond

this century. At the same time we have to take into account that there are significant

differences in the national segregation structures in Western countries; the reference to

segregation itself thus cannot not provide an adequate picture. While these facts are widely

accepted within the scientific community, theoretical explanations are still controversial or

do not seem adequate to account for distinct features of social change like for example the

differentiation of patterns of labour market participation among women or the growing gap

between standards of employment in the public and private sector.

In my paper I refer to the German debate on labour market segmentation and social

inequality. Here since the seventies, distinct sociological labour market approaches such as

the theory of the threefold segmentation of internal markets by Sengenberger and the

theory of social closure by Parkins have been adopted for innovative socio-political

explanations of labour market crisis and social change including gender. Feminist criticism

however, drawing on a broad set of empirical data, demonstrated that these innovative

understandings of the institutional framework and the mechanisms of inclusion and

exclusion of the labour market need correction, too. This debate will be revisited in the

first part of my paper. In the second part I will turn to some new feminist approaches. With

a differentiated notion of the gendererd character of institutions and a renewed emphasis

on agency, they trie to assess the specific national features of gender relations as well as

the broader similar trends in the patterns of gender inequality across western countries. As

I will show, they provide valuable insights but also put questions for further analysis of

social change.2

Socio-political approaches as innovative frameworks for labour market analysis

In West Germany the post war dream of neverending economic growth accompanied by an

expanding welfare state persisted comparatively long (Lutz 1984). Only since the mid-

seventies have growing rates of unemployment caused irration and challenged

conventional economic thories as well as sociological explanations of labour market

functioning and social structure. Conventional sociological views, Marxist as well as

Weberian, seemed unified by an 'orthodox consensus' in the understanding of social

2 For a more elaborated argumentation on the German discourse on gender, work and social

inequality see Gottschall 1999.

3

inequality. Although opposed in their original theoretical background, they agreed in the

view that social structure is formed by participation in the system of paid work and can be

empirically described through reference to occupational positions. Thus they failed to

analyze not only women's position in society and the gender specific labour market

segmentation, but also other complex features of social inequality, like the structured natire

of unemployment or the emergence of new managerial groups (see Kreckel 1983b, 1989a;

Hradil 1987).

Here the work of two social scientists, Claus Offe and Reinhard Kreckel, both more or less

inspired by the Habermas strand of Critical Theory, opened up new terrain. Two arguments

are of interest here.

First, as opposed to neoclassical theory, structural functionalism as well as traditional

marxist approaches, they argued that the structure of social inequality and the dynamics of

social conflicts can only be understood if the labour market itself is seen not as a merely

economically, but also as a politically regulated system: State legislation on social security,

corporatist structures of industrial relations, the linkages of employment, training and

educational systems these all have to be taken into account, too. This led to a differentiated

analysis of labour market structures which attempted to combine Marxist and Weberian

views: Besides the primary (vertical) conflict line of employer and employee, further

(vertical and horizontal) power asymmetries between more and less powerful groups of

workers have to be considered. They can be understood as a result of different, albeit

interacting strategies of the supply and demand side, which are both modified by state

intervention. In this view, occupational differentiation is a result of qualification

investments by individual workers and state regulated certification systems. Combined

with special strategies of the demand side, these individual strategies, as well as

corporative action, lead to labour market segmentation. Against this background, even non-

credentialist forms of exclusion, particularly on grounds of gender, age or ethnicity can be

adressed: As strategies of social closure practised by occupational groups, that are

powerful enough to define the rules of inclusion.

Secondly, the above named authors emphasized, that the labour market as a core institution

of modern capitalistic societies does not include all members of society. Drawing on the

early feminist insights on the family as a place of work for women, they demonstrate that

the existence of a private reproductive sphere, where the individual worker regenerates,

where children are raised and elder people cared for, is a prerequisite for the 'standard

4

worker' with fulltime and uninterrupted employment who constitutes the core of the

modern labour market.

