The male librarian and the feminine image: a survey of stereotype, status, and gender perceptions

Tags: profession, librarianship, librarians, gender issues, subjects, gay men, Wilson Library Bulletin, librarian, Library Trends, New York, Special Libraries Association, Westport, CT, feminist studies, personality, Harvard University, Michigan State University Press, College & Research Libraries, Library of Congress, Library Association Record, America, Public library users, Beta Phi Mu Chapbook, National Library, The social organization, John F. Kennedy School of Government, American Library Association, Committee, Greenwood Press, William B., Christina Sue, feminine image, Affirmative Action, sexist attitudes, men's studies, librarian stereotype, gay stereotype, school media specialist, sexual harassment, discrimination, American Medical Association, gender stratification, James V. Carmichael, professions, economic oppression, school media specialists, stereotype, social expectations, Library and Information Science Research, Library & Information Science Research
Content: The Male Librarian and the Feminine Image: A Survey of Stereotype, Status, and Gender Perceptions By: James V. Carmichael, Jr. Carmichael, J. V., Jr. (1992, October/December)"The Male Librarian and the Feminine Image: A Survey of Stereotype, Status, and Gender Perceptions." Library and Information Science Research 14: 411-46. Made available courtesy of Elsevier: http://www.elsevier.com ***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from Elsevier. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document.*** Abstract: Although the literature of librarianship is replete with personality studies, which purport to link the psychological characteristics of librarians with problems of stereotype, professional image, professional status, and occupational prestige, most assume that the only negative Image is that associated with the female stereotype. Only rarely have feminist studies challenged the assumptions upon which such claims are based, due to the fact that men's studies in the field have been virtually nonexistent. This article reports the results of a survey of male librarians relating to the existence and nature of the male professional stereotype, and the impact of social expectations and gender-related work issues on the attitudes of male library and information professionals. Because male librarians are rarely studied as men, it was necessary to design an exploratory instrument. Although categorically ranked responses provided indicators of general attitudes towards genderstatus issues, open-ended comments revealed a greater diversity of attitudes than had been previously supposed. The study illumines an unexplored area of research in the field, and establishes the need for further qualitative research in the area of gender studies in librarianship. Article: CONTEXT OF THE STUDY An individual's sex is identified at birth; the social roles individuals are expected to perform because of their sex relate to gender. The growing corpus of both men's and women's studies provide evidence of a growing awareness of inequities suffered by women throughout history, and the reaction of men who feel similary trapped by social expectations of them. It is perhaps ironic that the "architect" of militant feminism was a man1 (Strauss 1982 pp. 195-202). Unfortunately, evidence casts doubts on the motives of some of the early male feminists whose altrusim--to a generation weaned on Marx and Freud, at least--seems to have been girded by greed and a desire for greater social control (Morgan, 1972). Feminist critiques of the literature of professionalism emphasize that professionalism has too often been modeled on preexisting masculinized institutional structures. Assumptions about the male desire for power, male control over standardization of work and the establishment of educational standards, and the diminution of service orientation as men dominate a profession are implicit in "conservative" feminist analyses, in which "the peculiar features of women's oppression are lost in the focus on economic oppression" (Noddings, 1990, p. 408). "Radical" feminism, however, challenges the supremacy of professional expertise over client needs, the legitimacy of the masculine hierarchy, the strict division between domestic and institutional spheres, and the discounting of "women's work" (Offen, 1988). In "masculine" professions such as law, as well as "feminine" professions such as nursing, and "feminized" professions such as teaching, a synthesis of radical and feminist thought has yet to occur (Noddings, 1990). In librarianship, apparently, a coherent body of radical feminist thought is lacking from which such a synthesis might take place.2 The literature of librarianship sensitive to women's issues has grown since the advent of early feminist studies, though most of these only account for variables such as mobility, advanced degrees, and the interruptions created by childbirth and family responsibilities to explain the low status of women in the profession in spite of
their numerical predominance (e.g., Dewey, 1886; Taylor, 1983). Studies of the past two decades have concentrated on economic or sociological analysis. Typical are studies of vertical gender stratification and segregation (Karr, 1983), and the concentration of men and women in certain specialties: for example, children's work and cataloging for women, automation, management and information science for men (Beghto), 1986; Heim, 1982; Hildenbrand, 1985; Swisher, DuMont, & Boyer, 1985); all of which make at least passing mention of the disproportion of men in positions of power. Based upon the idea of a gender deficit, most studies that account for gender differentials usually contain the corollary assumption that men must earn higher salaries because they are breadwinners, and have more "responsibilities" than women. By the same token, within all professions, there is gender stratification: Men predominate in administrative positions, regardless of the number of women who occupy the field, and thus they experience a degree of gender 'privilege throughout their careers, both in terms of educational and career opportunities. On the other hand, like all disadvantaged groups, women exhibit more gender solidarity in articulating their position; male librarians, for example, have rarely banded together as men to achieve collective rights, even though both the "old boy" and "old girl" networks have been impugned in covert discrimination. According to one theory, when confronted with gender issues, both men and women may disclaim responsibility by gender denial (denying that such a problem exists) or gender avoidance (disclaiming personal awareness of a problem). When some members of the oppressed group (women) achieve their goals--either in terms of leadership positions, status, or higher pay--gender backlash may occur, by which the oppressor may be perceived as the oppressed. The traditional hierarchical framework by which one usually analyzes gender issues with relation to a static structural professional norm lacks the immediacy that it imparted two or three decades ago: no doubt because two-income, two-career families, a worsening economic climate, and the deterioration of the social infrastructure undermine the validity of many of the assumptions of stasis from which traditional categories of measurement were drawn (e.g., the married-single dichotomy, distinct race categories, discreet occupational) descriptors, etc.) and fail to account for ambivalence, serendipity, and caprice in personal career motivations, choices, and conditions. Moreover, gender research has been particularly aimed at measuring women's place in the hierarchy relative to men, and this comparative or "relational" approach always shows women as faring "worse," and men "better," though few challenge whether either of these conditions are desirable or undesirable for men or women. It is almost universally assumed that power, prestige and position--along with the administrative responsibilities--are worthy professional attainments. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE For many reasons, librarianship suffers an image problem, but the nature and extent of that problem has been only partially explored. The reason usually given for the low status and prestige of the profession is its predominantly female composition, so pronounced that sociologists class librarianship--along with teaching, nursing, and social work--as "feminized semiprofessions" (Simpson & Simpson, 1969). Since 1870, women have constituted from 91% to 78.5'o of the profession, but have held proportionately fewer administrative positions than men (Anwar, 1980, p. 310; Garrison, 1979, p. 173). Sexual stratification of men into administrative positions escalated after the close of World War II, when the American Library Association (ALA), abetted by the GI Bill, launched a massive male recruitment campaign in an attempt to bolster professional image, status, and salary levels (O'Brien, 1983). These efforts did little to change the public perception of librarianship as a feminine profession, and the feminine image has been blamed repeatedly for the low occupational prestige of librarianship. Not surprisingly, as one reviewer of current gender literature recently noted, the female professions are "as despised as ever" (Johnson, 1992, p. 16), not only by the public at large but now also by those with a heightened sensitivity to women's issues, because they are a symbol of society's oppression of women and the stratification of work along gender lines. Personality tests were the instruments by which the feminine image of librarianship was institutionalized by
