CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,687Gender and Feminist StudiesGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsEmployment, Labor, and Gender Studies

The Gender Revolution: Uneven and Stalled

England, Paula·2010·Gender & Society
DOI 10.1177/0891243210361475
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article, the author describes sweeping changes in the gender system and offers explanations for why change has been uneven. Because the devaluation of activities done by women has changed little, women have had strong incentive to enter male jobs, but men have had little incentive to take on female activities or jobs. The gender egalitarianism that gained traction was the notion that women should have access to upward mobility and to all areas of schooling and jobs. But persistent gender essentialism means that most people follow gender-typical paths except when upward mobility is impossible otherwise. Middle-class women entered managerial and professional jobs more than working-class women integrated blue-collar jobs because the latter were able to move up while choosing a “female” occupation; many mothers of middle-class women were already in the highest-status female occupations. The author also notes a number of gender-egalitarian trends that have stalled.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0891243210361475

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Women have largely won access to activities and attributes historically seen as 'masculine,' but men still face steep sanctions for embracing anything seen as 'feminine.'

    “As such, throughout the life course and across a range of phenomena, women have largely won access to activities and attributes historically seen as 'masculine,' but men still face steep sanctions for embracing anything seen as 'feminine' (England 2010).”

    From Homophobic Bullying as Gender Policing: Population-Based Evidence (2023) · cites this paper as England 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
England, P.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
England, Paula
ORCID
England, Paula
Venue
Gender & Society
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-03-19
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
149-166
ISSN
  • 0891-2432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3977
DOI
10.1177/0891243210361475
OpenAlex
W2108668570
Cited by
1,687
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 136 · 2025: 144 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 141 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 128 · 2020: 136 · 2019: 136 · 2018: 125 · 2017: 108 · 2016: 98 · 2015: 79 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 41
FWCI
113.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Gender & Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
Keywords
gender inequality, gender egalitarianism, gender essentialism, women's employment, occupational segregation, upward mobility, middle-class women, working-class women, blue-collar occupations, motherhood

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review