Undoubtedly this socio-political understanding of the labour market set new standards for

analyzing social inequality and seemed especially sensible to grasp social change at the

level of policies. It did not, however, provide an adaequate framework to explicate gender

specific labour market segmentation, and had some failings in understanding those features

of modernization, that are connected with women's emancipation and the expansion of the

service sector.

Offe, for example, in his well known study on the structure of unemployment in West

Germany at the end of the seventies, argues that the above average unemployment rates of

women, young people, disabled persons, and immigrants sociologically can be understood

as a result of the fact that these groups in welfare state societies are vested with alternative

social roles. Special welfare state arrangements and cultural norms facilitate and legitimate

the labour market exclusion of these groups for employers as well as for trade unions; for

the effected groups they result in a lack of self-confidence and in an instable attitude

towards paid work (Offe 1977; Offe/Hinrichs 1984). Thus the author equates gender, age,

health status, and national membership as ascribed attributes. Concurrent with other

advocates of the german version of the segmentation theory (see Sengenberger 1978;

Lappe 1981) he envisages women in general as a problem group of the labour market,

assuming that they are usually part of the insecure segment of internal labour markets.

Feminist scholarship, however, drawing on a broad set of empirical data, shows, that

significant features of structural change since the sixties in West Germany have been

growing employment rates of mothers of small chlidren, a rise of women's educational

levels and the inroads women made in qualified service sector work, be it the semi-

professions of nursing, teaching and technical assistence or in clerical and managerial

work. In the eighties, nearly 40% of the female work force was concentrated in these fields

(Gottschall 1989:14pp). Even if we take into account that the increasing employment rates

of women went hand in hand with a high proportion of part-time work that often did not fit

the standards of the normal employment relationship, the generalizing view of women as a

problem group of the labour market obviously did not match this reality. If we follow the

theory of the threefold segmentation, the majority of working women could be found

neither in the secure nor in the insecure internal market but in the third, not shop floor

bound tier, characterized by a qualified mobile workforce. Here limitations of the

segmentation approach become evident: It cannot account for differences in career

5

possibilities and occupational status of men and women, who share the same qualification

level.

Answering to this deficit, Reinhard Kreckel advanced a more Weberian influenced

understandig of social inequality. In his studies, labeled as a political sociology of social

inequality, he focuses on the agency of society members vested with different economic,

cultural, social, and politcal capital (Kreckel 1992). Refering to Parkin's theory of social

closure (Parkin 1974) he argues, that women's discrimination in the labour market -

especially if they are as skilled as men - derives from a lack in social and political

representation, due to their family obligations. Thus, they are not part of the power triangle

of capital, male workers and the state, that via corporatist action secures labour market

inclusion for the standard worker, but makes it difficult for other groups to get in. (Apart

from women, Kreckel identified immigrants as a systematically marginalized group: Not

meeting the criteria of 'national citizinship' they are restrained to illegal work and unsecure

labour market segments).

The notion of social closure seems fruitful to understand gender specific segregation,

especially in the field of professions, as some feminist scholars show (see Witz 1992;

Wetterer 1992b). As a general explanation of gender unequality in the labour market it

does not, however, go far enough, because it concentrates on social action and

underestimates the gravity of institutionalised structures. It does not take into account that

results of action in the past continue to have an effect as an ongoing structural constraint in

the presence. Two examples may illustrate this argument:

-The devaluation of industrial female work – stereotyped as light work, requiring only

'nimble fingers' compared to hard manual male work, demanding technical skills -, is

coded in collective bargaining contracts and it has been reinforced by the categories

industrial sociology used to analyse work. It took years and a lot of pressure to question

these taken for granted assumptions in political life and within the scientific community.

