Talk:Pink-collar worker

message: Edited for slightly more NPOV. 
-Ash. (November 4, 2005)
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Pink collar → Pink-collar worker – to match blue-collar worker and white-collar worker. ConDemTalk 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support I requested the move, to fit the other worker pages. Unfortunately, the new page already exists as a redirect to Pink collar. ConDemTalk 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
*Oppose - This term has been re-purposed and no longer applies to "pink collar" workers which are much lower paid positions.  It's now used by female managers to describe being routed in to managerial positions that do not have a track to the board room - HR, Marketing, Customer Service, etc.  It allows a company to have plenty of female managers for the counts but none of them are in a position that contributes to the bottom line and its highly unlikely that any of them will ever get a seat at the "big table".  
129.119.81.135 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support I requested the move, to fit the other worker pages. Unfortunately, the new page already exists as a redirect to Pink collar. ConDemTalk 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
*Oppose - This term has been re-purposed and no longer applies to "pink collar" workers which are much lower paid positions.  It's now used by female managers to describe being routed in to managerial positions that do not have a track to the board room - HR, Marketing, Customer Service, etc.  It allows a company to have plenty of female managers for the counts but none of them are in a position that contributes to the bottom line and its highly unlikely that any of them will ever get a seat at the "big table".  
129.119.81.135 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I see this is listed as unreferenced. Two useful references might be Pink-collar worker in the Financial Dictionary at specialinvestor.com or the less detailed but canonical definition in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition, 2000). - Jmabel | Talk 20:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I have put them both in, but I think in terms of the article's content it is still a little under-referenced. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: I cut the following because it is pretty incoherent. I imagine that, if better put, it would belong in the article: 
Even though Pink-collar refers to women working in their traditional roles in the Western wolrd, this term carries the meaning of fashing and a new kind of lifestyle. Those female workers that are being referred to with this term often dress fashionably and clean. They are mostly in their 20's or 30's.
Some of the problems would be easily fixed (e.g. "wolrd" ==> "world"), but I didn't just copy edit because there are bigger problems:
* "Even though Pink-collar refers to women working in their traditional roles in the Western world…": So does this mean to say "Even though in the Western world Pink-collar refers to women working in their traditional roles…"? or does it mean something about Asian women working in traditionally Asian roles in the Western world? or what?
* "fashing"?? Perhaps "fashion"? But I wasn't sure.
* "…a new kind of lifestyle…": Pretty vague. What does this mean to say?
* "workers that are being referred to with this term often dress fashionably and clean": "Clean" comes with the territory. As the article begins "A pink-collar worker works in a relatively clean, safe environment…" 
So what is the contrast supposed to be? That Asian pink-collar workers are somehow fashionable in a way that Western ones are not? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 05:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views in Asia 

message: Was traditionally high prestige, surely. Rich Farmbrough, 15:07 3  October 2006 (GMT).
: Not in many parts of the U.S., at least not below the university level. As recently as the 1960s there were running jokes about teachers quitting to become migrant farmworkers and improve their status. And this was a job that many men considered "beneath them". - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teaching

message: As I was thinking, that careers like Midwifery, Teaching, & Prostitution should be include here as well. And probably other suppouse pink-collar worker jobs as well, that had been miss out. And do you agree with that?-Jana
"Waitress" should be changed to the more gender neutral term "waiter" or "server." - Benjamin Mulroney  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin mulroney 414 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More [[Career]]s to put in.

message: You're taking the argument out of context. 
You can be Asian and still have a pink collar. The clean dress is not in reference to a "clean environment" but to a "clean dress" - almost but not quite literally because it doesn't have to be a dress. (so don't go running off out of context on me).
To be clean a manner of dress it would be neat, orderly, appropriate looking for the job, professional, and tasteful or flattering to one's appearance. - clean does not go with the territory of a "clean working environment". 
The opposite of a dressing cleanly is to dress in a trashy manner, or looking very distasteful or in a non-flattering manner. When speaking of the feminine, looking like a hooker or whore is the opposite of clean.
Asian or Caucasian, one can still dress cleanly. Just thought I would clarify a little.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.200.137 (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with the Asian discussion? 

