Setting the Record Straight: Social Work Is Not a Female-Dominated Profession

The social work profession is frequently described as a "female-dominated profession" in the social work and other professional literature. Most frequently social work is grouped with nursing, teaching, and library science as similarly female-dominated professions (Stromberg, 1988). However, representing social work as a female-dominated profession is a mischaracterization of social work's past and present. This commentary seeks to debunk the myth of social work as a female-dominated profession. Such a challenge is not new (Giovannoni & Purvine, 1974; Meyer, 1982), and the myth's endurance despite evidence to the contrary is surprisingly strong. Giovannoni and Purvine (1974) examined the reasons for social work's designation as a women's profession, including "its functions, repeatedly characterized as an extension of the traditional female nurturing role, or from its high proportion of women, or from the prominence of women in its early development" (p. 166). These characteristics have often led to the misunderstanding of social work as a female-dominated profession. Women's Work Viewing social work as a "woman's profession" often arises out of "the idea that the 'nurturing' capacity of women naturally fits the 'nurturing' function of social work" (Meyer, 1982, p. 200). In the early years of social work, women's gender-assigned caretaking qualities were deemed ideally suited to the profession. For instance, the concept of civic housekeeping held that women's work in the community with children, parks, and sanitation was a natural extension of their work inside the home (Chambers, 1986). A challenge to women's "natural" qualities as being complementary to social work is offered by Meyer, who noted, "The assumption that nurturing is the most significant aspect of social work competes with other significant aspects, such as analytical thinking, clinical perceptiveness, the rigor of research, professional autonomy, and administrative decisiveness" (p. 200). Female Majority Social work is often described as female-dominated, because throughout its history women have constituted the majority of the rank-and-file membership (Gibelman & Schervish, 1997; Kadushin, 1976). However, having a numerical majority does not automatically translate into having power or control. O'Neill (1994) noted, "Women have had a statistically predominate role in the nonprofit sector throughout American history. Yet there is serious question whether the influence of women in and through the nonprofit sector is as great as their statistical predominance" (p. 1). Although women have been the majority of direct service practitioners, they have not traditionally been the majority of administrators, policymakers, or faculty in schools of social work. For instance, Rauch (1975) noted that in a Philadelphia charity organization in 1880, "women were the foot soldiers of its war on pauperism" (p. 243), whereas "men dominated (italics added) Philadelphia's relief system as members of boards of directors, politicians, and paid agents" (p. 246). Concern about the lack of women in leadership positions was an issue at the National Conference of Charities and Corrections as early as 1890 (Giovannoni & Purvine, 1974). Men in social work have consistently earned higher salaries than their female counterparts (Huber & Orlando, 1995), although one study reported two factors related to increased salary equity for women--the sex of the dean and the geographic location of the school--with New England being the most equitable area for women (Norman, 1986). Gibelman and Schervish (1993) found that, compared with female social workers, male social workers disproportionately held managerial positions and reached these positions earlier in their careers. A recent study found some progress for female leaders in social work, with greater advancement at the undergraduate rather than graduate level (Di Palma & Topper, 2001). …