-The same applies for the debunking of another common argument: The fact that women,

even if they are not bound by familiy obligations, have difficulties to transform their

cultural capital in professional careers is not only due to weak individual and collective

bargaining power. This discrimination feature can only be understood, if we look at the

way gender is built in the institutions of education and training. In Germany, by a tradition

dating back from the nineteenth century, the training for qualified jobs is splitted in the so

called dual, factory based vocational training, preparing for industry and trade work,

6

conceptualized as a lifelong breadwinner position for men on the one hand, and a school

bound training system, preparing for most of the service sector positions, conceptualized as

cultural work for women on the other hand. Although these systems are comparable in the

standards of qualification they require and provide, they differ in terms of individual costs,

democratic legitimation and carreer prospectives: Only the dual system track provides

apprentice wages, participation in co-determination and acces to internal labour markets,

while the semi-public vocational training system like for example for nursing or clerical

work keeps the participants in the status of pupils, demands fees and provides only weak

inroads to the labour market (Krüger 1991a).

Even Offe, with a more objectivistic and institutionalistic view than Kreckel, did not grasp

this gendered character built in the institutions and mechanisms of the labour market. This

is due to the generalising character of his argument. Although he analyzed the labour

market crisis of a specific national society, his message aimed at the late capitalistic

welfare state in general. Furthermore he equated different social groups, like women,

young people, immigrants, as objects of a decommodification orientated welfare state

policy, without regard to their different material and social positions. Thus, he could not

specify,why especially these groups were affected and what that meant for the profile of

the occupational structure. In this respect other authors, drawing on Esping- Anderson's

typology of welfare states (Esping-Anderson 1985, 1990) provided more insights. In a

comparative analysis of West Germany, the USA, and Sweden Häußermann and Siebel

argued that different types of welfare states mark different pathways into the service sector

society. As they could show, there is a strong interrelationsphip between the structure and

expansion of the service sector, the monetary transfer- or service-intensity of welfare state

policy and the form and extend of women's labour market participation (Häußermann/

Siebel 1995). Following their analysis, the German path can be characterized as a

desintegrating welfare state model with a hardly dynamic, self-service orientated service

sector and low female employment rates, compared to the market integrated US and the

public service expansive Swedish society, both of which perform a high female labour

market participation.

To conclude this debate one could say, that the discussed socio-political approaches are

innovative insofar as they reveal the 'standard worker' as a socio-politically constructed

basis of the labour market system in advanced capitalistic societies, and as they introduce

the state as a major actor in the process of social change. They can, as the above named

study of Häußermann/ Siebel demonstrates, be made sensible to national differences in

7

capitalistic modernization. These insights, however, remain limited as long as they

implicitly assume that public policies and collective strategies, the institutions of the labour

market and the profile of occupational positions are gender neutral. This leads to the

second part of my argument.

New feminist approaches: From patriarchal structures to gendered institutions

Some new feminist approaches move on from here, promoting a differentiated notion of

the gendered character of institutions and a renewed emphasis on agency. Thus, they try to

overcome some shortcomings of older feminist critique of the nature of the labour market

and the concepts developed for its analysis.

From the seventies onwards feminist scholarship had pointed out, that house work is

women's work, and that the lifelong responsibility for family duties and the character of

this work helps to understand the gender specific segregation of the labour market. In this

context, some german authors, more prone to Simmels and Webers view of modern

societies than to Marxist ideas, emphasized that women form a different work force

because of their familily duties (Beck-Gernsheim/Ostner 1978), while other authors,

refering to the early Critical theory, stressed the fact, that women are not only different but

also deprived, due to their responsibility for reproductive work, but also due to male

pressure in the labour force, the public sphere and at home (Becker-Schmidt 1987a,1991;

Knapp 1987). During the eighties, these different approaches, both based on empirical

data, provided controversial explanations of women's labour market participation, labeled

as the 'difference' versus 'hierarchy' debate (Wetterer 1992b). They had in common

however, a somewhat stereotyped view of women, be it the 'familiy orientated caring

house-wife', preferably working part-time, and performing distance to the norms of paid

work, or the 'double burdenend working mother' integrated and exploited by a patriachal

and capitalistic system of industrial work. These reduced understandings partly derived

from a generalistic notion of the 'modern' or 'capitalistic society', characteristic of these

approaches. Similar to the still grand theory orientated above named socio-political

frameworks the older feminist thinking thus did not seem sensible enough to detect

changes in the patterns of women's occupational biography and emancipatory gains in

women’s private and professional life.

