‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

School of Management

Working Paper Series

http://www.business.uts.edu.au/management/index.htm

‘When One becomes the other’: Men’s Gender

Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

Ruth Simpson and Alison Pullen

2007 Working Paper No: 2007/7

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 1

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

aAlison Pullen and bRuth Simpson aSchool of Management, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia.

bSchool of Business and Management, Brunel University, UK.

Abstract Drawing on well established theory of the ‘One and the Other’, this paper presents a qualitative study of how men discursively construct and position themselves as ‘Other’ in female dominated and feminized occupations (specifically nursing and primary school teaching). In so doing, the paper inverts the traditional gendered hierarchy of the One (the male/masculine) over the Other (the female/feminine) to explore how men reinforce, resist and play with the boundaries of One and Other as they negotiate their identity. We highlight the dynamic nature of the relationship between the One and Other as well as how men appropriate femininity in their identity work to reinforce their position as absolute One. Through the concepts of masks and masquerade, we explore the partial and fragmented ways in which men experience and negotiate Otherness and demonstrate how they mobilize the status of the Other for validation and legitimacy as marginal men. Key Words: men, gender, feminization, otherness, resistance Correspondence To: Alison Pullen. School of Management. University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Tel: 9514 3610 Fax: 9514 3602 Email Address: Alison.Pullen@uts.edu.au

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 2

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

Introduction Philosophically the ‘One and the Other’ have been a source of much attention particularly in feminist studies, with a great deal of work focusing on the ‘Other’ i.e. on the marginal and abject position of minority social groups and mobilising their Otherness. Feminist (theories and such as de Beauvoir, 1949; Grosz, 1989; Gatens, 1991) have conceptualised women as Other, while in Organization Studies research on gender have also focused on women’s ‘Otherness’ in recounting their experiences of organizational life, and the status of the One has largely been taken for granted. Research on masculinity has largely concentrated on the ‘One’ as a source of privilege and power (e.g. Hearn, 1994; Kerfoot and Knights, 1993; 1998; Kaufman, 1994 Connell, 1995; 2000;) with some notable exceptions exploring the marginal roles and identities of men in non-traditional work contexts (e.g. Williams, 1993; Lupton, 2000; 2006; Heikes, 1992; Simpson, 2004; 2005). Influenced by these critical accounts, as well as by de Beauvoir’s original conceptualisation of One and the Other, this paper investigates men’s gendered identity work when ‘the One becomes the Other’ (Hearn, 1996). In so doing, we focus on how men discursively experience ‘Otherness’ and analyse how men construct, resist and play with their status as ‘Other’ in female dominated environments. The paper presents the findings of a qualitative empirical study of 25 men in two ‘non-traditional’ occupations: nursing and primary school teaching. These occupations have been identified as being traditionally held by women (only 10% of nurses and 14% of primary teachers are male (EOC, 2002)) and as being notable for requiring skills and attributes (e.g. sensitivity, nurturance and service) that society normally attributes to women (Heilman, 1997; Hochschild, 1983). In such feminized contexts, men are ‘marked’ as different from traditional masculinity (Morgan, 1992; Lupton, 2000; Williams, 1993) and, at the same time, as different from the female norm where it is usually women’s experiences which exist as the ‘unmarked’ case (Murray, 1996; Evans, 1997). Therefore, whilst men and masculinity have generally been concealed within the ‘taken-for-granted, the unspoken centre(s) of organization’ as the ‘dominant One(s)’ (Hearn, 1996: p.612), men in ‘female’ oriented caring roles challenge traditional notions of masculinity and, by virtue of their associations with femininity, are visible as a gendered Other. Understanding gender relations in relation to the One and the Other in this way helps us to move beyond the binary of male/female and masculine/feminine to explore the complex interplay of ‘Oneness’ and ‘Otherness’ in men’s identity production and how they negotiate the spaces of being the same/different in gendered ways (Lorber, 1994). This serves to highlight the dynamic nature of the One/Other relationship which we would argue, after feminist writers Gatens (1991) and Grosz (1989), is fragmented, multiple, changing, shifting, and emergent, but at the same time employed in a relatively fixed way to manage and enable a stable identity. This paper unfolds in the following stages. First, the ‘One and Other’ is discussed in relation to the processes of doing gendered identity work to highlight how gendered identities are discursively constructed. Second, the research methodology adopted for the empirical study is outlined. Third, the data are presented and analysed around the themes of One/Other and sameness/difference as manifested in the relations between male and female colleagues; the employment of femininity as a strategy within caring occupations; and male bodies as matter out of place in relation to their marginalised position and perceived sexuality. In the final stage of the paper, we draw on the processes of masking and the masquerade, to conclude that men experience Otherness in partial and fragmented ways and that in doing so mobilise the status of the Other for authenticity which endorses their marginal identity as men. This we would argue further reinforces women as Other and abject even in female dominated environments. The one and the other in gender relations De Beauvoir (1949) in her classic text The Second Sex presented the one of the first systematic accounts of women’s Otherness as a formation of self produced through situations of oppression and subjugation. According to de Beauvoir, throughout history women have been reduced to objects for men and denied their own subjectivity and autonomy. Woman is

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 3

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

constructed as man’s Other – an unequal pairing imposed on women:

She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other (1949: 16).

