|
|
|
| Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite: 116, Zeilen: 9-23 |
Quelle: Fröhlich Peters 2007 Seite(n): 231, Zeilen: first paragraph |
|---|---|
| To summarize briefly, in public relations and feminist research, there are two main perspectives on the sex differences in the field: The radical feminist approach and the liberal feminist approach. The radical feminist or individualist perspective suggests explanations that lie in the structural demands of organizations and society. Advocates point to male-dominated work environments, traditional sex roles, and the overall devaluation of women and women’s work as main process of selection, channeling women into jobs and positions of less prestige and status. Women’s discrimination is described as the “aimed product of patriarchal strategies of power and influence” (Heintz, Nadai, Fischer, & Ummel, 1997, p. 32). Accordingly, changes of social, organizational, and professional circumstances are claimed. In contrast, the liberal feminist approach, or structuralist perspective, focuses on individual, mostly socialized characteristics and preferences – this means processes of self-selection. Supposed less managerial skills (gender stereotypes) and alleged less interest in managerial tasks (socialized preferences, self-stereotyping) are said to explain sex differences. Women are assumed to have specific characteristics caused by gender-specific socialization processes that make them [more suitable for certain tasks (like communications) than others (like management).] | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Different Perspectives on the Feminization and the Segmentation of the Field To summarize briefly, in public relations and feminization research, there are two main perspectives on the sex differences in the field: (a) The radical feminist approach or individualist perspective (see, e.g., Rakow, 1989) suggests explanations that lie in the structural demands of organizations and society. Advocates point to male-dominated work environments, traditional sex roles (i.e., especially women’s work–home conflict), and the overall devaluation of women and women’s work as main processes of selection, canalizing women into jobs and positions of less prestige and status. Women’s discrimination is described as the “aimed product of patriarchical strategies of power and influence” (Heintz, Nadai, Fischer, & Ummel, 1997, p. 32; translated by authors). Accordingly, changes of social, organizational, and professional circumstances are claimed. (b) In contrast, the liberal feminist approach, or structuralist perspective, focuses on individual, mostly socialized characteristics and preferences—this means processes of self-selection (including, e.g., the human capitalists” [sic] model; see, e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2002). Supposed less managerial skills (gender stereotypes) and alleged less interest in managerial tasks (socialized preferences, self-stereotyping) are said to explain sex differences. Women are assumed to have specific characteristics caused by gender-specific socialization processes that make them more suitable for certain tasks (like communications) than others (like management). Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A developing theory for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 103–126. Heintz, B., Nadai, E., Fischer, R., & Ummel, H. (1997). Ungleich unter Gleichen. Studien zur geschlechtsspezifischen Segregation des Arbeitsmarktes [Studies about the gender-specific segregation of the job market]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus. Rakow, L. F. (1989). A bridge to the future: Re-visioning gender in communication. In P. J. Creedon (Ed.), Women in mass communication: Challenging gender values (pp. 299–312). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. |
The true source is not given. There is no Heintz, Nadai, Fischer, & Ummel 1997 in the reference list of Dsi. |
|