being placed "on a 'scientific' footing" (Newmyer, 1976, p. 48). Although studies of the librarian personality have abounded since Alice Bryan's (1952) landmark study of the public librarian, few have added any qualifying distinctions to her finding that the personality profile of the female librarian was "remarkably similar to that of her male colleague" (p. 43). Subsequent personality studies have disclosed an innocuous and nonthreatening male librarian personality profile, but implicit in all but the most recent is a degree of defensiveness about social and sexual deviance of the male. Many of them were based on sexually stereotyped personality inventories that were predisposed to find male librarians "feminine" (e.g., Clayton, 1970). Even more recent studies of male librarians, which employ "gender-neutral" instruments (e.g., Turner, 1980), beg the question of why concepts of gender neutrality seem necessary. More importantly, personality studies measure psychological dimensions at the expense of political or social ones; studies conducted using the personality inventory give the false impression that next to occupational competence, "normality" is the principal measure by which employers or patrons judge a professional. Finally, personality studies measure only psychological traits, not psychological health. Subjects may divine the purpose of the questions and anticipate "expected" answers. The tests do not necessarily disclose traits that will equip persons to withstand stress, exercise flexibility in ambiguous situations, or mediate with difficult people. Ironically, Pauline Wilson's (1982) content analysis of 77 articles dealing with stereotype and status in the profession between 1921 and 1978 included only one (Angoff, 1959) that addressed the male librarian specifically, but Wilson made no attempt to elaborate on the male stereotypical characteristics. Library humor occasionally includes self-deprecating references to male stereotypes (e.g., Duckworth, 1975), but these Walter Mitty caricatures bear few of the sexist overtones, demeaning characteristics, or damaging implications of their female counterparts. Most of them, in fact, embody generic attributes that could apply equally well to either sex. More recent reviews of personality, status, and image literature (Agada, 1984; Stevens, 1988) indicate that, although the profession is more vigilant in protecting itself against negative stereotyping in the media, the feminine image has changed little except for an additional high-tech facet, a product of the electronic revolution in libraries, the effect of which is more than likely benign (Stevens, 1988, p. 843). A massive study conducted by the Special Libraries Association (1990) worked from the implicit premise of a negative generic or feminine image, but did not account for possible gender differentials. The denial, which surrounds discussion of male librarians, in part relates to the volatility of male sexual stereotyping in the feminized professions. As Williams (1989) found with male nurses, men in feminine professions are afraid that they will be perceived as homosexual, and go to great lengths to explain that they are not. No detailed study such as Williams's has been conducted with male librarians. Williams explained how fine a line male nurses draw in distinguishing male from female nursing work; some seek administrative positions in part to distance themselves from the gay male stereotype in nursing (pp. 107-109). On the other hand, in librarianship, the most explicit assertion of traditional "masculine" values is Sable's (1969) frequently quoted declaration that "the male librarian wants first, before proving himself a librarian, to prove himself as a male. He does not want to be considered as belonging to the female stereotype" (p. 749). Sable did not, however, pause to consider the possibility of a corresponding negative male librarian stereotype. The similarities between male nurses and male librarians may be more striking than would at first seem evident. At least one student paper by two Harvard researchers has proposed that as many as 50% of male librarians are gay (Hoffman & Mintz, 1987), yet their calculations have been neither substantiated nor refuted. Although the ALA was the first professional association to form a Gay and Lesbian Task Force (GLTF), discussion of gay and lesbian professional issues has only rarely been general, and usually heated, both here and abroad (Gittings, 1978; Guttag, 1972; "Homosexual) Equality/'1,1973), Since the initial push for gay rights within the profession, gay consciousness has only rarely informed discussions in other forums of the ALA, and has generally been confined to GLTF programs and activities. If gay men constitute half the male librarians in the United States, the profession indeed suffers a closeted existence; if they do not, the failure to address this popular misperception also constitutes an intriguing form of denial. On the other hand, professsional literature explicitly queries the marital status of male librarians differently than
it does that of women. Just as the outmoded term of opprobrium "old maid"--part of the historical baggage attached to the female stereotype--assumes female celibacy, the assumption that male librarians in positions of leadership should be, or usually are, married betrays an equally biased posture. Labb's (1950) study of men listed in Who's Who in America, for example, noted that, of over 350 entries for male librarians in the sample, "only 14 were not married" (p. 55). Naturally, male executives with homemaker wives can be expected to entertain more comfortably, and, as part of a couple, to furnish a round number of acceptances to dinner invitations. In feminized professions, married status also confers a badge of normality for men. To be fair, biographical studies in librarianship tend to portray both male and female librarians as asexual, for apart from the demographic fact of marriage, no references are made to their romantic lives. The omission stems, in part, from lack of documentary evidence, and the equation of professional biography with two-dimensional panegyrics (Carmichael, 1991, p. 331). Only Newmyer's (1976) study poses the professional male image problem in historical context, and refutes the inevitability of the feminine components of that image. Newmyer cited several examples of 19th-century English scholar-eccentrics, as well as world-famous figures who at one time served as librarians, in order to demonstrate that male librarians had an odd and negative, if colorful, image even before the profession became feminized. A further inspection of available historical documentation suggests that the anti-intellectualism inherent in American culture casts a negative light on librarians, teachers, and social reformers, and has done so at least since the early part of the 19th century. Thus, George Watterson, third Librarian of Congress, complained that " ...I am but a scribe, and a scribe makes a very small figure in the estimation of a member of Congress or his lady. We of the quill are apt to be considered of the class vermes, that crawl in obscurity and are only fit to be trampled on" (Matheson, 1977, p. 58). Similary, Amherst College's President Julius Seelye commented in 1876 that Melvil Dewey was "a tremendous talker, and a bit of an old maid" (Holley, 1967, p. 49). Even Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose aphorism about a college's greatest need ("a professor of books") inspired generations of librarians, voiced the general antipathy against intellectual endeavors not geared to practical ends and warned young male students against becoming "effeminate gownsmen" (Dubbert, 1979, p. 57). Senator Ingals of Kansas went so far as to label social reformers (with whom early librarians were often classed) as "the third sex" (Hofstadter, 1963, p. 188). Early library educators, too, anxious to present the emerging profession in the best light, were usually forthright in warning prospective employers about any unseemly appearances on the part of the male or female aspirants, but took special pains to flag male effeminacy. Thus, one promising male student, later a leader in library education, was tentatively proffered for an employer's consideration in the second decade of the century with the caveat of "a somewhat effeminate manner. His voice, too, is rather high-pitched and soft for a man. These facts, however, are soon forgotten...."3 These examples illustrate at least one line of reasoning behind the scholar's encomium that "all intellectual labor is underpaid" (Grasberger, 1954, p. 35). Seemingly, after librarianship became feminized, derogatory comparisons between "male" professions like law, and "female" professions like librarianship, merely accentuated the anti-intellectual bias against librarians, culminating in a curious and ironic reversal in recent decades, when the lack of a theoretical knowledge base in the profession was assailed, and the feminine "service" orientation of the work was derided. Like male nurses and social workers, men in librarianship sometimes create and exploit "old boy networks" at administrative levels to distance themselves from rank-and-file duties, and emulate the informal relationships among the power elite enjoyed by their male counterparts in more prestigious professions like law (Etzkowitz, 1971; Harris & Chan, 1988; Kravetz, 1976). Moreover, they risk social sanction if they do not aspire to administrative duties, both because of expectations for men as breadwinners, and the traditionally masculine emphasis upon competition. Tacit assumptions about appropriate masculine behavior and achievement levels bolster gender stratification in the workplace. Given these expectations, men in feminine professions will instinctively pursue high-profile career patterns similar to those of the corporate world, and seek work easily distinguishable from that of their female colleagues.