As de Beauvoir argued, the reciprocity and equality inherent in the One/Other relationship does not extend to gender, which is characterised by essential man (as One) that denies any relativity in regard to its correlative i.e. woman (as Other). de Beauvoir accordingly gives prominence to how the ‘One’ is superior to and depends upon the ‘Other’ in gender relations (see also Irigaray, 1985; Jardine, 1985; McDowell and Pringle, 1992). In this respect, man attains himself ‘only through that reality which he is not’ (De Beauvoir, 1949). The Other accordingly conforms to man’s ‘ontological and moral pretensions’ and is appropriated by the One in that his often precarious and fragile sense of power is founded on an Other of powerlessness and derided weakness (ibid). The Other is thus the ‘mirror of its essence’ (i.e. the One) and is distinctive only through default (McDowell and Pringle, 1992) or ‘lack’ (Irigaray, 1985). Women are accordingly ‘particularly’ (de Beauvoir, 1949) or ‘precisely’ (McDowell and Pringle, 1992) defined and, as Irigaray (1985) argues, a mere receptacle for the subjects’ signifiers with no existence in and of themselves - female immanence to male transcendence (Moi 1985). Overriding the notion of an ‘essential’ woman (which has been strongly criticised by feminist theorists and activists alike), de Beauvoir argued for gender as a social process such that ‘becoming’ a woman can be seen as a project situated in Otherness (i.e. in inequality, constraint, oppression). However, her subsequent location of women’s disadvantage with the ‘abject’ female body (e.g. as child bearers) raised inconsistencies around the significance of biology and the promotion of a male ideal (Kruks, 1992) that have been cause for concern among some feminist writers (e.g. Evans, 1985; Moi, 1994; Gatens, 1991; Tyler 2005; Deutscher 1997)1. This inconsistency may explain the relative neglect of de Beauvoir’s work in organization theory despite as Tyler (2005) testifies her work has much potential to highlight marginalisation and the perpetuation of hierarchies in difference as well as to understand identity processes at work. Following from de Beauvoir, more recent work on the One/Other relationship has highlighted issues of visibility and invisibility. Butler for example has argued that as the bearers of a ‘body- transcendent universal personhood’ (Butler, 1999: 14), men and masculinity can be perceived as concealed within the norm. Men, as ‘the absolute One(s)’ after de Beauvoir, are therefore gender neutral, being socially invisible and ‘unmarked’ and disembodied. Those outside this norm are marked as Other and embodies their difference. Women are thus visibly defined by their gender, visibly categorized and essentialised by their femininity, while masculinity as gendered is ‘unseen’ and its attendant privileges inside and outside organizations go unrecognised as gendered effects (Simpson and Lewis, forthcoming; Collinson and Hearn 1994). The location of the One, however is never secure and can be a site of struggle and resistance (Robinson, 2000; Pierce, 2003; Haraway, 1991) as different groups identified as Other challenge their marginalisation which in turn may ensue erosion of material and cultural advantage of the One (Burke and Black, 1997). Although, as Tyler (2005) argues, the One/Other conceptualisation can provide a useful way of highlighting difference and exclusion, these accounts have been criticised for their problematic dualism of male/female and masculine/feminine (McDowell and Pringle, 1992; Butler, 1990). This reinforces gender as essentialist and fixed between the binaries of masculine/men/male and feminine/women/female, which downplays the processual and relational nature of gender. Furthermore, as Gatens contends, de Beauvoir and Sartre alike conceive of women and femininity as ‘absolutely Other to the human subject, irrespective of the sex of that subject’ (1991: 58), thus preventing a more nuanced understanding of the Otherness that can embrace men (Grosz, 1989). In sympathy with Grosz, we subvert de Beauvoir’s claim by applying the lens of One and Other to explore how men become/experience the Other in feminised spaces and how discourses of ‘Otherness’ are employed by these men as identity work. Before moving on

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 4

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

we discuss the concept of identity work that we use in this paper. Doing identity As Tyler (2005) suggests, de Beauvoir’s articulation of gender as ‘becoming’ is resonant with recent work on identity as a process (such as Pullen 2006; Pullen and Linstead 2005). Rather than a product that can be achieved and completed, identity is a constant project and emergent process (Kerfoot and Knights, 1998; Whitehead, 2001; Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003) involving societal factors, psychological factors, interaction, reflection, practice and performance (Pullen and Linstead 2005). As Pullen (2006) argues, after Garfinkel (1967), identities are characterized by paradox, fluidity, inconsistency and constant emergence. Therefore, following on from Willmott (1997), identity construction is not a matter of resolving ambiguity and making clear cut choices but, because of the subject’s ‘equivocal positions’, is characterized by internal confusion and conflict. These include how identities relate to organizational context as well as how they are embedded in the demands of the present and in the conjunction of past and future. As Pullen points out, identities are thus a form of rehearsal i.e. formed through an explanation of previous events (as episodes in an unfolding narrative) in a way that positions the constructor of the account advantageously for future episodes. These contemporary approaches to identity, as relational and situated processes, draw implicitly or explicitly on analytical constructs of One and Other. In de Beauvoir’s terms they relate to a situated self that has a symbiotic relationship with the Other. This Other, as Pullen suggests, is a manifestation of ‘traces’ of our past experiences with both ourselves and other people as well as projections of our identities into the future. As a response to the Other, the process of identity work can thus be seen to be grounded in ontological insecurity rather than certainty. Butler (1990) further highlights the unstable nature of (gender) identity by suggesting that it is ‘tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylized repetition of acts’ (1990: 140). For Butler identity is performative because it is through our actions and performances that our identity is constituted, rather than a pre-existing self being the originator of behaviour. As Pullen and Linstead argue, the way identity or its appearance of substance is generated from acts or series of acts, stylized in harmony with the modes of subjectivity, is critical to identity formation. Narrative and story, for example, may become part of the performative dimensions of identity (Czarniawska, 1997), performances which after de Beauvoir are ‘situated’. As we have seen, for women, gender performances occur in the contextual dimensions of ‘Otherness’ and subjugation. As Kruks (1992) argues, de Beauvoir accordingly acknowledges the influence of structure, such as oppression and inequality on the sense of self, without reducing the self to a sole (e.g. discursive) effect. Gender therefore can be conceptualised as a process of becoming – a project which is never complete and which is grounded in insecurity. Furthermore, we are alert to the notion of gender as the product of performance in specific situations. Applied to our analysis of men in non-traditional roles, we can conceptualise men’s gendered identity construction as grounded, situated and momentarily fixed as both One and the Other - symbolically, socially, hierarchically, materially and politically. Moreover, we are concerned with how discursively produced identity practices are performed through narrative (Czarniawska 1997) – specifically through narratives of One and the Other as men recount and make sense of their gendered experiences as marginal men in feminised occupations. Following on from this, we turn to a discussion of our research methodology. Research methodology The project adopted an inductive social constructionist research methodology to study men’s gendered identity work. As stated previously, we argue that, while situated within specific structures, contexts and ‘decisional constraints’ (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000), identity is discursively constructed. The emphasis of our methodology was thus on the ways men talked