The macrosociological orientation and the supposed structural bias of this feminist

scholarhip has been challenged in the nineties, when the complex features of social

inequality including new differentations among women, along the lines of citizinship,

8

family status and generation, gained more social and scientific attention. The feminist

assumption, that 'gender' like 'class' represents a powerful stratyfying principle equally

central to all structures of society now is questioned while at the same time political

strategies refering to the 'equality agenda' are highly debated. A wide range of new

arguments, varying considerably in theoretical background, has come up. I will refer only

to some of these arguments.

There are German as well as Anglo-american feminist contributions to the sociology of the

workplace and of labour markets that move away from the view of the workplace and the

labour market as a site of patriarchal exclusion, and instead emphasize the interactive

social construction of masculinities and feminities. This shift in focus, as I have argued

elsewhere, sheds new light on the contingent character of the forming of gender specific

lines of segregation: If and how job profiles, especially in service industries are defined as

men’s or women’s work and thus put in a social hierarchy to a certain degree depend on

social interaction patterns by men and women concerned in their roles as service provider

or customer. The limitations of this microsociological viewpoint can be seen, especially in

attemps that subscribe to the interpretative paradigm, in that conditions of action which go

beyond the understanding of the person involved cannot be systematically recorded

(Gottschall 1998). More helpful are arguments which also take into consideration the

intermediate level of institutions and collective social practise. These can identify patterns

of action in a differentiated and socio-historical contexted way as they are related for

example to Neo-Fordist rationalisation strategies, company specific work cultures or

specific labour market policies (cf. Cockburn 1991; Gottfried/Graham 1993; Heintz et al

1997).

Further suggestions for the analysis of gender specific labour market segregation come

from the feminist welfare state discussion. In recent years this discussion has corrected the

notion of a gender neutral „standard employment relationship“, as found in the above

mentioned socio-political approaches, towards the more precise category of a 'male

breadwinner model'. Furthermore feminist scholarship completed the dominant aspect of

commodification in these approaches by the aspect of being tied to the family (Acker 1988;

Ostner 1995). Investigations of national welfare state policies and modernization pathes

which apply such an extended frame of reference, make clear that particularly Esping-

Anderson’s welfare state typology, differentiating as it does between liberal, conservative

and socialdemocratic regimes, can only make a limited statement on gender specific

differences in social status. Studies conducted by various (female) authors show for

9

example that the welfare regime not only of Germany but also of the Netherlands is

characterized by a strong male breadwinner model. However in Esping-Anderson’s

typology, which is widely adopted for comparative labour market analysis, these countries

are opposed as being corporate/conservative (the case of Germany) on the one hand and as

social democratic on the other (the case of the Netherlands) (Ostner/Lewis 1994).

It is also interesting to note that these approaches, unlike the older feminist research, are

not based on the Marxist inspired sociological category of „gender relations“. Using

categories such as „gender order“ or „gender contract“ and theoretical reference points like

for example Giddens‘ structuration theory, they follow more closely the notion that the

institutional framework of gender relations, the allocation of work and the power structures

in modern societies are strongly influenced by cultural norming. Asymmetric gender

relations thus are seen less often as an expression of cohersion, buth rather accounted for as

„balances of power“. These can be relatively stable orders, limited in time and space (Pfau-

Effinger 1993). One advantage of this viewpoint is that it draws attention to the roles

played by cultural norming in the formation of social practises and in the structuring of

institutions. At he same time one danger of refering to the notion of gender order, as we

know of the criticism of the Parsonian understanding of social roles, is that it assumes an

unproblematic correspondence of norms, behaviour patterns and institutional frameworks

instead of highlightening their relationship to the object in question.