Since the social revolution of the 1960s, the opportunity has been ripe for increased dialogue concerning the whole complex of problems surrounding gender values and issues, yet such discussion has not been readily forthcoming in librarianship except from feminist perspectives, which emphasize the economic and hierarchical aspects of discrimination. Indeed, in the wake of the feminist movement in librarianship, the editor of American Libraries cautioned male librarians against retaliating "if one or two women out of thousands should someday get a slight boost over a `better' male candidate" (Plotnick, 1982). Although many studies have presented statistical evidence of Discrimination against Women in the profession (Heim & Estabrook, 1983; Irvine, 1985; Schiller, 1979), no study has yet documented the interpersonal impact of the women's movement on men in the profession, or its effect on the relation between the sexes. The psychological consequences of feminism on men in librarianship have been ignored, and rarely since the 1970s has gender conflict been aired outside historical debate (e.g., M. Harris, 1985). A wealth of general men's studies literature has proliferated in the past two decades (Abbott, 1987; August, 1982, 1985; Bly, 1991; Brod, 1987; Fasteau, 1974; Filene, 1976; Gilmore, 1990), and 35 colleges now offer courses in men's studies. The growth of the men's movement may bode well for a more open discussion of gender issues. Nevertheless, the Men's Issues Task Force of the Social Responsibilities Roundtable of ALA, formed in 1982 to find "alternatives to gender-based roles" (Rucker, 1982), produced no studies, and disbanded for lack of membership interest. One line of feminist logic, which explains the denial of such issues, asserts that male librarians, as members of a minority elite, do not invite selfexamination; like male educators, they enjoy the benefits of privilege. Thus, "even though they would prefer that their privilege remain unperceptible and unchallenged, throughout the seventies and eighties conservative intellectuals (and those whose interests they serve) have launched numerous political offensives to protect it" (Casey, in press, p. 273). Even so, a review of the literature seems to indicate a lack of research interest in the male point of view. Whereas discussions of gender issues within librarianship have necessarily centered on the inequities suffered by women in the workplace, they have generally neglected to isolate the experiences of male librarians for heuristic purposes. It would seem logical that the expectations and attitudes of men in the feminized professions have considerable bearing on gender equity. Too little is understood about why men choose work in feminized professions, what barriers or incentives they encounter because of their sex, and why they remain committed to or forsake library work. Such information may clarify male motivations and frustrations in society's "gender wars," and advance a greater respect for the totality of library work, instead of on particular specialties within it. THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Although Audsley (1992) produced a creditable unpublished review of the literature on professional demographics, the job market, job satisfaction, influences of the work environment, personality and stereotype characteristics, particularly as they relate to male library media specialists, no study of librarianship has attempted to assess the general context of gender issues and male self-image. Male librarians have been studied, if at all, within rather narrowly defined assumptions about male roles, career motivations, personal aspirations, and personality attributes, all within the larger context of a masculinized definition of professinalism. This exploratory study seeks to test the boundaries of that framework in order to assay the validity of certain assumptions implicit in professional rhetoric: 1. Male librarians desire the top jobs in librarianship for whatever reasons. 2. Male librarians are privileged participants in a feminized profession. 3. They share in the negative (female) stereotype of the profession while being immune from it, thus profiting from its existence in terms of preferential treatment and consideration because they are men. 4. Male librarians have been relatively unmoved by feminism in the past two decades, though the gender ratios in administrative positions and pay differentials between men and women have improved somewhat. Recent image studies involving male librarian subjects have focussed on Public perceptions of their image, and
most have found that librarians fare well in public opinion, but low in self-esteem (Harris & Chan, 1988; Morrisey & Case, 1988). This survey was designed to identify and measure certain characteristics of the male librarian stereotype, whatever its origin, especially as it relates to the feminine image and occupational prestige, and to elicit candid reactions to professional gender issues related to vertical job stratification and workplace equity. Contrary to assumptions underpinning feminist analyses of men in feminized professions (e.g., Reskin, 1988), this survey presumed that men in librarianship have a high level of awareness about gender equity issues, and a strong sensitivity to the historical place of men and women within the profession. It was also assumed that through their presence in a low-prestige profession, they had been exposed to stereotyping distinct from that of their female colleagues, and that the stereotype could be identified. Finally, because technology and machines are traditionally "male" domains, it was assumed that the technological revolution in libraries has had a positive effect on male self-esteem. Men in librarianship were expected to have favored positive resolutions of feminist issues through the activities of such groups as the ALA Committee on the Status of Women in Librarianship, and the writings of women in the field on gender issues. With respect to the proportion of male librarians who are gay, it was expected that their number would be the same or only slightly higher than the 1940s Kinsey Institute estimate of 807o (representing men who had had "exclusively same-sex partners" for a period of at least 3 years) still cited by the American Medical Association as representative of the population (Cwyana, Remafedi, & Treadway, 1991), and still, according to a recent update on the Kinsey report, supplying the "best estimates available" (Reinisch, 1990, p. 139). It was also assumed that there would be little difference between the attitudes of gay men towards stereotype, gender equity issues, or the impact of the technological revolution, and those of their heterosexual male colleagues. METHOD Subjects As the ALA membership office does not record the sex of ALA members, it was not possible to identify male members of ALA from mailing lists. Therefore, a systematic sample was drawn from the list of ALA members in the 1990-1991 American Library Association Handbook of Organization and Membership Directory by choosing one male name at a specified numerical location (e.g., "fourth male name") from each page of the directory. This method of selection presented certain problems and no doubt produced a bias towards anglicized names, as the sex of foreign nationals and individuals with nongender-specific names could not always be determined, even with help. It was decided to exclude trustees, retired individuals, library school students, and vendors without library experience if such information could be gathered from the membership roles. The resulting sample of 655 names represented practicing male librarians who are members of ALA as well as library educators, vendors, and automated systems workers, and several individuals associated with related granting agencies. The Survey A survey instrument (see Appendix) consisting of 19 questions was pretested among male library staff at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Six questions were designed to gather categorical responses; 8 multiple-choice questions solicited elaborations on categorical responses; and 5 questions provided checklists that yielded rank-order data. Respondents were asked to comment on all questions if they so desired. The first part of the survey asked men to identify their reasons for entering the profession and the reaction they encountered from family members upon learning their decision to become a librarian. The next part of the survey concerned gender issues: Men were asked whether they intended to be an administrator when they entered the profession; whether or not they had ever felt themselves to be a minority in the field with respect to women; whether or not they had personally experienced employment discrimination or sexual harassment; and whether the source of the conflict had been a man, a woman, or both men and women. They were also queried about their knowledge of gender ratios in the profession before they entered librarianship, the stratification of work, and their feelings about the relative advantages enjoyed by men in the field. In the third part of the survey, subjects were asked to identify prevailing male stereotypes from a list compiled from the literature of librarianship and from the suggestions of male and female colleagues in the field. Respondents were also asked to supply additional male stereotypes not on the list of which they were aware, and to indicate their attitude