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 5

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

about their gendered experiences as men. As such we were interested in how narrating lived experiences is central to doing (Gherardi 1995) and undoing gender (Butler 2004) - both seen as a constant process of emergence. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the men in the study which became an active resource for seeking to uncover the Otherness of the Other i.e. the ‘way people and events exceed categories and classifications of them’ (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000: 30) and therefore enabled the processual nature of gendered identity to be analysed. The data presented in this paper are part of a broader research project conducted by one of the authors to explore the role, identity and careers of men in non-traditional occupations. Recognising the central role of difference in identity construction (Lorber, 1994; 2005; West and Fenstermaker, 1995) as well as of its shifting and contentious nature (Ashcraft and Mumby, 2004), we were concerned with how, through conceptualisations of ‘One and the Other’, meaning is given to difference and how it is created, embraced or resisted. In other words we were interested in how men discussed difference in an interview situation as a part of making sense of and managing their gendered identities. The first author, who undertook the fieldwork, sought to explore interviewees’ experience of ‘otherness’ within their occupational contexts. Interviews accordingly explored perceptions of difference from women (e.g. do you think men bring specific skills/attributes/values to the job?); perceptions of difference from other men (e.g. how do your capabilities caring for patients/small children compare with those of other men you know?) as well as experience of ‘role strain’ (e.g. have you ever felt uncomfortable as a man in your role? What reactions do you/did you get from male friends and family to your occupational choice?). The interviewees were also asked about the nature of their relationship with male/female peers and higher status managers or practitioners. These themes allowed an exploration of the meanings attached to difference (from women and from other men) as well as experiences of marginalization and inclusion. A total of 25 teachers and nurses participated in the study. The sample was established through contact with local schools and hospitals, through personal connections and through advertising the project on organizationally based intranet sites and professional journals. The fifteen nurse participants came from six different hospitals in the South-East of England, UK. Five were involved with mental health, four in accident and emergency, one in palliative care and the remainder worked in general nursing. The ten primary school teachers who took part were employed in six different schools around London, UK. Two men were part of the senior management team, one was a nursery manager and seven were class-room teachers. Participants selected the location and time of interviews which took place mainly in the workplace. Anonymity was guaranteed and names have accordingly been changed. The interviews were recorded and manually transcribed. Data were organized and analysed with the help of qualitative data software around themes of difference. The data were analysed separately by the two authors with later corroboration given to emerging themes by comparing and discussing, in a reflexive manner, individual insights and interpretations. It is worth noting that the gender difference between interviewer (female) and interviewee (male) influenced data collection, analysis and interpretation. To illustrate specific relationships and processes within these themes, we present selected fragments of accounts from individual transcripts. These fragments are both significant to the participants concerned and resonate across accounts from the wider data set. We do not wish to claim that they are representative in any quantitative sense or that ours is the only possible interpretation of either these or of the wider data. As Trethewey (1999) points out, interview data is not intended to be ‘a clear and unblemished window on reality’ but, from Silverman (1993), should be understood as ‘an opportunity to explore the contours of a particular discourse’ (Trethewey, 1999: 428). Our fragments are simply representative of themes of difference articulated by the individual participant and more generally by other interviewees.

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 6

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

Reinforcing the one: resisting and playing with the other

…if the charge nurse is a male he gains more respect than the ward sister, where discipline, structure, routine has to be respected and abided with (John nurse).

