Always stay gracious, best revenge is your paper. -- Sappho
February 23, 2016 2:36 PM Subscribe
LABOUR markets are hotbeds of inequality. For every dollar a white American man in full-time work earns, the average white woman earns 78 cents and the average Latina only 56 cents. Marriage is a boon for male earnings; motherhood drags female earnings down. Likewise, gay men earn about 5% less than heterosexual ones in Britain and France, and 12-16% less in Canada and America, even after controlling for things like education, skills and experience. Yet one minority appears immune to this scourge: Lesbians (SLEconomist, semi-permeable paywall).
That is a misleading paragraph. Lesbians still earn less than straight men, work longer hours and more weeks per year and face hiring discrimination when compared to straight women (god, how I know that, what with being read as a butch woman) - as the rest of the article outlines. And lesbian couples are more likely to be poor than straight couples.
It's sort of typical - like when there's 30% women in a room, men perceive the women as the majority; lesbians are have some very moderate advantage over straight women in one and only one aspect of employment while still facing series disadvantages, and so the whole story is "wow, look at those lesbians, immune to discrimination".
What it basically says is that if a minority group isn't being absolutely ground to powder under the heel of the majority, people think we're getting privileges.
posted by Frowner at 2:49 PM on February 23, 2016 [72 favorites]
It's sort of typical - like when there's 30% women in a room, men perceive the women as the majority; lesbians are have some very moderate advantage over straight women in one and only one aspect of employment while still facing series disadvantages, and so the whole story is "wow, look at those lesbians, immune to discrimination".
What it basically says is that if a minority group isn't being absolutely ground to powder under the heel of the majority, people think we're getting privileges.
posted by Frowner at 2:49 PM on February 23, 2016 [72 favorites]
That is a misleading paragraph.
THIS. It's a total mistake to see this as an escape from patriarchy. I do think there are some cool explanations here, though: like the idea that lesbians, because they have no inequitable division of care work based on gender, don't get all the housework foisted on them (or rather share it equitably) and so end up being better off than straight women. The problem is that it's also possible that one member of the partnership is getting that work foisted on them, but the stats include both the foister and the foistee and that just ends up being better.
Also interesting is that the effect (that is, the benefit compared to straight women) disappears in the public sector. I've been thinking about that for a couple of days now.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:54 PM on February 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
THIS. It's a total mistake to see this as an escape from patriarchy. I do think there are some cool explanations here, though: like the idea that lesbians, because they have no inequitable division of care work based on gender, don't get all the housework foisted on them (or rather share it equitably) and so end up being better off than straight women. The problem is that it's also possible that one member of the partnership is getting that work foisted on them, but the stats include both the foister and the foistee and that just ends up being better.
Also interesting is that the effect (that is, the benefit compared to straight women) disappears in the public sector. I've been thinking about that for a couple of days now.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:54 PM on February 23, 2016 [6 favorites]
The original article (10.1111/irel.12075) can be accessed though the usual sources, or so I would suppose.
posted by bonehead at 2:54 PM on February 23, 2016
posted by bonehead at 2:54 PM on February 23, 2016
The Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap
posted by w0mbat at 3:01 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by w0mbat at 3:01 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
I am just a sample size of one over here, and not necessarily the "average" white, straight woman (above average educational opportunities, currently working in a rather low-paid field for a small nonprofit). Sometimes I fantasize about what I'd do with that extra 22 cents on the dollar.
But boiling it down to a single number doesn't tell you the root causes. It's a starting point to provoke outrage and quantify the unfairness, but it doesn't explain the unfairness. So, to say that lesbians perhaps do somewhat better than straight women in this dollars-and-cents-comparison does not really tell the whole story of the discrimination that straight and gay, bi, queer, and trans women face - some of it in common some of it different. The article goes into more detail in order to paint a more nuanced picture and I'd rather examine that than have a contest about who is more oppressed, which I think is not useful.
posted by mai at 3:02 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
But boiling it down to a single number doesn't tell you the root causes. It's a starting point to provoke outrage and quantify the unfairness, but it doesn't explain the unfairness. So, to say that lesbians perhaps do somewhat better than straight women in this dollars-and-cents-comparison does not really tell the whole story of the discrimination that straight and gay, bi, queer, and trans women face - some of it in common some of it different. The article goes into more detail in order to paint a more nuanced picture and I'd rather examine that than have a contest about who is more oppressed, which I think is not useful.
posted by mai at 3:02 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap
is anyone actually confused that part of what we're talking about when we talk about the wage gap is that white men dominate the highest earning careers and overwhelmingly fill the board room seats while the jobs women generally do are consistently undervalued and underpaid?
posted by nadawi at 3:09 PM on February 23, 2016 [19 favorites]
is anyone actually confused that part of what we're talking about when we talk about the wage gap is that white men dominate the highest earning careers and overwhelmingly fill the board room seats while the jobs women generally do are consistently undervalued and underpaid?