towards resolution of the stereotype and image dilemma from a categorized list of alternatives derived from various solutions proposed in recent image literature (Kies, 1989; Special Libraries Association, 1990; Stevens, 1988). The final questions addressed the technological revolution and its impact on the male librarian image, if any. Further open-ended comments on the male stereotype, sex-role stereotyping, and males in librarianship were solicited at the end of the survey. Personal data collected related to age, marital status, ethnicity, education, library type, position, and position rank. Ethnicity classifications were the same as those employed by the Equal Employment Opportunity office, whereas marital status categories were expanded to include single, single with partner, gay, and gay with partner categories to reflect contemporary lifestyles. It was reasoned that only gay men who were comfortable with their sexuality would acknowledge a gay identity, and that for the purposes of this survey, such responses would reflect a fairly accurate count of gay men in the sample. A cover letter assuring respondents of the protection of their anonymity was mailed with the survey and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. A second mailing was sent 1 month later, at which time respondents were encouraged to answer only those portions of the survey with which they felt comfortable. Limitations It should be reported that the first mailing of the survey was made on September 15, 1991, and the second mailing on October 17, 1991. On October 6, 1991, Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas was charged with sexual harassment by Anita Hill, and hearings were held from October 9 to October 15. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who remained silent throughout most of the hearings, made a public apology for his faults, with covert reference to his previous sexual misconduct, on October 25. The William Kennedy Smith rape trial began on October 31. These dramatic events and their intensive coverage in the media no doubt flavored some of the responses received. It should also be noted that some respondents took time to critique flaws in the survey. These included, but were not limited to: the use of nonexclusive categories (e.g., one gay writer pointed out that the category "effeminate [probably gay]" in the stereotype listings represented a stereotypical view of gays consisting of two distinct, mutually exclusive qualities); the lack of specificity about the source of the stereotype (public vs. professional perceptions); the feeling of one subject that the stereotype list constituted personality types rather than true stereotypes; the overall design and intent of the survey, which at least one subject felt was "trivial"; and the whole subject of stereotype, status, and image, which many men felt needed no further research as it served to perpetuate the problem. This latter perception was borne out by the fact that some surveys were returned with some questions left blank, or were answered inconsistently. For example, more men identified particular stereotypes from the supplied list than admitted belief in a male librarian stereotype. Possible explanations for this anomaly may be that the stereotype checklist triggered recognition even from respondents who said earlier that they did not believe in the stereotype; or, their negative response to the general question of the existence of stereotypes may have indicated their lack of personal endorsement for the belief in the stereotype. Critical weaknesses, which did not emerge in pretesting, were the use of age categories instead of length of professional experience. In a field requiring graduate study, it cannot be assumed that age denotes length of experience. Nevertheless, as the purpose of the age categories was primarily to distinguish between younger, mid-career, and late-career persons, they served the purposes of the survey adequately, and distinguished generational characteristics of gender attitudes on the extremes of the age spectrum. The questions on sexual harassment and sex discrimination, and interest in library administration should have been separated into two distinct questions: in the first instance, in order to differentiate more clearly between discrimination and harassment; and in the second instance, in order to distinguish former interest in administration from present interest in administration. A clearer distinction should have been made in professional rank categories because academic librarians signified academic rank (professorial status) in categories designed for professional library educators. Similarly, school media specialists tried to account for school district rank, and systems people had to add descriptive notes in several instances to describe accurately their positions. In coding the surveys, only full-time library educators were counted in terms of faculty rank, and academic librarians were counted by
administrative rank. School media specialists as well as men in one-person libraries were counted as administrators because their duties included administrative work, whereas children's and youth services librarians were counted as performing the principal function of administration only if they had charge of a department or indicated administration as their principal duty. Systems administrators and school district administrators were counted with "other administrators." It should be emphasized that the purpose of the rank and function categories was to isolate functional specialists who have no official administrative duties. This picture may present an oversimplification because many administrators do functional specialty work in addition to administrative work, particularly in small libraries. An effort was made throughout to determine the primary characteristics in library type, position function, and rank categories. Medical, law, and professional school librarians on university campuses were counted as academic librarians rather than as special librarians. Men who worked in more than one department within an academic or public library were counted with the functional specialty on which they placed most emphasis, or which their address indicated. Eighteen librarians had split assignments between collection development and reference (10), or reference and technical services (8). Therefore, these were assigned alternately to specialty groups: 9 were assigned to reference, 5 to collection development, and 4 to technical services. Also, 32 men listed automation as an area of responsibility, but in only 18 cases could it be ascertained that automation was their primary area of responsibility. Though an attempt has been made here to highlight the difficulties of assigning labels to and reconciling even the most basic descriptive data, the purpose is to suggest the complexities that attend generalization. RESULTS Of a total of 655 surveys sent, 495 responses (75.57070) were returned. Of these, 13 were unusable, either because the survey had inadvertently gone to a female librarian, the male librarian had retired or left his position, or he was a trustee. Total usable responses totaled 482, or 73.580. Responses included several "substitute" and "volunteer" survey forms, 10 vendors (all with library experience) and 4 men who had left the profession for other work. To illustrate some of the complexities of constructing a survey that adequately anticipates the diversity of respondents, the factor "marital status," although it had been expanded from the usual categories provided on most survey forms, raised several questions. The demographic profile of the sample (see Table I, p. 424) indicates a distribution of gay men approximating that of the general public (9.2o). Although there may be a larger percentage of gay men in the profession in certain geographic areas, that judgment is not substantiated by this study. Also, the gay population represented in this sample includes a wide degree of diversity in terms of age, geographic location, career specialty, rank, and life experience. One gay subject indicated that he was married to a woman, whereas another explained that he considered himself widowed as his partner had died. Six more indicated that they had been married (heterosexual unions) at one time, but were now divorced. All were entered in the appropriate gay category for the purposes of the survey, though the responses received suggest that even the most loosely constructed multiple choice categories "force" a response, and reveal only one facet of reality. The definition of "gay" (lifestyle vs. sexual preference vs. sexual acts) is still a point of contention within gay polemic, though stereotyping of gay behavior, "cruising and boozing," leads to employment discrimination in all fields (Harry & DeVall, 1978, pp. 155-1.59).... Generally, married heterosexual men did not elaborate on their marital status, except 2 who also checked "divorced" (presumably in first marriages) and 2 others who felt impelled to point out that they had children. The remarried men were counted simply as "married." One "single" subject explained that after the demise of an "unmarried" relationship of many years' standing, he experienced a degree of grief equivalent to "divorced" status. These comments point out the difficulty of interpreting data on such variables as marital status in the current social climate. The sample included very few ethnic minorities, as over 95070 of the respondents were white. On the other hand, a number of foreign-born respondents added unanticipated perspectives to the qualitative comments
received reflecting comparative views on gender parity issues. The response rate from ethnic and racial minorities might have been larger if it had been possible to identify male ALA members more readily from the ALA Membership Directory or ALA Membership Services. Chi-square tests were performed using the Statistical Package in the Social Sciences (SPSS) at the probability level of p< .05 for categorical responses relating to male advantage in the profession, the existence of the male stereotype, the existence of gender work roles, and the impact of technology on the male stereotype. Tests were also performed on the demographic variables of birthplace, age, region of career, type of library, and marital status, though few produced statistically significant results. Frequencies were collected for all demographic categories, which were arranged in tabular format for comparative purposes. These yielded descriptive statistics referred to in the following discussion. Entry Into the Profession The sampled men chose librarianship for traditional reasons, as a rank-order arrangement of responses indicates (see Table II, p. 426). Over half indicated that love of books prompted them to become librarians. Nearly half