Least suceptible to this danger are those arguments, which clearly differentiate between

structure, norm and social practise and at the same time concede that the relastions

between them may be consensual as well as contradictionary or conflict loaden. As Birgit

Pfau-Effinger’s study on the development of women‘s employment patterns in different

countries shows, important aspects of social change in the last decades, especially national

differences in pathways to modernization, can thus be made acessible to an analysis (Pfau-

Effinger 1998a and b). Following the same line other authors see the construction of norms

and the possibility of enforcing them as a major subject of social debate. There are

discourse analysis approaches on the establishment of particular policies (see Jenson 1989;

Behning 1999) as well as studies geared to Bourdieu. The latter especially examine how

gender or ethnically defined memberships are used in times of globalisation and increased

social conflict as a resource in the fight for jobs and social security (Lenz 1996; Gümen

1996; Körber 1998; Dörre 1997).

10

Attention should be drawn finally to a further moment of theoretical and methododical

innovation, particularly in the German discussion. Here research into gender specific

labour market segregation can also gain from thinking models and elaborated research

methods of the a special strand of sociology of life course which is concerned with status

passages. This field of socicl sciences has produced important findings on the gendered

character of what is called the ‚standard life course‘ (Normalbiographie) and on the

changes of labour market integration patterns among women by comparing different

generations (Mayer et al.,1991; Born et al.,1996). For example one research group, located

in the SfB 189 at Bremen University ('Status passages and risks in the life course')

demonstrated in a partly representativ study on employment histories and family

obligations among women which attended vocational training in the fifties that even this

older generation in the fifities and sixties, when their children were still small, performed

employment continuity, albeit in the informal sector and as part time work. That this stable

work orientation, a pattern normally attributed to a later generation of women, for so long

escaped the attention of sociologists and the public, is explained by the authors through the

fact that the women concerned kept their jobs secret (or better unseen) from spouse and

neighbours in order not to upset the norm of being a „good housewife and mother“

(Born/Krüger 1993; Born et al.;1996).

The arguments mentioned have in common that they work with theories of middle range or

that they combine theoretical thinking and empirical research following the methodological

ideas of the 'grounded theory' approach. This, together with the comprehensive stockpile of

methods available in form of cross nationals comparisons and longitudinal analysis, enable

us, to examine social change in more precisely defined socio-historical contexts than the

reference to the older more generalizing macrosociological viewpoints would allow.

Labour market research should continue to profit from these perspectives and at the same

time not forget to make theories and methods more gender sensitive.

11

References:

Acker, Joan 1988: Class, Gender and the Relations of Distribution. In: Signs 13 (1988), p. 473-497.

Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth/ Ostner, Ilona 1978: Frauen verändern - Berufe nicht? Ein theoretischer Ansatz zurProblematik von ‘Frau und Beruf’. In: Soziale Welt 29 (1978), p. 257-287.

Becker-Schmidt, Regina 1987: Frauen und Deklassierung. Geschlecht und Klasse. In: Beer, Ursula (Hg.): KlasseGeschlecht. Feministische Gesellschaftsanalyse und Wissenschaftskritik. Bielefeld: ajz, p. 187-236.

Becker-Schmidt, Regina 1991: Individuum, Klasse und Geschlecht aus der Perspektive der Kritischen Theorie. In: Zapf,Wolfgang (Hg.): Die Modernisierung moderner Gesellschaften. Verhandlungen des 25. Deutschen Soziologentages inFrankfurt am Main 1990. Frankfurt a. M./ New York: Campus, p. 383-395.

Behning, Ute 1999: Zum Wandel der Geschlechterrepräsentation in der Sozialpolitik, Opladen,:Leske und Budrich.

Born, Claudia/ Krüger, Helga (Hg.),1993, Erwerbsverläufe von Ehepartnern und die Modernisierung weiblicherLebensführung. Weinheim: Beltz.

Born, Claudia/ Krüger, Helga/ Lorenz-Mayer, Dagmar (1996), Der unentdeckte Wandel. Annäherung an dasVerhältnis von Struktur und Norm im weiblichen Lebenslauf. Berlin: Sigma.