In this section, we present accounts that explain how men reinforce their position as One through their differentiation from women; how they draw on sameness to resist Othering against their higher status men and how, in informal spaces, men can find pleasure in and embrace the Other. Throughout the study men differentiated the skills, particularly emotional labour skills, practised by men from those practised by women. In this respect, men often described themselves as having ‘a different form of compassion’, caring in a more ‘detached’ way, as being ‘more rational’ and having ‘more authority’ than women. Masculine characteristics were employed to give specificity to male skills and to render them superior to those of their female counterparts. From John’s quote above, male nurses were routinely treated with more respect than women (particularly interesting in the hospital context which is hierarchical to ensure order and control). Men also differentiated themselves on the grounds that they were more rational and less emotional than women and hence more able to deal with difficult or demanding situations. As Lawrence said:

I think men tend to be more understanding – not so short tempered, we maybe don’t rush around – I’ve worked with someone [female nurse] who was ‘I’ve got to do this, I’ve got to do that’, always here, there and everywhere and the patient becomes a very poor third and I think that men tend to be more placid and listen to the patient – and if what the patient wants does not fit what the ward can do then we’ll try and get something changed so that can happen, rather than just say oh we can’t do that because…(Lawrence, nurse)

As Lewis and Simpson (2007) argue, a ‘masculinisation’ of emotion can occur in ‘feminized’ contexts whereby feminine emotions are appropriated and expressed as part of masculinist rationality and/or career strategy. In the context of nursing, the ability to circumvent rules and regulations in order to mobilise resources for patients, e.g. by being calmer and less stressed or by adopting a ‘creative’ approach to systems and procedures, is to be recognised as more authoritative, a better performer and thus to be advantageously positioned. The choice of specialism also assisted with career progression. Nine of the fifteen nurses interviewed were located within mental health, seen as more masculine with historic links to custodialism, and accident and emergency (A&E) which was presented as more exciting and adrenalin charged (described by one nurse as ‘jumping on chests in casualty’) than general, female oriented nursing care. Such specialisms commanded respect and created distance from women – a separatist strategy which has also emerged from other studies of men in non-traditional roles (Williams, 1993; Lupton, 2000; Heikes, 1992) – as well as facilitating acceptance into the professional (and largely masculine) ‘dominant centre’ of male medical practice. Women were seen as lacking specialist knowledge and expertise or as being ‘too deferential’ and ‘too unassertive’ to be part of this elite group. In contrast to creating distance from women, men drew on ties of fraternity and on the common status of (rational) masculinity to claim entry into the world of male doctors and consultants:

I do have a close relationship with the (male) doctors – I find that I can be pally with them and sit down and chat with them and we can talk about men things. (George, nurse)

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 7

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

I get on very well with the consultant…he would respect me for what I’ve done and the majority of the time he would back me up – whereas if a female colleague approached him and said I am very concerned about one of the patients, he has many a time said to female colleagues you are projecting your own anxiety (David, nurse)

Associations with femininity and men’s marginal occupational status meant, however, that entry into the dominant centre was never fully secure and there was consequently tension around male nurses’ uncertain position in relation to this norm. This tension was evident in stories of encounters with (always male) doctors where norms of deference and of hierarchy were challenged by male nurses and overturned.

I’ve sent doctors out of my unit before – I’ve sent them off because I felt they were behaving inappropriately in front of my patients and I’ve said don’t come back to my unit until you either apologise or you can conduct yourself appropriately. (Steve, nurse) I was at a meeting yesterday and there was three consultants were just chit chatting away while I was trying to discuss something and I asked them if they could keep quiet and they just carried on chatting so I said if you don’t f****** shut up I’m going to walk out of here… (Nick, nurse)

Resistance to perceived marginalisation (Othering), and associated feelings of insecurity, could thus take the form of aggressive or overly assertive emotional displays, demonstrating a reliance on masculine behaviours when dealing with other men. As Nick commented reflexively, in possible recognition of his marginal status against male doctors:

I can be aggressive in meetings and I find that I get exasperated and shouted at people very easily, especially doctors, especially male doctors which I think says a lot about how I see myself next to a doctor (Nick, nurse).

Such displays of dominance are resonant with Kerfoot’s contention that masculine subjects strive for control - which, after Pullen (2006), could be seen to be a fundamental element of hierarchy. More generally, in accordance with Hearn (1996) and Robinson (2000), results support the view that the position within the norm, the location of the One, is never secure but can become the focus of struggle, tension and resistance. While Kerfoot sees men as denying ‘the possibility for ‘play’ within social relations – of shifting between subject positions’ on the grounds that masculinity ‘necessitate(s) that the other is subordinated to self’ (Kerfoot 1999: 197), some evidence of ‘playing with sameness’ emerged from this study. Outside the immediate domain of professional practice, in this instance within the more ‘feminine’ space of night duty where as Lewis (2008) argues, greater informality presides, men toyed pleasurably with Other as ‘one of the girls’.

I had no problem doing the girly things, chattering away with the girls and, for example, one of the things we used to do to make money towards the end of the month was we would on night duty we would starch the hats for people who didn’t want to fold their own hats, so we’d be sitting there in the bathroom with a bath full of starch and a dinner plate making the hats for a pound a go (laughter) and I was quite happy to do things like that, so I’ve always found it very easy to fit into the female way of things being done and so that’s never been a problem at all… I’ve always been one of the girls (Steve, nurse)

Men thus experienced Otherness in partial and fragmented ways. Through a masculinisation of

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 8

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

emotion, creating distance from women, men co-opted the essence of the Other in an instrumental and strategic manner to support a masculinist career strategy and their status as One. Femininity was thus appropriated to men’s own advantage and women’s Otherness through and affective response to the ‘feminine mystique’ (Tyler, 2005). It was, however, more difficult for men to evade Otherness in their dealings with men. In the context of hospitals and in the company of male doctors and consultants, male nurses were visible and marked. Unable to fully access the dominant centre – the site of the One - tensions emerged as men attempted to manage their visible Otherness. Furthermore, whilst there is evidence of an imperative to control (Kerfoot, 1999) through displays of dominance with the other, higher status male nurses can ‘have fun with’ social relations and playfully toy with the discursive domain of the Other. Being caring: Being feminine