listed previous experience (both as library workers and users of libraries) as a determining factor, the largest percentage coming from the 11 men in their 20s (72%) and the 44 gay men (68%). Twenty-eight more respondents listed academic reasons (e.g., did not have to have a Ph.D.; interest in archives; interest in specific academic subject matter; desire to be free-lance writer; the academic environment), whereas 19 subjects were related to a librarian who inspired their career choice. In their comments, only 10 subjects specified that their occupational choice represented a mid-life career change, though several others, who failed at other work before entering librarianship, suggested in their comments that their failure amounted to a mid-life career change. Of the 18 men who currently work primarily with automation, only 5 (27.8%) chose librarianship as a career because of an interest in computers, whereas 9 (50%) indicated that a love of books motivated them to become librarians. As only 3 (16.7%) of the automation professionals were under 35, it can reasonably be expected that most chose librarianship for "traditional" reasons because they entered the profession before computers and information science had become on highly developed. Thirty-nine subjects (8.19%) in the total sample indicated that interest in computers led them to chose librarianship, but over 33% of men in their 20s listed the potential of electronic information technology as a determining factor. Nearly three quarters of the respondents indicated that their families supported their career decision, but 58 respondents (12%) signified reservations on the part of one or both parents, a spouse, or a "significant other." Three subjects explained that their families preferred librarianship over other career alternatives (teaching and theater), whereas in 6 other cases, parents worried about the potential income of librarians. The parents of 18 subjects were ashamed or strongly disapproved of librarianship, although in 5 cases, one or both parents eventually gained respect for the profession. Whether men receive encouragement to become librarians depends, in part, on social and family backgrounds. One son of a working-class immigrant family is revered by his parents for his learning, who consider librarianship a step nearer the American Dream, but a lawyer's son, who renounced scholarships at prestigious law schools to become a librarian, faced considerable antagonism at home for his blanket renunciation of the corporate world. In several instances, the career choice was the least offensive of two alternatives, as in the case of the gay son whose father was rather relieved when he chose librarianship over theater arts. Families don't demean their son's career choice, however, if they already have librarians in the family. Families with social standing seem to have more difficulty reconciling themselves to librarianship: One father exhorted his son to tell his first interviewer he was married "so they'll know you're not queer"; one mother is ashamed of the fact that her son is a librarian, and insists on telling her friends that he is in "education." Within the group of 26 school media specialists (5.40% of the sample), none chose their work because of likely advancement in the field, a fact which may reflect lack of hierarchical structural characteristics and limited
opportunities for advancement in the school media field. (It should be pointed out, however, that hierarchical characteristics are abundant within the greater school field. The Male Stereotype Nearly 60% of subjects confirmed the existence of a male librarian stereotype (see Table III, p. 428). By age group, the largest percentage of affirmative responses received to the stereotype question were in their 20s (81%) and the smallest percentage were 60 or older (44%). By library type, school librarians were more aware of a stereotype than any other group (72%), and special librarians, least aware (53'o). Over 69% of gay men recognized the existence of a stereotype, almost 10% more than the average for the whole sample. These results would suggest a heightened sensitivity to negative stereotyping by those working in the most highly feminized area of librarianship, and by those who have reason to have experienced sexual oppression. The most prevalent stereotype is "effeminant (probably gay)" (81%), and 16 respondents added elaborations on
the gay stereotype in the comments section, such as "promiscuous; gay; hits on students;" "assume gay until proven otherwise;" and "MANY male librarians are gay, but hide it." The next most frequently chosen stereotypes, identified by over half of 352 respondents, related to lack of social skills and power (59%) and lack of ambition (55%). Typical of the descriptions of the powerless/socially inept types on which subjects elaborated were "nerd," "anal retentive, boorish, dull;" "humorless dweebs," and "wimp." Fewer subjects identified historical stereotypes such as the scholar (49%), the bookman (32%), the "golden boy" (25%), the know-it-all (23%), and the more recent corporate electronics advocate (14%). Five respondents expressed amazement or disbelief at the heterosexually "promiscuous" stereotype, which had been suggested by female colleagues in the field, although over 6% of the sample recognized it. The source of the male stereotype is diffuse. The largest percentage of school media specialists first encountered the stereotype through casual social acquaintances (27%). Men in their 20s are most likely to first encounter the stereotype before library school (50%), as are gay subjects (31%), and academic librarians (26%). Public librarians meet it for the first time at the library more than any other group (31.78%), but like all other types of librarians, encounter it most often in casual social acquaintances (59%). Although 31% of special librarians are already familiar with the stereotype when they reach library school, or have "always been aware" of it (31%), 70% responded that they deal with it most often in social occasions. Fifty-nine percent of the total sample continued to confront it most often through casual social encounters, whereas another 43% indicated that other librarians made them aware of the stereotype. Only 7% indicated that they encountered the stereotype most often in professional literature, a finding that would seem to refute exhortations against perpetuating the stereotype by discussing it. Similarly, library schools were held accountable for introducing the subjects to the professional stereotypes in only 24% of the total cases. The subjects exhibited equivocal attitudes towards the stereotype. Equal numbers (37% each) maintained that the stereotypes were false and that the profession should get a sense of humor about them. Fewer individuals (23%) suggested that the profession should quit discussing them, though over one half of these were the same individuals who suggested that humor was also needed. Slightly under one third of respondents (32%) felt that the technological revolution in libraries had affected the stereotype, whereas only 5 subjects indicated that hitech had exacerbated the image problem, and 12 asserted that it had had no effect. Subjects who believe that there is a male librarian stereotype are more likely to believe that the technological revolution has altered the stereotype, 2(4, N = 441) =62.10, p = .000. Those who believe that technological revolution has altered the stereotype are more likely to be gay, 2(2, N= 445) = 9.44, p< .009, or to have been born in the South or West, 2(8, N=447) = 18.33, p< .019. More men identified the gay stereotype than admitted that there was a male stereotype; from whatever source their impression are received, many male librarians feel that their masculinity is cast in doubt by the association with a feminine profession. Comments reveal that male librarians generally believe that there are more gay librarians than would seem to be indicated by the profile of this sample. The source of a score of these impressions come from personal encounters with gay male librarians, which in effect constituted sexual harassment, though they were not always listed as such. Others originated in vaguely defined impressions, comments from friends, and social situations. Several subjects expressed the opinion that the profession would be well rid of gay librarians; 1 subject claimed he would not have entered the profession had he known about the high number of gays in it, and that he would leave the profession as soon as possible; others adopted a more rational approach, and reasoned that gay men would naturally feel more comfortable in an environment where women held the numerical majority. Along with the gay stereotype, the single most prominent stereotype that emerged in open-ended comments is the caricature of an unambitious, pathetic, and sad creature without social graces or skills who hides out in the profession because he cannot succeed at any other work. He is frequently described in survey comments as dowdy, wearing out-of-date, threadbare, or poorly coordinated clothes. A minor variation on this persona presented by respondents is the anal retentive, obsessive character who lives for his work. There are several