Dörre, Klaus 1997: Modernisierung der Ökonomie - Ethnisierung der Arbeit: Ein Versuch über Arbeitsteilung, Anomieund deren Bedeutung für interkulturelle Konflikte. In: Heitmeyer, Wilhelm (Hg.): Was treibt die Gesellschaftauseinander? Bundesrepublik Deutschalnd: Auf dem Weg von der Konsens- zur Konfliktgesellschaft. Band 1. Frankfurta. M.: Suhrkamp, p. 69-117.

Esping-Andersen, Gösta 1985: Politische Macht und wohlfahrtsstaatliche Regulation. In: Naschold, Frieder (Hg.): Arbeitund Politik. Gesellschaftliche Regulierung der Arbeit und sozialen Sicherung, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, p. 487-503.

Esping-Andersen, Gösta 1990: The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gottfried, Heidi/ Graham, Laurie 1993: Constructing Difference: The Making of Gendered Subcultures in a JapaneseAutomobile Assembly Plant. In: Sociology 27 (1993), p. 611-628.

Gottschall, Karin 1989: Frauen auf dem bundesrepublikanischen Arbeitsmarkt: Integrationsprozesse mit Widersprüchenund Grenzen. In: Müller, Ursula/ Schmidt-Waldherr, Hiltraut (Hg.): FrauenSozialKunde. Wandel und Differenzierungvon Lebensformen und Bewußtsein. Bielefeld: ajz, p. 11-41.

Gottschall, Karin 1998: Doing Gender While Doing Work? Erkenntnispotentiale konstruktivistischer Perspektiven füreine Analyse des Zusammenhangs von Arbeitsmarkt, Beruf und Geschlecht. In: Geissler, Birgit/ Maier, Fiederike/ Pfau-Effinger, Birgit (Hg.): FrauenArbeitsMarkt. Der Beitrag der Frauenforschung zur sozio-ökonomischenTheorieentwicklung. Berlin: edition sigma, p. 63-94.

Gottschall, Karin 1999, Soziale Ungleichheit und Geschlecht. Kontinuitäten und Brüche, Sackgassen undErkenntnispotentiale im deutschen soziologischen Diskurs. Oplade. Leske +Budrich. (Forthcoming).

Gümen, Sedef 1996: Die sozialpolitische Konstruktion ‘kultureller’ Differenzen in der bundesdeutschen Frauen- undMigrationsforschung. In: Beiträge zur feministischen Theorie und Praxis 42 (1996), p. 77-89.

Häußermann, Hartmut/ Siebel, Walter 1995: Dienstleistungsgesellschaften. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.

Heintz, Bettina/ Nadai, Eva/ Fischer, Regula/ Ummel, Hannes 1997: Ungleich unter Gleichen. Studien zurgeschlechtsspezifischen Segregation des Arbeitsmarktes. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

Hradil, Stefan 1987: Sozialstrukturanalyse in einer fortgeschrittenen Gesellschaft. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Jenson, Jane 1989: Paradigms and Political Discourse: Protective Legislation in France and the United States before1914. In: Canadian Journal of Political Science 2 (1989). Toronto: University Press, p. 234-257.

Knapp, Gudrun-Axeli 1987: Arbeitsteilung und Sozialisation: Konstellationen von Arbeitsvermögen und Arbeitskraft imLebenszusammenhang von Frauen. In: Beer, Ursula (Hg.): Klasse Geschlecht. Feministische Gesellschaftsanalyse undWissenschaftskritik. Bielefeld: ajz, p. 236-273.

Körber, Karen 1998: Ethnizität und Wohlfahrtsstaat. In: Berger, Peter A./ Vester, Michael (Hg.): Alte Ungleichheitenneue Spaltungen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, p..351-362.

Kreckel, Reinhard 1983: Theorien sozialer Ungleichheit im Übergang. Einleitung. In: ders. (Hg.): SozialeUngleichheiten. Soziale Welt, Sonderband 2. Göttingen: Schwartz, p.. 3-15.

Kreckel, Reinhard 1989: Klasse und Geschlecht. Die Geschlechtsindifferenz der soziologischen Ungleichheitsforschungund ihre theoretischen Implikationen. In: Leviathan 17 (1989), p.. 305-321.

