The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
BRINGING THE MEN BACK IN: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women's Work
Abstract
To reduce sex differences in employment outcomes, we must examine them in the context of the sex-gender hierarchy. The conventional explanation for wage gap—job segregation—is incorrect because it ignores men's incentive to preserve their advantages and their ability to do so by establishing the rules that distribute rewards. The primary method through which all dominant groups maintain their hegemony is by differentiating the subordinate group and defining it as inferior and hence meriting inferior treatment. My argument implies that neither sex-integrating jobs nor implementing comparable worth will markedly improve women's employment status because men can subvert these mechanisms or even change the rules by which rewards are allocated. As evidence, I show that occupational integration has failed to advance women appreciably, and I argue that comparable worth is not likely to be much more effective. Instead, we must seek political analyses and political solutions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
WEST, C., & ZIMMERMAN, D. H. (1987) · Gender & Society · doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002 · Cited by 8,954
Payne, G., Dingwall, R. W. J., Payne, J., & Carter, M. (1981) · Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) · Cited by 5,015
(1949) · Cited by 4,313
Pool, G., & Byatt, A. S. (1996) · The Women's Review of Books · doi:10.2307/4022491 · Cited by 3,019
Toward an Anthropology of Women.
Sattel, J. W., & Reiter, R. R. (1976) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2064070 · Cited by 2,883
(2019) · Eastern Economic Journal · doi:10.1057/41302.1939-4632 · Cited by 2,707
The Traffic in Women: Notes on the "Political Economy" of Sex
Rubin, G. (1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 2,639
(1983) · Cited by 2,165
Status Characteristics and Social Interaction
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2093465 · Cited by 1,742
Feminist Politics and Human Nature
Assiter, A., & Jagger, A. (1985) · Feminist Review · doi:10.2307/1394993 · Cited by 1,454
Cited by
Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.676 · Cited by 2,476
Using Narrative in Social Research
Elliott, J. (2005) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9780857020246 · Cited by 1,113
Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657301 · Cited by 939
The Social Construction of Status Value: Gender and Other Nominal Characteristics
Ridgeway, C. L. (1991) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/70.2.367 · Cited by 848
The Gender System and Interaction
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191 · Cited by 796
Metadata
- Authors
- RESKIN, B. F.
- Venue
- Gender & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1988-03
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-81
- ISSN
- 0891-2432 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3977
- OpenAlex
- W2146191806
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 49
- FWCI
- 57.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: BRINGING THE MEN BACK IN: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women's Work. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/089124388002001005
- The paper
- RESKIN, B. F. (1988). BRINGING THE MEN BACK IN: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women's Work. Gender & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002001005
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