other interesting mutations of these stereotypes, such as the political liberal (1 respondent noted that a librarian is always assumed to be a Democrat), the obsessively politically correct individual, the "sleek greyhound" who is always abreast of the public pulse, and the "jock" administrator in the school media center: a reflection of the experience of 1 school media specialist who had seen former coaches receive preferential treatment in obtaining leave to pursue education in librarianship. Gender Issues Over three quarters of the respondents (77%) were aware of the numerical predominance of women in librarianship when they entered the profession, and an even greater number (88%) have felt like a minority with respect to women at some time. At the same time, 30% of respondents contend that librarianship is not a predominantly female profession, and 16 others (3%) plead ignorance of the fact (see Table IV). Nearly half of the respondents (45%) deny that men have an advantage in advancement for positions, and an even greater number (51%) discount the notion that the scarcity of men enhances their chances for
advancement. Relatively few, however (10%), think that being a man hinders advancement. Open-ended comments on the questions relating to male-female ratios, frequently quite voluminous in content, elaborate on instances of "male bashing" and discrimination, and help to explain the gender denial implicit in responses to the male advantage. Many others contend that, although men may have at one time had an advantage, they no longer do, or only in certain types of libraries (in academic or public libraries, for example, but not in both, and not at all in special libraries). There seems to be disagreement on the type of library in which men now are disadvantaged or have no advantage: Academic libraries were cited most often (9 cases) in open-ended comments, but others did not specify a type of library. Over 40%0 of all respondents were originally interested in being administrators, or have since developed an interest in administration. Only 32010 indicated that they were (or are) equally interested in library work itself, although several men currently employed as administrators expressed a desire to return to functional specialty work, usually at the reference desk. Only 115 (44.4%) of current administrators chose librarianship for likely advancement in the field. Although relatively few men cited instances of sexual discrimination (8%) or sexual harassment (4%), the source of the antagonism was diffuse. Instances of female discrimination or harassment were cited more frequently, though both men and women were blamed with harassment and/or discrimination in 31 instances (30% of cases), and male sexual harassment was encountered exclusively by 1107o of cases. In 24 cases, other instances were cited, which do not fit into strict definitions of either discrimination (being prevented from attaining a position or advancement to which one is entitled) or harassment (improper sexual advances) categories, such as being assigned manual labor, being excluded from female conversations, or not being consulted on interior decoration decisions. By library type, public librarians cited the largest percentage of discrimination from both sexes (10%), whereas 16% of special, 14% of academic and 12% of school responses specified female antagonism. These figures would seem to be in exact reverse order of what one would expect based on degree of feminization by type of library, except that school media specialists work so often in isolation, opportunities for confrontation with other librarians is rare, and school administrators are overwhelmingly men. Academic libraries are more bureaucratized than school libraries, and special libraries are so diverse that it is difficult to draw any meaningful generalization. Nearly one third of the sample (32%) indicated awareness of work stratification along gender lines, though most of the illustrative comments received refer to the necessity of doing heavy lifting, driving vans, cleaning up vomit in the lobby, repairing machines, and other manual labor rather than to administrative work. Surprisingly, only 16% say that their perceptions of gender roles have changed as a result of working in librarianship. Subjects who are aware of the male hierarchy and gender stratification of work are also those who are aware of the male stereotype. Subjects who believe that men have an advantage in advancement are more likely to believe that gender affects work role assignments, 2(4, N=464) = 71.89, p = .000, and are also more likely to believe that there is a male librarian stereotype, 2(4, N= 465) = 20.26, p< .001, and that the technological revolution has altered that stereotype, 2(4, N= 442) = 9.67, p < .05. On the other hand, those who believe that gender affects work role assignments are more likely to be in the earlier (20-35 years) or later (55 or older) stages of their career than in mid-career, 2(6, N-470) = 13.24, p< .04. Although the statistical profile revealed by this survey portrays a fairly conventional male librarian (academic or public library administrator, mid-career, married, relatively unaware of gender equity problems in the workplace, irritated by the male stereotype), the qualitative responses received in open-ended comments disclose less certainty and more concern with respect to male-female relations that might seem apparent from the statistical results. Some comments revealed openly hostile attitudes toward women in the library, but many were also written with thoughtful consideration of the many paradoxes faced by female librarians with administrative aspirations, or of men who value the intrinsic nature of their work over advancement or salary concerns. For example, 1 subject remarked that the qualities that distinguish male librarians as leaders (forceful, aggressive, perspicacious, and decisive) are apt to be translated into negative characteristics if exhibited by a
female administrator (mannish, bitchy, abrasive, or hungry for power). By the same token, several subjects acknowledged that men are expected to be administrators, and are apt to be considered weak, unambitious, or inferior specimens of men if they decline invitations to rise in the hierarchy, or to assume administrative responsibilities similar to those they would be expected to assume in the corporate world. To summarize, there is, indeed, a male librarian stereotype distinct from the female stereotype. The leading stereotype is gay and/or effeminate, a type which should not necessarily be construed as homophobic, unless by that term what is meant is the fear of being perceived as homosexual, the pattern observed by Williams (1989) in nursing, especially because homophobia and sexism are so inextricably linked (Pharr, 1988). As 1 gay subject in this sample stated, the profession lacks positive "openly gay" role models in the profession "to break the old stereotypes," and negative perceptions of gay men in the profession are closely allied to sexist attitudes towards women. Further studies might identify the source of the gay stereotype, whether it emanates mainly from historical factors in the profession, a sense of threatened masculinity, the general low profile of library work, a sense of personal insecurity, or homophobia. As for sexual stereotyping of particular kinds of library work, although over 5% of the respondents were school media specialists, subjects in other types of libraries seem convinced that school media specialists are almost never men. Comments received in the survey offer evidence of the difficulties faced by male school media specialists. Three of the school media specialists cited examples of discrimination in employment, the tacit assumption being in those cases that men should not work with children, an opinion presumably reinforced by recent day-care center scandals. Even men who failed to acknowledge gender stratification at the workplace conceded the assignment or assumption of work along traditional gender lines, for example, building maintenance, rearranging furniture, or shifting heavy boxes of books. At the same time, some men chaffed under the restrictions of traditional sex stereotyping; for example, one felt excluded from work traditionally considered feminine (interior design), and another was faulted by a woman for his lack of sports knowledge when applying for a position as music librarian. Sexist respondent attitudes about female behavior surfaced only rarely, over matters as trivial as discussing hairstyles in public (which 1 respondent considered unprofessional), "emotive" qualities, or attractiveness as sex objects. Cases of sexual discrimination present much more problematic evidence. Two men had won antidiscrimination cases on the basis of sex, 1 of whom, by the time his 8-year litigation battle with the government had ended, had left the profession for other work. Several felt that they had been denied a position or promotion either because of their sex or their color (white), or both. A gay librarian described an instance of discrimination from a female employer who felt that all gay men were weak. Another subject, a school media specialist, cited two cases of open discrimination at interviews at the 1991 ALA Conference when he was frankly warned by one prospective employer that he was under explicit instructions from his school library board to hire anyone he liked unless the candidate was male; the same subject was insulted by another prospective (female) employer who repeatedly expressed amazement throughout the interview at the fact that he was a male school media specialist. One particularly embittered individual who had been disappointed in his prospects for promotion was quite explicit about the differential criteria applied to male and female candidates for positions, which he attributed to the tendency to evaluate women on their ability to overcome personal problems whereas men are judged solely on their professional performance. In most of the 42 cases of discrimination cited, the source of discrimination was felt to be female. In a few instances, allegations were generalized to a corporate body, even if the "voice" of that discrimination was male, as in the case of the school librarian cited before. Generally, reported cases of sexual harassment were quite rare, although cases of homosexual and heterosexual harassment were described, some in quite painful detail. Several subjects seemed nonplussed that such a question would be asked, and expressed envy that anyone should be "so lucky" as to be sexually harassed. Astute observations on sexual harassment were received in response to the question, such as the remark that behavior considered to be friendly among men can be construed as harassment by women. Subjects seemed evenly