message: It seems bizzare that none of the categories this page is in include the word "woman", "women" or "feamale".  Normally I would just add it, but figured I would see if this was a deliberate choice of editors for some reason.  Was it? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Egh, yes. For an article as well-sourced as this, the tone and the way it's all tied together is just plain awful - even where they're essentially right (as in your second example), it's written in a totally unencyclopedic manner. It would be good if someone could run through and take an axe to the various questionable assertions of fact here; if they're shifted to the talk we can go through them individually. Rebecca (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Honestly a good portion of the article reads like a first year college argument essay. Needs a good rewrite. --24.23.38.171 (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: Maybe the section titled "Life in the working world" should be broken up into two or more smaller paragraphs, so that it does not persist as a humongous monolithic paragraph. --Keith111 (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A paucity of paragraph breaks 

message: The tone of this article seems to be very unencyclopedic and has a sympathetic feminist POV. 75.85.32.224 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Aside from the article's lead-in and the "Typical Occupations" section this article doesn't seem to have anything to do with Pink-collar workers.  The whole rest of the article is about the history of working women in the United States.  Should this be separated into two separate articles, one on "History of working women in the United States" and one on Pink-collar workers?  Or should Blue-collar worker be rewritten to include a history of men's labor or the history of blue-collar jobs in the United States?  Since this very article defines itself in terms of blue-collar (and white collar) workers it would seem that there should be some level of consistency amongst these articles.  The background section editorializes about women working in factories... Are factories pink-collar jobs too?  The article that's been written here seems almost completely divorced from the topic.  A Pink-collar worker is someone that works in a typically female industry... they don't necessarily need to be a female...--Cybermud (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, adding to the anterior comment, I see that this article was in fact moved from "Pink collar" to "Pink collar-worker" for ostensible parity with the blue and white collar articles even though it is, as noted above, entirely inconsistent with its interpretation of the subject matter and term and seems to be, at present, a coatrack for an article on the history of working women.--Cybermud (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnamed article!? 

message: I'm not sure where to put this, I've never edited wikipedia before, but I think "tobacco strippers" should be "tobacco stripers".  A stripper is someone who takes their clothes off, I think striper is an archaic word for a salesperson who works only for commission.  Google "tobacco striper" to see that it was listed as a profession in 19th century census results.  -kmr  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.204.148 (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The word 'stripper' has more meanings than just "someone who takes their clothes off". Look up "paint stripper". 2CrudeDudes (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stripper vs Striper 

message: The statement "These machines designed by men, using the technology they have always monopolized, are now displacing them and forcing them into feminized pink-collar work," might be politically powerful or delivered for effect but what it is NOT is factual. It does not link to any citations, makes an unproven/unknowable generalization ("designed by men") and also makes a statement contrary to other known facts, such as women's contributions towards technology. Strongly advise removal. --182.191.196.79 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: This article focuses entirely too much on the history of the working American Woman! Women who migrated to the United States for paid work (mainly care work) following deindustrialization are completely excluded from this article. It might be beneficial to the credibility of this article to add a section on the feminization of transnational labor migration. Alexischiribao (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Underrepresented Viewpont of Immigrant Women

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Pink-collar worker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050505194045/http://bartleby.com/61/52/P0315200.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/P0315200.html
*Added  tag to http://www.worlddata.com/datacard/viewdatacard.asp?ID=2609
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209072059/http://www.womenwork.org/policy/factwomenwork.htm to http://www.womenwork.org/policy/factwomenwork.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone add a section on or link to how the Lily Ledbetter Law came about?  I think it would inform the Pink-collar entry because Lily Ledbetter experienced initial pay discrimination, which compounded throughout her career because her raises depended on her initial pay.  When a male colleague told her how much lower her pay was than his, she was unable to recover back pay because the initial discrimination happened so long before.  The Lily Ledbetter Law enables future female pay discrimination to be recovered, but ultimately did not directly benefit her.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.90 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lily Ledbetter Law 

