Page 88 [88]
OCR
IZOLDA TAKÁCS: THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY (Type no. 1) This group demonstrates high identification with the cluster of women while being both traditional and progressive. With regards to the female scholars analysed, this means that, while they identify with traditional female roles when it comes to parenthood, they are progressive toward the scientific field and career (“dual attachment” type). (Type no. 2) Identification with the cluster of women shows a high level in the next group as well, but it is more traditional in nature. The male and female attitudes are separated in every aspect (family life and career), meaning they find the phenomenon of horizontal segregation (especially regarding leadership positions and work-related attitudes) natural and necessary. They do not consider the separation of professions by gender as something unnatural, as both men and women have different competences and possibilities both due to biological and social reasons. They add, however, that these groupings ought not turn into social disadvantages (“essentialist identifiers”). (Type no. 3) The third group can also be considered a unified group with regard to the attitude toward womanhood, but they address the current repartitions. Identification with the cluster of women is high, its content is, however, exclusively progressive (“progressive identifiers”). (Type no. 4) Members of the last group are completely indifferent regarding the gender issue. Identification with the cluster of women is particularly low, and it has a progressive nature. The members of this group are in favour of the classical equality (“classical equality” type). The categories will be elaborated on further within the scope of issues like essentializing discourse and gender stereotypes, their full or partial denial, the politicised attitude as well as “norm violations” and atypical roles. The scholars subject to this survey can thus ultimately be grouped not in the four types above, but in five distinctly separate categories, which have given a final view of the female scholar types. The common feature of the five new groups listed below is that — based on their statements — the members have never felt any disadvantage whatsoever in their scientific career merely because they are women. Furthermore, all interviewees agree that the politics of science, which creates a foundation for leadership positions or the academic electoral process, to name a few examples, has to be explicitly separated from actual scientific achievements, i.e. the “pure science” and research work. 266 Koncz: A munkaerőpiac nemek szerinti szegregációjának jellemzői, 74. +86 +