divided about their reactions to these encounters. Although several minimized the importance of these experiences, others exhibited a heightened sensitivity to sexual slurs from women and gay men, or to "patronizing" gestures from female employers, such as a hand placed on the (male) knee. The majority of comments received in response to questions about gender issues impart a heightened sense of male susceptibility in the workplace. Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity legislation were cited frequently, though comparatively few men seemed aware of current gender ratios in administrative positions. Many did, however, discuss at some length the contributions of the female workforce in libraries. One noted, for example, that even though men seemed to occupy the top academic positions until relatively recently, the library depended on a core of second-level female administrators for day-to-day operations. Nearly all of the respondents who commented on gender ratios perceived that men had at one time enjoyed unlimited access to positions of power, but that the situation had changed dramatically, or was in the process of changing. Nevertheless, 1 subject maintained that the gay image was so prevalent that any man who could present a heterosexual "corporate" image was still treasured by any administration. DISCUSSION The sexual stereotyping of library work as female has a negative effect on the self-esteem of male librarians; such feelings could be dismissed as irrational, given the statistical economic profile of men and women in the profession, were not general expectations of "masculinity" so high. More importantly, "female" stereotyping masks sensitive male issues relating to the previously unexplored male stereotype, and the superficially understood male psyche. Gender stratification of work along administrative lines may be viewed historically as an attempt to segregate male from female spheres, not only because of the appropriateness of certain kinds of work to women, as was commonly supposed, but also so that the masculinity of men would not be impugned by close association with work considered feminine, such as children's work, and "feminized" work, such as cataloging. Although the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s has presumably equalized the distribution of different specialties among men and women, and unleashed a previously unimaginable degree of latitude in discussion of topics relating to gender, sexual freedom, and sexual preference in all areas of society, the changes may have been more cosmetic than curative. Like Bly (1991), many male librarians feel bruised by feminism, but the underlying hurt may, in some cases, be traced to unrealistic ideals of masculinity. The conservative backlash of the Reagan years has fostered a reactionary male polemic even among formerly oppressed minorities (Sowell, 1989), but it lacks vigor and conviction, especially in light of statistical evidence, which shows women to be the subject of continued oppression, both in their domestic and professional lives. On the other hand, this survey revealed not one attitude, but many, towards gender issues. The combination of open-ended and categorized responses leaves very contradictory impressions. Whereas categorized responses seem indicative of relative complacency regarding gender equity problems in the workplace, open-ended comments from over one third of the sample indicate that male librarians are struggling with changing gender roles, behaviors, attitudes, and expectations. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know whether the attitudes revealed by these responses are entirely-due to workplace experience, or are partially attributable to other factors, such as the marriage climate, general societal attitudes, or early conditioning. Follow-up interviews might clarify these questions, though the extremely complex psychological dimensions of these problems pose formidable obstacles. Nevertheless, the survey confirms the existence of problems associated with the male librarian image and gender issues within the profession. The lack of agreement on solutions to the continuing problems associated with gender equity may not be as significant as the fact that many subjects recognize that the problems exist. Although the literature championing the rights of women in the workplace has usually addressed general rather than specific cases of malfeasance, there has been no forum for the corresponding male point of view. It is obvious that many men feel unjustly implicated by inequities suffered by female librarians and women generally, and several even identified themselves as feminists. Although many subjects seemed aware of the problems faced by women in librarianship, others seem benignly
unaware of any threat to women. In general, negative, open-ended comments emphasize the menace of Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action legislation to men. Statistics continue to show that female librarians are underrepresented in many administrative areas proportional to their numbers. The theory cited by 1 subject that men rise faster in librarianship because there are more "inferior" women remains to be proved. Employment conditions are only one of the gender-associated problems with which the profession grapples, and as another subject pointed out, a more profound issue is the more difficult conditions under which women have to compete in higher education. In this sample, those who indicated their level of educational attainment included 61 men with a Ph.D., 87 men with a subject master's, and 6 men with a certificate of advanced study, yet only 3 men recognized the contributions that their working wives had made to their education, and all but 1 man seemed aware of the additional burdens placed on single women and women with children in attaining an advanced degree in librarianship. Although it is true that all single people face similar hardships unless they enjoy a private income or outside support, no straight or gay single subjects commented on the disadvantages of their single status. On the other hand, numerous comments were received on male issues, most frequently the "up-orout" expectations on men (whether or not they desire to be administrators); male bashing by women; stereotypical assumptions about male behavior towards women; stereotyping of gays (these comments received from gay subjects); and public antipathy to male "intellectuals" (those whose work is not tied to some commercial or prestigious end). Geographic and generational dimensions enter the problem as well. Male librarians born in the South and West are likely to believe that technology has affected the stereotype: a fact tentatively explained here as the susceptibility of subjects born in less industrially developed areas like the South and parts of the West to the economically curative powers of technology. intervening variables like degree of mobility or degree of urbanization may also account for attitudes towards technology. Similarly, one would expect that men who are not mobile, or who have worked for long periods in more rural areas, will adopt more conservative attitudes towards traditional gender roles. On the other hand, in less developed areas, the public may accept the presence of men in "nontraditional" professions as a degree of deviance made socially acceptable by economic necessity. Age may also shape gender attitudes, though not in a predictable direction, for although older subjects in this survey indicated a degree of gender avoidance in their open-ended responses, they seemed most keenly aware of the contributions made by female librarians to the development of the profession. Over three decades of feminist historical and sociological analysis has presented an unimpeachable case for the subjugation of women in society at large and in the feminized professions in particular. The results of this survey suggest that corollary studies on male librarians are warranted to complete the picture of the profession's gender-associated problems. Obviously, gender problems exhibit less unidimensional and more complex characteristics than have been depicted in the literature thus far. It should also be obvious that technology has not yet provided the salvo for image problems, which may, after all, be only individual problems. No doubt, a similar study among members of the American Society for Information Science or among vendors would yield a much different range of attitudes. Perhaps, as one commentator remarked, male librarians' attitudes towards their female colleagues do compare favorably with those of men in other professions, for example, law or banking. It would seem imperative, however, that the profession remain curious and sensitized to all aspects of gender questions, including components of our work that are occasionally discounted because they do not fit a cost-effectiveness model. Although, through the efforts of feminists, law has changed to accommodate the rights of battered wives and husbands, male and female rape victims, and alimony claimants of both sexes, the gender dialogue in librarianship has remained curiously static and impersonal in the past two decades, apart from the discussion of gender literature (or discs or databases) added to enhance the diversity of collections. It goes almost without saying that the major part of improving the professional image and gender equity will be an exercise in honesty. Future research should be broadly designed to describe as completely as possible qualitative and quantitative components of gender experience in libraries. Notes: 1 Richard Marsden Pankhurst (1838-1898), husband of the famous English suffragette Emmaline, "had a long career of service on behalf of unpopular causes--feminism among them" (Strauss, p. 195). He used his legal