I often compare myself with my brother who’s making million pound deals and he’s earning money for his company and I tend to feel when I compare myself with him I tend to feel emasculated really because he’s a big City fat cat and would be sat around with a big cigar talking money and I talk about buying more mattresses to enable patients to be more comfortable and it feels kind of soft and unimportant compared to what he’s doing (Nick, nurse)

This opening account from Nick describes a common feeling that many men in our study experienced – that of being ‘emasculated’ by occupying a job associated with caring and femininity. Against strong imagery of masculine financial and corporate success, care is ‘soft and unimportant’. Care is marginalised. Many interviewees accordingly felt uncomfortable with their occupational choice – particularly in relation to their status with other men:

Men in particular – they laugh and say oh you’re a man for goodness sake, why have you chosen to do nursing? Why can’t you be a doctor? (David, nurse) Most of my friends when they say what do you do and I say a primary school teacher and they’re like … maybe they think I’m a wimp or something (Mike, teacher) Because I am a man in early years I’m aware that I am a freak and that I’m weird and in the wrong job (Matt, teacher].

While elements of the ‘hegemonic ideal’ found purchase in men’s negotiation of identity, creating uncomfortable feelings of difference, many men sought to maintain distance from some common or traditional notion of masculinity. For example, nursing and teaching had often been chosen as a second career, in a rejection of the embodiment of masculinity within more traditional roles. Thus, male nurses and teachers had moved variously out of banking, the army, mining, management and accountancy into their non-traditional occupation. More generally, in a process of demarcation from traditional notions of masculinity, men located themselves with the Other, adopting feminine discourses of care.

I think in a way I’m not your average male because I’m more caring towards children… (Josh, teacher)

I’m really in touch with my caring side, my feminine side if you like. Not like other blokes I know (Keith, teacher)

… I wear pink quite a bit and boys say you can’t wear pink you’re a man, why can’t I wear pink I’m wearing pink today…I’m quite happy being seen in a motherly role. I’ve got no problems with my feminine side at all, I’m

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 9

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

quite proud of it… and I think they [the children and parents] see that I’m very approachable and motherly… (Matt, teacher)

Not surprisingly these men commented on their ‘feminine side’ and, as in other studies of service work (Tyler and Taylor, 1998; Bolton, 2005), associated ‘caring’ with femininity. Feminine skills were valued in teaching and nursing, but always performed through narratives of care. However, while the caring performed by women is often devalued as a ‘natural’ part of femininity (Taylor and Tyler, 2000) - an essential component of their Other status (de Beauvoir, 1949; McDowell and Pringle, 1992) - emotional labour performed by men was celebrated as an asset, divorced from Other and from nature. This special status arose because of claimed differences from women outlined earlier in this paper (men being more rational and more detached) as well as, through discourses of ‘New Manhood’ (Knights, 2001), claimed differences from and privilege over other (masculine) men. Positioned as Other against the masculine norm, men challenged and subverted the hierarchical nature of this location through discourses of femininity and care. Men therefore claimed special status within the Other - insinuating, it could be said, elements of privileged Oneness into the Other domain. Male bodies as ‘matter out of place’ in feminized occupations

…I’m tall and big and unshaven and got a big scar on my face… I didn’t feel comfortable in a woman’s world and I think to feel comfortable you have to adapt yourself in many ways… For example, if I was working on a building site I’d be much more boisterous and outspoken, but working as a health visitor with a group of middle aged, middle class women I ... didn’t feel able really to be myself. (Nick, nurse)

As Connell (2000) points out, bodies matter in that biological difference between men and women play an important part in determining what is seen to be ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ work. It is easier for meaning (e.g. around masculinity, femininity) to take hold when the body complies with its social definition. In the context of both teaching and nursing, masculinity was seen as problematic and men’s bodies conceptualised as ‘matter out of place’ (Douglas 1968). This is illustrated in Nick’s account above of the discomfort with his body in a feminised role. In a caring role that routinely required bodily contact, men and their bodies were marked as different (Murray, 1996; Evans, 1997) – Othered as abnormal (note references to ‘freak’ and ‘wimp’ in earlier texts) as well as dangerous, sexualised and potentially paedophilic in a context where women’s bodies (as emotional, nurturing) are unmarked and are congruent and accepted with the demands of the job. In both teaching and nursing, rules and procedures dictated appropriate behaviour with children and female patients and imposed constraints on how certain aspects of the job were performed. Not surprisingly, men did not welcome the marking of their bodies in these contexts and there was evidence of resentment to the restrictions and stigmas attached.

If you’ve got a child who’s really worried and upset, instinct tells you to put your arm round them but you don’t – you get somebody else in there to witness - a female teacher would not have the same stigma attached to it. It is restricting because you might want to break through to a child…and you cannot do it any other way (Robin, teacher) There are certain things I can’t do with the children, I can’t hug children as much as a woman teacher would be able to do, because again it would be seen as being too close and too intimate with them, which is nonsense, but it still would be seen…(as inappropriate). I should be able to hug somebody as much as a woman should be able to hug someone… (Matt, teacher)

At the same time however, as Evans (1997) found in a study of male nurses, men were valued for

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 10

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

their bodies. Consequently, they were routinely assigned work that demanded physical strength (e.g. lifting heavy patients), discipline (men were often given the most difficult classes) or sport. This triggered resentment, which as in the following quote, could result in resistance through bodily displays of non-involvement and distance:

when I was teaching junior children I did get lumbered with taking the football team, but I used to deliberately stand there, I used to wear my leather jacket, smoke roll-ups on the touch line and do as little running about as I humanly could and wear my sunglasses as well (laughter) (Sean, teacher)

