the dumbing down of the secretarial profession. Why?

[onelittlefish]

DH and I have been having a discussion about a job that was seriously considered to be a serious profession - see above. Secretaries used to be really respected and have a really good general education and be able to speak more than one language. Also, historically it was reasonably well paid.

Before the first world war almost all secretaries were men (obviously sexism), now most secretaries are women and it is a job which is really little respected - the stereotype of a secretary is of one who is a bit dumb but quite sweet. I also feel that the job has been dumbed down. When I left college 20 years ago I came out with skills that I anticipated using - shorthand being one of them, organisational skills and a grasp of legal knowledge. I have never had to use shorthand, ever. Over many years I had to prove that I was capable of organising and dealing with clients in order to gain that much sought after respect (because I think people assume that you are dumb if you are a secretary).

I want to know if people think it is not respected because it is now done by women or is it because technology requires much less of the secretary and therefore it is a much easier job. Also, why don't men want to do it? Are there any other jobs like this?

I have in mind that what a job title used to mean four hundred years ago, when most people couldn't read and write, and hardly anyone could afford to employ a person who could, will not convey the same now.

I have met lots of people who are called secretaries and PAs, but very few, apart from seccys to MDs of large companies, or hospital consultants, with startling skills and no dogsbodying. I have met Company Secretaries, who have an important job in their own right, and are not a helper to someone else.

Secretaries to senior principals are often disliked when they behave as if they have the status of the principal, and the people who have to deal with them, think they shouldn't.

I have never worked with a person with the title secretary

I have worked with many PAs and they were very skilled, highly professional and with a level of responsibility that I did not envy one little bit.

I suppose a lot depends on what sector you are in, as has already been discussed.

azezello - I find your perspective interesting. I was a legal secretary for many years (even though I have a degree) and throughout that time my job changed a lot - I guess it reflected the advance of technology and also the fact that I was very pro-active in advancing my skill set. By the end of my career I was taking charge of all the day-to-day correspondence, doing some initial client interviews and drafting witness statements. My pay reflected this, however, when I was out with DH and he introduced me to his friends I would pretend that I would often talk up my title as I was fed up of saying to people "I am a secretary" when actually my duties went beyond the normal secretarial job. Also, I do feel people did make a judgement when I told them I was a secretary - whether it was right or wrong - about my level of intellect.

This subject makes me really angry. I've done a lot of secretarial work in the past (I was a graduate who didn't know what I wanted to do) and pretty much always felt disrespected in the role.

I never came across any other male PAs or secretaries, only a few young graduate male temps who were doing non-typing admin work. I think the typing thing has a lot to do with it, going back 20 years and more men never learned to touch type as a professional skill (apart from maybe journalists) and you had to have a minimum typing speed to get a secretarial job. As women were the only people who learned to type, they got the secretarial roles. And then became seen as 'women, doing women's work' as someone else on the thread put it very well.

Doesn't matter what else you end up doing in your role (managing the office, recruiting junior staff, training people etc) the status of the role is stuck as typist and coffee maker, and someone who 'looks after' someone else (usually a man).

Secretary was 'the keeper of secrets', therefore male, therefore important. There is research showing decline in status of jobs once women do them eg doc tors in ex Soviet Union. I'll try to find it....

Actually just thought of one more thing relevant to thread - can't remember whether it was DH or some other guy I knew who put it, quite rudely, secretaries are for office decoration, ie, they should look good. Thanks mate.

piglet - I dunno about 400 years ago, but 500 years ago I would think quite a similar proportion of the population could afford to pay for secretarial services as can today. So it is very interesting that a job that as once very prestigious and skilled - and almost invariably done by men - has, as it has become less skilled, also become more dominated by women.

It's the reverse with computer work - in the 60s and 70s women were thought to be better at working with computers because the job required patience, precision and little intelligence (!).

I don't think the fact that job titles come to mean different things over time is that interesting, but surely the fact that the shift in perception/skill that goes with it is interesting when there's some correlation with gender?

I'm wondering now which jobs were once seen as skilled and respected, and now aren't, where the gender balance hasn't shifted? Teaching used to be more prestigious and more dominated by men .... can anyone think of one that hasn't shifted gender as it became less respected?

(I'm sure there are some btw, just can't immediately think of them).

met plenty v able female PA,have never encountered a secretary
secretary sounds a bit old fashioned,does anyone employ secretary?
PA fwiw is in right role well paid,pretty pivotal ansd ime respected

Scottishmummy - have you been on the juice today?

oh i like this game.the is you drunk sm game
oh most definitely, litres of the stuff. how very well you know me!
p.s what juice is you referring to specifically

There's probably a far more boring explanation, like typos due to posting from an internet phone with cumbersome keyboard.

Hardly any of the medical secretaries I know have PA in their job title, or would refer to themselves as PA rather than secretary.

I is referring to grape juice Squiffymummy Scottishmummy

Hope you is having fun

squiffymummy

I think that the role has become more skilled, but more people have access to those skills. The number of people who can read/type/use computers etc is vastly greater than even 50 years ago,

I know the issue has come up before though, that as women get more involved on a job/profession then it's status and pay decline.

With teaching though I'd argue that it never was that highly respected

grape juice?love it the stuff is packed with superfruits me and kids drink it

scottishmummy - the term secretary is mostly used in legal circles as well. Hardly any PAs.

ok, thank you!

I worked with a woman who was a secretary who had 90 words per minute shorthand and 85 words per minute typing speed and she was amazing.

When she retired she was replaced by a 30K a year PA straight from the City who was totally useless, she couldn't even run the most basic diary and refused any jobs that she deemed 'menial'.

The old 'secretary' commanded respect because she was willing to muck in with everyone and I know the boss missed her like hell when dealing with his new 'PA' who listed the duties she was willing to do and those she wouldn't. Like taking the minutes of a meeting for example.

fingers of fire, gosh thats fast
a PA not taking minutes, how bizzare

One questions whether women enter professions and then they get downgraded in respect and status because women are doing them, or is it that technology and changes in society downgrade the job, and then the men and institutions let women into what were previously jobs protected directly or indirectly through discrimination (guilds, trades unions, office culture whatever).

For example vicars and priests used to be very influential, but had become much less so, before they let women in.

Grocers (often male) gave way to superrmarket cashiers (mainly
women).

Teaching I think did loose status as education became universal rather than something for the elite, and at then it let more women into the profession.

I'd guess it's a little bit of both, but you're right, it's probably more often the job loses status then women start getting those jobs.

I think as well as the actual proportion of men and women in a job, it matters how people perceive the gender split, and that's not always the same thing. And it matters whether a job has its dominant gender represented at all levels, or only the lower ones - teaching is the obvious one there.

Pah at 90 wpm shorthand. I did 120 in medical terminology!

How is that patronising?

From your example(s) it appeared that you did not understand the background to your examples. How was I to know of what what you are, or are not aware?

I was attempting to help.

I don't think so.

If you read it again, you'll see I am simply pointing out that many well-respected jobs involve support work. You seem to feel this debars people from calling themselves 'professional, although the definition you advance doesn't agree.

I do feel this might be a central issue - I think people like to pretend all 'women's work' is basically about helping. But all jobs are interdependent to a degree.

What about law? Used to be seen as a bit of a dirty profession, and definitely for employed people rather than any upper classes. The status of that has gone up and there are more women now