message: Remove duplicate rederence  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:D8FA:35E:7A82:56D3 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 5 and 58 are identical and one should be removed 

message: Here are a few quotes from reference 57 (Kalokerinos, Elise) which would benefit the topic.
Suggestions:
- Add in the more masculine tasks of men in pink collar jobs: "feelings among men in pink-collars that they were expected to engage in masculine job-relevant tasks, such as dealing with angry and potentially violent clients."
- Add in difficulty in recruiting and retaining men in pink collar jobs: "that there may be important problems in recruiting and retaining men in pink-collar jobs."
- Mention that women in male-dominated jobs may have similar stereotypical thread concerns: "feelings of stereotype threat were associated with more negative job attitudes among older workers (von Hippel, Kalokerinos, & Henry, 2013) and 
women in male-dominated workplaces (von Hippel, Issa, Ma, & Stokes, 2011)"
From: Kalokerinos, Elise K.; Kjelsaas, Kathleen; Bennetts, Steven; von Hippel, Courtney (1 August 2017). "Men in pink collars: Stereotype threat and disengagement among male teachers and child protection workers". European Journal of Social Psychology. 47 (5): 553–565. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2246. hdl:11343/292953. ISSN 1099-0992.
Quotes of interest related to pink collar jobs: 
"Male employees are a traditionally advantaged group, but when working in a female-dominated industry they may be vulnerable to negative gender stereotypes."
"feelings of stereotype threat were related to negative job attitudes for men but not women"
"In turn, stereotype threat was associated with intentions to resign and feeling expected to perform stereotypic masculine work tasks."
"Indeed, Steele (1997) theorized that in the short-term stereotype threat would lead to performance decrements, and in the long-term to disidentification or disengagement from the stereotyped domain. The possibility that stereotype threat might lead to disengagement is likely to be particularly important to organizations because work disengagement is associated with negative outcomes, such as more negative job attitudes (Riketta, 2008) and increased turnover (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).:
"The relationship between stereotype threat and work disengagement has been demonstrated using various methodologies. Correlational research demonstrated that chronic feelings of stereotype threat were associated with more negative job attitudes among older workers (von Hippel, Kalokerinos, & Henry, 2013) and women in male-dominated workplaces (von Hippel, Issa, Ma, & Stokes, 2011). Research using a daily diary methodology found that daily experiences of stereotype threat predicted psychological burnout in female engineers (Hall, Schmader, & Croft, 2015)."
"Pink-collar organizations are numerically skewed towards female employees, and the work is conceived in female-gendered terms (Acker, 1990; Sargent, 2005)." is from the longer quote for context "Pink-collar organizations are numerically skewed towards female employees, and the work is conceived in female-gendered terms (Acker, 1990; Sargent, 2005). For example, nurses, primary school teachers, and child protection workers are meant to be gentle and nurturing, traits that are stereotypic of women but not men. Stereotypes about men suggest they are unlikely to have the necessary traits to succeed in pink-collar jobs, in which such stereotypically female traits are thought to be critical for success. Not only are men assumed to lack these feminine traits (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Heilman, 2001), but they are stereotyped as aggressive, dominant, and competitive (Cejka & Eagly, 1999), traits that are problematic in many pink-collar jobs. Stereotype threat might be particularly problematic for men in pink-collar jobs that involve working with young children, as men are perceived as less nurturing than women (Eagly, 1987; Williams & Best, 2000) and more likely to engage in child sexual abuse (cf. Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004)."
Reinforcements and negative expectations from others affects men in pink collar jobs: "Steele (1997) theorized that stereotype threat would apply to members of all groups that are stereotyped in a particular setting, regardless of whether that group was historically stigmatized. Laboratory research supports this claim, finding that members of traditionally advantaged groups also suffer the negative consequences of stereotype threat, although such research has thus far only investigated performance, and not disengagement consequences. For example, White men performed more poorly on math tasks when reminded of stereotypes that Asians are better at mathematics (Aronson et al., 1999; Smith & White, 2002), and more poorly on a golf task when it was framed as diagnostic of “natural athletic ability” (Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999). Additionally, and more closely aligned with the current research, men show stereotype threat effects when completing tasks in stereotypically feminine domains – making more errors on an emotion processing task (Leyens, Désert, Croizet, & Darcis, 2000) and on a test of social sensitivity (Koenig & Eagly, 2005). Thus, the results of laboratory research are in line with Steele’s original theorizing that being a target of a negative stereotype triggers stereotype threat, independent of historical group stigmatization. Nevertheless, stereotype threat among advantaged group members has never been investigated outside of the lab, and there is good reason to think that the privileged status afforded to pink-collar men in the real world may shield them from the experience of stereotype threat."