skills to fight for the enfranchisement of women, drafted the Married Women's Property Act of 1870, and framed the 1888 law that permitted women to vote in municipal elections. 2 See Baum, Christina D. (1992). Feminist thought in American librarianship. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. 3 Taken from a randomly selected recommendation form, University of Illinois Library School, University of Illinois Archives, Urbana. REFERENCES Abbott, Franklin. (Ed.). (1987). New men, new minds; breaking male tradition: How today's men are changing the traditional roles of masculinity. Freedom, CA: The Crossing Press. Agada, John, (1984). Studies of the personality of librarians. Drexel Library Quarterly, 20, 25-45. American Library Association. (1990). Handbook of Organization 1990/1991 and Member. ship directory. Chicago: Author. Angoff, Allan. (1959). The male librarian-An anomaly? Library Journal, 84, 553-556, Anwar, Mumatz A. (1980). The profile of the librarian: A state-of-the-art. Libri, 30, 308-320. Audsley, Thomas L. (1992). Perceptions and self-perceptions of the male librarian. Unpublished manuscript, Central Missouri State University, Department of Library Science, Warrensburg, August, Eugene R. (1982). Modern men, or men's studies in the 80's. College English, 44, 583-597. August, Eugene R. (1985). Men's studies: A selected and annotated interdisciplinary bibliography. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Beghtol, Carol. (1986). The gender gap in library education and publication. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 17, 12-30. Bly, Robert. (1991). Iron men: A book about men. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Brod, Harry. (Ed.). (1987). The making of masculinities. Boston, MA: Allyn & Unwin, Bryan, Alice I. (1952). The public librarian. New York: Columbia University Press. Carmichael, J.V., Jr. (1991). Ahistoricity in librarianship: Perceptions of practitioners of biographical research, Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 31, 329-356. Casey, Kathleen. (in press). I answer with my life: Life histories of women teachers working for social change. New York: Routledge. Clayton, Howard. (1970). Femininity and job satisfaction among male library students at one midwestern university. College & Research Libraries, 31, 388-398. Cwayna, Kevin, Remafedi, Gary, & Treadway, Leo, (1991). Caring for gay and lesbian youth. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 25, 50-57. Dewey, Melvil. (1886). Women in libraries: How they are handicapped. Library Notes, 1, 89-92. Dubbert, Joe L. (1979). .4 man's place: Masculinity in transition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Duckworth, Alan. (1975). The librarian image. New Library World, 76, 114-116. Etzkowitz, Henry, (1971), The male sister: Sexual separation of labor in society. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33, 431-434. Fasteau, Marc. (1974). The male machine. New York: McGraw-Hill, Filene, Peter G. (1986). Him/Her self: Sex roles in modern America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Garrison, Dee. (1979). Apostles of culture: The public librarian and American society, 1876- 1920. New York; Free Press. Gilmore, David W. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gittings, Barbara. (1978). Combatting the lies in libraries. In L. Crew (Ed.), The gay academic (pp. 107-108). Palm Springs, FL: ETC Publications. Grasberger, Franz. (1954). On the psychology of librarianship. Library Quarterly, 24, 35-46. Guttag, Bianca. (1972). Homophobia in library school. In C. West & E. Katz (Eds.), Revolting librarians. San Francisco, CA: Booklegger Press. Harris, Michael H. (1985, January). No love lost: Library women vs. women who use libraries. Paper presented at the meeting of the Library History Interest Group, Association of Library and Information Science Education, Washington, DC,
Harris, Roma M., & Chan, Christina Sue. (1988). Cataloging and reference, circulation and shelving: Public library users and university students' perceptions of librarianship. Library & Information Science Research, 10, 95-107. Harry, Joseph, & DeVall, William B. (1978). The social organization of gay males. New York: Praeger. Heim, Kathleen. (1982). Fighting for social change: Library women enter the eighties. Wilson Library Bulletin, 57, 308-312. Heim, Kathleen, & Estabrook, Leigh. (1983). Career profiles and sex discrimination in the library profession. Chicago, IL: American Library Association, Committee for the Status of Women in Librarianship. Hildenbrand, Suzanne. (1985). Ambiguous authority and aborted ambition: Gender, professionalism, and the rise and fall of the welfare state. Library Trends, 34, 185-198. Hoffman, Sue, & Mintz, Susan. (1987). The phenomenon of gay men in librarianship. Discussion Draft, John F. Kennedy School of Government (public policy in Divided Societies, Course M-809), Harvard University. Hofstadter, Richard. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in America. New York: Knopf. Holley, Edward G. (1967). Raking the historical coals: The A.L.A. Scrapbook of 1876. New York: Beta Phi Mu Chapbook 8. Homosexual Equality. (1973). Library Association Record, 75, 167-168, 182, 210. Irvine, Betty Jo. (1985). Sex segregation in librarianship: Demographic and career patterns of academic library administrators. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Johnson, Diane. (1992, January 16). Something for the boys. New York Review of Books, 39, Pp. 13-18. Karr, Ronald D. (1983). Becoming a library director. Library Journal, 108, 343-346. Kies, Cosette. (1989). Marketing the librarian: The weakest link in the chain. Catholic Library World, 61, 2530. Kravetz, Diane. (1976). Sexism in a woman's profession. Social Work, 21, 421-426. Labb, June. (1950). Librarians in Who's Who in America. Wilson Library Bulletin, 25, 54-56. Matheson, William. (1977). George Watterson: Advocate of the National Library. In Librarians of Congress, 1802-1974 (pp. 56-75). Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Morgan, David. (1972). Suffragists and Democrats: The politics of women suffrage in America. Ann Arbor: Michigan State University Press. Morrisey, Locke J,, & Case, Donald 0. (1988). There goes my image: The perception of male librarians by colleague, student and self. College & Research Libraries, 5, 453-466. Newmyer, Jody. (1976). The image problem of the librarian: Femininity and social control. The Journal of Library History, 11, 44-67. Noddings, Nei, (1990). Feminist critiques in the professions. Review of Research in Education, 16, 393-424. O'Brien, Nancy P. (1983). The recruitment of men into librarianship, following World War II. In K.M. Heim (Ed.), The status of women in librarianship: Historical, sociological, and economic issues (pp. 51-66). New York: Neal-Schuman. Offen, Karen. (1988). Defining feminism: A comparative historical approach. Signs, 14, 119-157. Pharr, Suzanne. (1988). Homophobia. A weapon of sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press. Plotnik, Art. (1982). Of men and women [Editorial]. American Libraries, 13, 285, Reinisch, June. (1990). The Kinsey Institute new report on sex: What you must know to be sexually literate. New York: St. Martin's Press. Reskin, Barbara F. (1988). Bringing the men back in: Sex differentiation and the devaluation of women's work. Gender & Society, 2, 58-81, Rucker, Jim. (1983, Fall). A brief overview of the men's liberation movement. Men's Issues Task Force Newsletter, p. 5. [Published as part of the Social Responsibilities Roundtable Newsletter, No. 65] Sable, Arnold P. (1969). The sexuality of the library profession: The male and the female librarian. Wilson Library Bulletin, 43, 748-751, Schiller, 'Anita R. (1979). Women in librarianship. In K. Weibel & K. Heim (Eds.), The role of women in librarianship 1876-1976: The entry, advancement, and struggle for equalization in one profession (pp. 222-256). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx. Simpson, Richard L., & Simpson, Ida M. (1969). Women and bureaucracy in the semi-professions. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The semi-professions and their organization (pp. 196-265). New York: Free Press.
Sowell, Thomas. (1989). Affirmative aetion: A worldwide disaster. Commentary, 88, 21-41, Special Libraries Association. (1990). SLA Inter-Association Task Force report on image. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association. (ERIC Microfiche No. ED 329 267) Stevens, Norman. (1988). Our image in the 80's. Library Trends, 36, 825-851. Strauss, Sylvia. (1982). Traitors to the masculine cause: The men's campaign for women's rights. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Swisher, Robert, DuMont, Rosemary R., & Boyer, C.J. (1985). The motivation to manage: A study of academic librarians and library Science students. Library Trends, 34, 219-234, Taylor, Marion R. (1983). Mobility and professional involvement in librarianship: A study of the "Class of '55." In K.M. Heim (Ed.), The status of women in librarianship: Historical, sociological, and economic issues (pp. 321-344). New York: Neal-Schuman, Turner, Robert L., Jr. (1980). Femininity and the librarian--Another test. College & Research Libraries, 41, 235-241. Williams, Christine L. (1989). Gender differences at work: Women and men in nontraditional occupations. Berkeley: University of California Press, Wilson, Pauline. (1982). Stereotype and status: Librarians in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

File: the-male-librarian-and-the-feminine-image-a-survey-of-stereotype.pdf
Author: Erica Rau
Published: Thu May 26 14:46:57 2011
Pages: 22
File size: 0.62 Mb


OCB Mode, 22 pages, 0.14 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com