Finally a health warning: unless quoted otherwise, all my observations are strictly anecdotal.
Thanks for your thoughtful and well-informed post, lia. I wish I'd known about Rabenmutter when I first had kids. I've often had to convince myself that I'm not one.
Teaching: I assume the situation in the USA is roughly the same as in Germany, and by no means a uniform one: the older the pupils, the higher the qualification required, and the higher the pay. Currently in Germany Kindergarten teachers (which here means looking after kids age 3 - 6) don't need to have a university degree, but they still need to go to college for a few years. I have never heard of a man doing this job. At the next level (up to age 10) a bachelor's degree is required, but nowadays few men opt for it. The top level (11 - 18) also requires a top level degree, and it's there that the "benefits are pretty good" (and the burnout rate particularly high) that you meet the men. Though it also needs to be said that one of the reasons that the number of male teachers at Kindergarten or primary school level is non-existent/continues to decline (leaving kids with fewer male role models) is not only the mediocre pay, it's also because these days men who like to work with children often fear to be branded automatically as potential child abusers and opt for other jobs instead. At least that's the situation in the UK, after a number of high profile cases which were probably not always handled brilliantly.
This does sound very similar to the situation here. From what I've seen in my sons' schools (*ANECDOTE WARNING*) the higher the grade, the more men. So in their (small) grade school, there were no men in grades K through 3. A couple in 4th and 5th grades. More in middle school. And so on.
Women often seem to be drawn particularly to jobs that involve looking after people, little, old, sick. Whether that's nature or nurture, I have no idea, but one of the reasons these jobs are paid so badly is because people (again mostly women) are still willing to do them (market forces), because for many of them helping people means real job satisfaction. It's not all about money. Which equally applies to soldiering, BTW.
This is a good point, and it touches on another important point. Women do gravitate toward care-taking jobs. This may be a mixture of nature and nurture. But unquestionably part of it is social pressure, not only from families of origin but from the culture at large. I can tell you from my own experience (*ANECDOTE WARNING*) that there is considerable pressure on mothers to care for their children -- more so on fathers, whether both are working or not. In fact, this can be hard on fathers, as well, if they would prefer to be the primary caretaker. But unquestionably there is pressure on women, and the fact that they feel this pressure to curtail outside work in order to care for their own children reduces their lifetime earnings and promotional opportunities. And they are socially encouraged to steer toward caretaking jobs in education, child care, etc., rather than working in electric plants or mines. Yes, part of this is probably out of personal preference for more comfortable, less dangerous jobs (it certainly would be in my case), but there's undeniable external pressure, which may influence the career decisions of women (and men) who are on the fence.
Whereas investment bankers for example are paid such an insane amount of money because nobody would want to do those jobs otherwise.
I don't know that I'd agree with this, though. There seem to be plenty of people willing to take well-paying but boring or arcane jobs. Corporate attorneys, etc. The people who hold them must either genuinely like them or are motivated by the earning potential. But there are also plenty of distasteful jobs -- cleaning toilets, for example -- that don't tend to pay well at all, despite their lack of appeal.
Welcome to the Women's Forum, lia! I hope to see you around often.