More masculine tasks in the 2005 citation: "Finally, we also examined feelings among men in pink-collars that they were expected to engage in masculine job-relevant tasks, such as dealing with angry and potentially violent clients. Men in pink-collar industries report feeling that they are expected to perform these more masculine work tasks when they arise (e.g., Sargent, 2005)."
"Men are increasingly entering female-dominated professions (Dewan & Gebeloff, 2012), but this rate of growth does not match the increasing number of women entering traditionally male-dominated professions (Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor, 2008), suggesting that there may be important problems in recruiting and retaining men in pink-collar jobs. Increasing male representation in these jobs may help address negative stereotypes about men in feminine professions, provide counter-stereotypic role models for the boys with whom they work (Hood, 2001), and help reduce the rigidity of gender stereotypes (Eagly & Steffen, 1984)."
"there is a paucity of research investigating barriers to men working in traditionally feminine roles (Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015)."
References cited in those quotes
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158. doi: 10.1177/089124390004002002
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When White men can't do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 29-46. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1998.1371
Bosson, J. K., Haymovitz, E. L., & Pinel, E. C. (2004). When saying and doing diverge: The effects of stereoytpe threat on self-reported non-verbal anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(2), 247-255. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00099-4
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 413-423. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025004002
Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men's engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 19(4), 343-370. doi: 10.1177/1088868314564789 
Dewan, S., & Gebeloff, R. (2012, May 20). More men enter fields dominated by women. The New York Times, p. A1.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735-754.doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657-674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234
Hall, W. M., Schmader, T., & Croft, E. (2015). Engineering exchanges: Daily social identity threat predicts burnout among female engineers. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 528-534. doi: 10.1177/1948550615572637
Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2005). Stereotype threat in men on a test of social sensitivity. Sex Roles, 52(7-8), 489-496. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-3714-x
Leyens, J. P., Désert, M., Croizet, J. C., & Darcis, C. (2000). Stereotype threat: Are lower status and history of stigmatization preconditions of stereotype threat? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1189-1199. doi: 10.1177/0146167200262002
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 472-481. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.472
Sargent, P. (2005). The gendering of men in early childhood education. Sex Roles, 52(3/4), 251-259, doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-1300-x
Smith, J. L., & White, P. H. (2002). An examination of implicitly activated, explicitly activated, and nullified stereotypes on mathematical performance: It's not just a woman's issue. Sex Roles, 47(3-4), 179-191. doi: 10.1023/A:1021051223441
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.52.6.613
Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on Black and White athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1213. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1213
von Hippel, C., Issa, M., Ma, R., & Stokes, A. (2011). Stereotype threat: Antecedents and consequences for working women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 151-161. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.749
von Hippel, C., Kalokerinos, E. K., & Henry, J. D. (2013). Stereotype threat among older employees: Relationship with job attitudes and turnover intentions. Psychology and Aging, 28(1), 17-27. doi: 10.1037/a0029825
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (2000). Cross-cultural views of women and men. In K. A. Keough & J. Garcia (Eds.), Social psychology of gender, race and ethnicity: Readings and projects (pp. 168-173). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor. (2008). Nontraditional occupations for women in 2008. Washington, DC. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:DC70:9A75:D5AC:ABB4 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two expansions on pink collar jobs men