Gendered norms of the profession were thus scripted on men’s bodies – a valued strength and activity as well as a dangerous and predatory sexuality. Tensions between the performance of care, embodied within femininity, and the masculine body also led to assumptions of homosexuality. As one teacher commented:

One of the male teachers at school is happily married with two children, but everybody thinks he’s gay because of his mannerisms and the way he talks to the children, whereas I am gay but I’m perceived to be the big bloke about the school…The way you deal with children you’re obviously going to sound more feminine, but because you’re talking to younger children you do tend to address them in a certain way (Robin, teacher)

Bodily performances associated with femininity, such as interactions with children, could thus ascribe homosexuality to men while body size could disrupt these ascriptions and confer other meanings. Sexuality emerged as highly pertinent to how men were perceived and to how they managed difference. In the latter respect, positioned as Other, men could draw on sexuality to celebrate difference and/or to underscore sameness. In my last job there was myself and a chap called Alan who were both openly gay and we were quite happy, I’m not naturally effeminate but I can be as camp as they like if they want me to and Alan and I used to try and goad each other into excesses of camp and outrage so we were very much one of the girls (David, nurse) Through humour and play, difference from masculine heterosexuality could be bridged and its effects defused and neutralised. In managing Otherness, David played with this marginalised masculinity while extracting value through his service, caring role:

.. the more butch ones (nurses) we used to tease that they were honorary girls and one aggressively heterosexual male nurse that I worked with who’d been in the army who I used to be terrified of, but he and I became quite friendly actually because I nursed his wife and being a neuro specialist he actually asked if I would look after her, which was a great compliment and we got on very well after that, to the point that he used to come up to me every morning and say good morning you’re all clean and I’d say good morning you’re all bastard (laughter) … I’ve never had any problems sexuality wise and as I say my last job was very much members of the girls, or honorary girls… (David, nurse)

Men’s bodies and their sexuality become highly significant in the context of teaching and nursing. Firstly, while men are routinely valued for their bodily strength and ascriptions of authority, their sexuality and masculinity are seen as undesirable, potentially dangerous and disruptive in some of the caring work that they are required to do. Secondly, their presence in a non-masculine role calls into question issues around their sexuality and so challenges the heterosexual norm in the work place. Body characteristics are drawn on extensively in descriptions of self and others (freak, wimp, tall, big, butch, clean) while some men manage the marking of their bodies by drawing on sameness - celebrating, resisting and occasionally bridging difference.

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 11

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

Conclusion This paper set out to explore men’s experiences ‘when the One becomes the Other’ (Hearn, 1996) in primary school teaching and nursing, both feminized occupational contexts. The experiences and dynamics surrounding men’s construction of ‘One and the Other’ and the associated perceptions of sameness and difference were investigated. Whilst de Beauvoir (1949) assumed these to be stable categorizations organized around the binary divide (i.e. men as the super-ordinate One, women as the subordinated Other), we have shown that not only do men become the Other in some feminized professions, but more importantly that along the lines of Gatens (1991) and Grosz (1989) that they experience Otherness in partial and somewhat fragmented ways. Relatedly, visibility and difference can be both embraced and resisted as individuals move between and draw on both subjective modes. Otherness can accordingly become an active strategy in the performance of gendered identities. Through the imposition of rationality and emotional distance on desirable job attributes, men can reframe discourses of care to privilege the masculine. In this way, they discursively position themselves as ‘Other’ to reinforce their difference as ‘One’ in an instrumental strategy for self promotion and self-interest. As Tyler (2005) contends, through such colonisation masculine norms are reinforced and hierarchical gender difference supported rather than challenged or overturned. In other contexts, men manage tensions between ‘One and Other’ through resistance and strategies of assimilation. Men keenly experience the ‘reversal of gaze’ (Butler, 1999), which contests the traditional invisibility of the masculine corporeal position, and resist the marking of their bodies as dangerous and disruptive in their caring role. Similarly, marked and visible against the dominant centre of male medical practice, and resonant with studies of women (e.g. Lewis, 2006) where gendered marking was evaded through an alignment with the world of men, male nurses resist Otherness by drawing on ties of fraternity to seek the privileges of invisibility within the (masculine) norm. Whilst existing work on conflict around the norm has tended to assume that it is minority groups (such as women) who fight to de-centre white men as the symbol of ‘universal personhood’ (e.g. Robinson, 2000), this study suggests that individual men can instead struggle to attain invisibility and assimilation into the norm. Men at the same time can resist identification with traditional masculinity by playing with the boundaries of ‘One and the Other’ to minimise difference from women. Incorporation into the ‘Other’, by drawing on a discourse of distinctiveness in caring skills and attributes, can partly subvert men’s location as ‘One’ by claiming special spaces of Otherness. In this way, possession of ‘feminine’ skills is afforded a valued and non-essentialised specificity, resonant of the One, privileging their owners over other men. Moreover, men can draw on sexuality and humour to celebrate as well as bridge difference from a heterosexual masculinity, playing with femininity as they embrace ‘Other’ and gaining pleasure from this discursive domain. Through various gendered and situated practices, male teachers and nurses therefore reinforce, resist and play with the boundaries of ‘the One and the Other’ as they negotiate the effects of their marking as marginal men. In their equivocal position, we can interpret the behaviours, practices and narratives of male nurses and teachers as they strive for authenticity – particularly important under conditions of ontological insecurity in which they creatively draw on both subjective modes for validation and legitimacy. In this process, men can be seen to both ‘do’ and ‘undo’ gender (Butler, 2004). Men ‘do’ masculinity through colonisation of the feminine within a masculinist project and by drawing on ties of fraternity with men – thereby seeking security and legitimacy within their non-traditional role. At the same time they ‘undo’ gender through feminine performances as they seek to demonstrate genuineness in their claim to inhabit the spaces of Other. We argue for the usefulness in this context of Goffman’s (1959/1971) conceptualisation of