Kreckel, Reinhard 1992: Politische Soziologie der sozialen Ungleichheit. Frankfurt a. M./ New York: Campus.

Krüger, Helga 1991: Doing Gender. Geschlecht als Statuszuweisung im Berufsbildungssystem. In: Brock, Ditmar u. a.(Hg.): Übergänge in den Beruf: Zwischenbilanz zum Forschungsstand. München: Juventa, p.. 139-169.

12

Lappe, Lothar 1981: Die Arbeitsmarktsituation erwerbstätiger Frauen. Geschlechtsspezifische Arbeitsmarktsegmentationund ihre Folgen. Frankfurt a. M./ New York: Campus.

Lenz, Ilse 1996: Grenzziehungen und Öffnungen: Zum Verhältnis von Geschlecht und Ethnizität in Zeiten derGlobalisierung. In: dies./ Germer, Andrea (Hg.): Wechselnde Blicke. Frauenforschung in internationaler Perspektive.Opladen: Leske + Budrich, p. 200-228.

Lutz, Burkhart 1984: Der kurze Traum immerwährender Prosperität. Eine Neuinterpretation der industriell-kapitalistischen Entwicklung im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

Mayer, Karl Ulrich/ Allmendinger, Jutta/ Huinink, Johannes (Hg.): Vom Regen in die Traufe: Frauen zwischen Berufund Familie. Frankfurt a. M./ New York: Campus, p. 423-459.

Offe, Claus/ Hinrichs, Karl 1984: Sozialökonomie des Arbeitsmarktes: primäres und sekundäres Machtgefälle. In: Offe,Claus: Arbeitsgesellschaft. Strukturprobleme und Zukunftsperspektiven. Frankfurt a. M./ New York: Campus, p. 44-86.

Offe, Claus/ Projektgruppe Arbeitsmarktpolitik (Hg.) 1977: Opfer des Arbeitsmarktes. Zur Theorie strukturierterArbeitslosigkeit. Neuwied/ Darmstadt: Luchterhand.

Ostner, Ilona 1995: Arm ohne Ehemann? Sozialpolitische Regulierung von Lebenschancen für Frauen im internationalenVergleich. In: Aus Politk und Zeitgeschichte. Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament B36-37/95,p. 3-12.

Ostner, Ilona/ Lewis, Jane 1994: Gender and the Evolution of European Social Policy. Arbeitspapier des Zentrums fürSozialpolitik der Universität Bremen.

Parkin, Frank 1974: Strategies of Social Closure in Class Formation. In: Parkin, Frank. (ed.): The Social Analysis ofClass Structure. London: Tavistock, p. 1-18.

Pfau-Effinger, Birgit 1993: Macht des Patriarchats oder Geschlechterkontrakt? In: Prokla 4 (1993), p. 633-663.

Pfau-Effinger, Birgit 1998a: Gender Cultures and the Gender Arrangement - A Theoretical Framework for CrossNational Comparisons on Gender. In : The Spatiality of Gender. Innovation:The European Journal of Social Sciences 11(1998), no. 2, p. 147-166.

Pfau-Effinger, Birgit 1998b:Der soziologische Mythos von der Hausfrauenehe- sozio-historische Entwicklungspfade derFamilie. In: Soziale Welt 49 (1998), Heft 2, p. 167-182.

Sengenberger, Werner (Hg.) 1978: Der gespaltene Arbeitsmarkt - Probleme der Arbeitsmarktsegmentation. Frankfurt a.M./ New York: Campus.

Wetterer, Angelika 1992: Hierarchie und Differenz im Geschlechterverhältnis. Theoretische Ansätze zur Analyse derMarginalität von Frauen in hochqualifizierten Berufen. In: dies. (Hg.): Profession und Geschlecht. Über die Marginalitätvon Frauen in hochqualifizierten Berufen. Frankfurt a. M./ New York: Campus, p. 13-40.

Witz, Anne 1992: Professions and Patriarchy. London/ New York: Routledge.