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 12

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

identity as a mask that is actively used, manipulated and created in the performance of an ongoing masquerade. Masks are accordingly a resource for people to work out who they are and enable rehearsals for authenticity (Pullen 2006). Thus, from our study, a masquerade of the feminine can conceal, albeit in partial ways, masculinity which surfaces in rational behaviour, aggression, and a drive for promotion or which through a discourse of distinctiveness obscures and reinforces Oneness. Masking comprises conscious or unconscious performances that enable men to attain authenticity by bridging difference through the mobilization of sameness while, paradoxically, creating spaces where they engineer difference. One outcome may be the partial ‘internalisation’ of the masquerade, whereby men become ‘consumed’ by the masks they don. Men accordingly manage their identity from behind as well as through the mask – absorbing it into identity – while both doing and undoing gender as they strive for authentic performance in their non-traditional roles. In this paper we have drawn on the work of De Beauvoir to explore the significance of ‘the One and the Other’ in men’s negotiation of identity in non-traditional roles. As Tyler (2005) and Calás and Smircich (2000) have rightly stated de Beauvoir has been neglected in organizational theory despite the continuing relevance of her work to understandings of marginalisation and gender identity. From this study we affirm the centrality she has given to constructions of ‘One and Other’ in identity work, to the hierarchical nature of difference and to men’s dependence on Otherness for their subjective positioning. We also suggest, after de Beauvoir (1949), that the One is an identity that is only available to men (as intimated in our research, as women are rendered abject even within a context where they constitute the norm). But we tread with caution. Unlike de Beauvoir, we assert a more nuanced understanding of Otherness as pertaining to men. In this respect, men retain some (career, status) privileges of ‘the One’, even within sites of Otherness of non-traditional roles. Male nurses and school teachers are accordingly always situated socially as ‘the One’. They may be positioned as Other discursively and subjectively - but not materially. Moreover, we moved beyond de Beauvoir’s stable categorizations of One and Other to demonstrate how men, situated equivocally, can move between them. Hence we have highlighted the tensions and contradictions that play out when an individual embraces sameness/difference and negotiates the effects of marking as visible ‘the Other’ in order to achieve social membership, cultural acceptance and more strategically perhaps career success. After Hearn (1996) in employing ‘the One the Other’ we have demonstrated how Otherness can be experienced by men in partial and fragmented ways. As such this paper has gone some way to challenge traditional orientations towards gendered hierarchies and sexual difference and has presented a more nuanced account of the dynamics, interrelationships and complexities of ‘the One and the Other’. Notes 1 Some of the criticisms launched at De Beauvoir circles around her relationship with her life long lover Sartre and his existentialist philosophy informing her work; and more generally that she was consumed by masculinist philosophy (Grosz 1989). There are tensions in her work on women and femininity in that she claims that in order to overcome sexual oppression women must deny their womanhood. Associated with this is De Beauvoir’s neglect of materiality and therefore women’s bodies, and in doing so reinforces the Cartesian mind/body dualism which privileges the mind over the body. Gatens in a lucid account of De Beauvoir’s work offers a more nuanced interpretation of de Beauvoir’s feminism in that she critiques existentialist account from the inside (1991: 50-1). Furthermore there are tensions in De Beauvoir’s work between women having freedom to achieve equality and their oppression by men. Deutscher (1997) argues that this problematic emerges from adopting Sartre’s existentialist philosophy.

References Ashcraft, K, and Mumby, D. (2004) Reworking gender: A feminist Communicology of Organization, London: Sage.

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 13

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

Bolton, S.C. (2005) Women’s work, dirty work: the gynaecology nurses as ‘other’. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(2), 169-186.

Burke, R. and Black, S. (1997) Save the males: Backlash in organization. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 933-942.

Butler, J. (1990) Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the discursive limits of sex. London: Routledge.

Butler, J. (2004) Undoing Gender. London: Routledge.

Calas, M. and Smircich, L. (2000) Ignored for Good reason: Beauvoir’s philosophy as a revision of social identity approaches, Journal of Management Enquiry, 9(2), 193-199

Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (1994) Naming men as men: Implications for work, organization and management. Gender Work and Organization, 1/1: 2-20

Connell, R. (1995) Masculinities, University of California Press.

Connell, R. (2000) The men and the boys. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Czarniawska, B. (1997) Narratives of individual and organizational identities Communication Yearbook 17, 193-221 Thousand Oaks: Sage.

De Beauvoir, S. (1949) The second sex. Jonathan Cape: London.

Deutscher, P. (1997) Yielding gender: feminism, deconstruction and the history of philosophy. London: Routledge.

Douglas, M. (1996; 2002) Purity and danger; Routledge: London.

EOC (2002) Facts about men and women in Great Britain. Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission.

Evans, J. (1997) Men in nursing: Exploring the male nurse experience, Nursing Enquiry, 4:142-145.

Evans, M. (1985) Simone De Beauvoir: A feminist mandarin. Tavistock, London.

Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gatens, M. (1991) Feminism and philosophhy: Perspectives on difference and equality. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Gherardi, S. (1995) Gender, symbolism and organizational culture. London: Sage.

Goffman, E. (1959)The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Grosz, E. (1989) Sexual subversions: Three French feminists. NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Haraway, D. Simians. (1991) cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature, New York and London: Routledge,

Hassard, J., Holliday, R. & Willmott, H. (2000) Body and organization, London: Sage, 2000

Hearn, J. (1996) Deconstructing the dominant: Making the One(s) the Other(s), Organization, 3 (4), 611-626

Heikes, J. (1992) When men are in the minority: The case of men in nursing. The Sociological Quarterly, 32/3, 389-401.

Heilman, M. (1997) Sex Discrimination and the affirmative action remedy: The role of sex stereotypes. Journal of Business Ethics, 16/ 9, 877-899.

Hochschild, A. (1983)The managed heart: Commercialisation of feeling. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Irigaray, L. (1985) The sex which is not the One, Cornell University Press, New York.

Jardine, A. (1985) Gynesis configurations of woman in modernity, Cornell University Press, New York.

Kaufman, M. (1994) Men, feminism and men’s contradictory experiences of power. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds) Theorizing Masculinities. London: Sage.

Kerfoot, D. (1999) The organization of intimacy: Managerialism, masculinity and the masculine subject. In S. Whitehead. & R. Moodley, R. (Eds) Transforming managers: Gendering change in the public sector. London: UCL Press.

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 14

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

Kerfoot, D. and Whitehead, S. (1998) Boy’s own stuff: Masculinity and the management of further education. The Sociological Review, 46 (3), 436-537.

Kerfoot, D. and Knights, D. (1993) Management masculinity and manipulation: From paternalism to corporate strategy in financial services in Britain. Journal of Management Studies, 30 (4), 659-77.

Kerfoot, D. and Knights, D. (1998) Managing masculinity in contemporary organizational life: A man(agerial) project. Organization, 5 (1), 7-26.

Knights, D. (2001) The “New Economy” and the “New Man”: Virtual transitions or transitional virtualities, Keynote address to Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies conference, Baptist University, Hong Kong, December.

Kruks, S. (1992) Gender and subjectivity: Simone de Beauvoir and contemporary feminism, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 18 (1), 89-110.

Lewis, P. (2008; forthcoming) Emotion work and emotion space: Using a spatial perspective to explore the challenging of masculine emotion management practices, British Journal of Management.

Lewis, P. (2006) The Quest for Invisibility: Female entrepreneurs and the masculine norm of entrepreneurship, Gender Work and Organization, 2006, 13 (5), 453-469

Lewis, P. and Simpson, R. (2007) Gendering Emotions in Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Lupton, B. (2000)Maintaining masculinity: Men who do women’s work. British Journal of Management, 11: S33-48

Lorber, J. (1994) The paradoxes of gender. New York: Yale University Press.

McDowell, L. and Pringle, R. (1992) Defining women. The Open University Polity Press. 1992

Moi, T. (1994) Simone De Beauvoir: The making of an intellectual woman. Blackwell: Oxford.

Moi, T. (1985; 2002) Sexual/Textual Politics. London: Routledge.

Morgan, D. (2002) Discovering men. London: Routledge.

Murray, S. (1996) ‘We all love Charles’: Men in childcare and the social construction of gender. Gender and Society, 10(4), 368-385.

Pierce, J. (2003) Racing for innocence: Whiteness, corporate culture and the backlash against affirmative action, Qualitative Sociology, 26 (12), 53-70

Pullen, A. (2006) Managing Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Pullen, A. and Linstead, S. (2005) (eds.) Organization and Identity. London: Routledge.

Robinson, S. (2000) Marked men: White masculinity in crisis, Columbia University Press.

Silverman, D. (1993) Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London:Sage.

Simpson, R. (2004) Masculinity at Work: The Experiences of Men in Female Dominated Occupations. Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 18(2): 349-368.

Simpson, R. (2005) Men in Non-Traditional Occupations: Career Entry, Career Orientation and Experience of Role Strain. Gender, Work & Organization 12 (4), 363–380.

Simpson and Lewis. Forthcoming Voice, Visibility and the Gendering of Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Sveningsson, S. and Alvesson, M. (2003) Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56, 1163-1193

Trethewey, A. (1999) Disciplined bodies: Women’s embodied identities at work, Organization Studies, 20 (3), 423-450

Taylor, S. and Tyler, M. (2000) Emotional labour and sexual difference in the airline industry, Work Employment and Society. 14 (1), 77-95

Tyler, M. (2005) Women in Change Management: Simone De Beauvoir and the co-optation of women’s Otherness, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18 (6), 561-577.

Tyler, M. and Taylor, S. (1998) The exchange of aesthetics: Women’s work and ‘The Gift’ Gender Work and Organization. 5 (3), 165-171

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 15

‘When One becomes the Other’: Men’s Gender Positioning in Female Dominated Occupations

West, C. and Fenstermaker, S. (1995) Doing difference, Gender and Society, 9 (1), 8-37

Williams, C. (1993). Doing Women’s Work: Men in Non-Traditional Occupations (Ed). London: Sage.

Whitehead, S. (2001) Woman as manager: A seductive ontology. Gender Work and Organization, 8 (1), 84-107

Willmott, H. (1997) Rethinking management and managerial work: Capitalism, control and subjectivity’, Human Relations,, 50(11), 1329-1359.

UTS: School of Management Working Paper: No. 2007/7 Page 16