posted by nadawi at 3:09 PM on February 23, 2016 [19 favorites]
One question I am thinking about: I am the spouse of a feminist man. Might that perhaps erase some of the causes of the wage gap that I would experience? He does equal chores, supports my career, and would be willing to stay home with our potential future children. Maybe we should control for the variable representing the enlightenment of the male partners of straight women. We might then see that given the fact that I have a supportive partner, my other privileges (education, race, being heterosexual) would add up to put me much closer to straight men, while gay, queer, and trans women would still lack some of the privilege I experience and still face greater discrimination in the form of homophobia, lack of respect from colleagues, stereotypes, being shut out of certain workplaces entirely if they don't present as "adequately feminine", etc.
posted by mai at 3:10 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mai at 3:10 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
The article goes into more detail in order to paint a more nuanced picture and I'd rather examine that than have a contest about who is more oppressed, which I think is not useful
True enough - but there's also this whole very real history of straight people saying that lesbians have unfair advantages and lots of disposable income, stereotypes of predatory rich lesbians and a very specific refusal to recognize and address poverty among queer women. I'm not saying that there are no commonalities among women, but there's also a pretty specific homophobic narrative about lesbians and money, and it makes me uneasy to see something like this framed in a way that fits in with that discourse.
posted by Frowner at 3:11 PM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
True enough - but there's also this whole very real history of straight people saying that lesbians have unfair advantages and lots of disposable income, stereotypes of predatory rich lesbians and a very specific refusal to recognize and address poverty among queer women. I'm not saying that there are no commonalities among women, but there's also a pretty specific homophobic narrative about lesbians and money, and it makes me uneasy to see something like this framed in a way that fits in with that discourse.
posted by Frowner at 3:11 PM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
is anyone actually confused that part of what we're talking about when we talk about the wage gap is that white men dominate the highest earning careers and overwhelmingly fill the board room seats while the jobs women generally do are consistently undervalued and underpaid?
Given the number of times I've seen this exact clarification miscorrected as "no, women are paid less for the same work", yes, some people are actually confused.
posted by Rangi at 3:14 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
Given the number of times I've seen this exact clarification miscorrected as "no, women are paid less for the same work", yes, some people are actually confused.
posted by Rangi at 3:14 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
well, the pay gap involves a lot of things, including the gender of those who tend to fill the roles, but women are paid less in the same jobs.
. Among the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s list of nearly 600 occupations, women make less than men in all but seven of them. And even in those where women make more, the difference is often as slight as a couple of dollars a week. They even make less in each industry: among the BLS’s thirteen industry categories, women make less than men in every single one. What this means is that even in “women’s fields,” men are going to rake in more. In fact, men have been entering traditionally female-dominated sectors during the recovery period, and as the New York Times noted, they’re meeting with great success—“men earn more than women even in female-dominated jobs.” Women can enter engineering all they want, but their pay still won’t catch up to men’s.posted by nadawi at 3:23 PM on February 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
The Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap
This is a pretty important point: men typically are employed in occupations or in positions that are rewarded higher pay. A male supermarket clerk and a female supermarket clerk will earn the same wages. However I would wager a guess that there are a lot more female supermarket clerks out there. For example, it's something my wife, a stay-at-home-mom is considering doing to earn a bit of extra cash.
posted by My Dad at 3:31 PM on February 23, 2016
This is a pretty important point: men typically are employed in occupations or in positions that are rewarded higher pay. A male supermarket clerk and a female supermarket clerk will earn the same wages. However I would wager a guess that there are a lot more female supermarket clerks out there. For example, it's something my wife, a stay-at-home-mom is considering doing to earn a bit of extra cash.
posted by My Dad at 3:31 PM on February 23, 2016
men typically are employed in occupations or in positions that are rewarded higher pay. A male supermarket clerk and a female supermarket clerk will earn the same wages.
Research shows that wage gaps often persist even when people are doing the same jobs. For example, Stubborn Pay Gap Is Found in Nursing:
Research shows that wage gaps often persist even when people are doing the same jobs. For example, Stubborn Pay Gap Is Found in Nursing:
Male nurses make $5,100 more on average per year than female colleagues in similar positions, researchers reported on Tuesday.posted by Lexica at 3:41 PM on February 23, 2016 [24 favorites]
The new analysis, which included data on more than 290,000 registered nurses, also found that the pay gap had not narrowed within workplace settings and specialties from 1988 to 2013. The new study is the first to have measured gender disparities in pay among nurses over time.
“We now have pretty compelling evidence that there are pay inequalities between men and women in nursing over the past 25 years,” said Debra J. Barksdale, the director of the doctor of nursing practice program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was not involved with the new study.
A male supermarket clerk and a female supermarket clerk will earn the same wages.
Apparently not always. For doctors women are, on average, plain old paid less. "Calculated over the course of a 30-year career, the income gap based on sex alone amounted to over $350,000."
People really have to confront the reality of gender-based pay disparity. It really happens.
posted by GuyZero at 3:41 PM on February 23, 2016 [16 favorites]
Apparently not always. For doctors women are, on average, plain old paid less. "Calculated over the course of a 30-year career, the income gap based on sex alone amounted to over $350,000."
People really have to confront the reality of gender-based pay disparity. It really happens.
posted by GuyZero at 3:41 PM on February 23, 2016 [16 favorites]
It's often times for the same work, and the gender gap can apply even with professionals negotiating the wages for them.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:48 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 3:48 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
People really have to confront the reality of gender-based pay disparity. It really happens.
That's why I thought the paper was interesting. Unquestionably, it happens. But why does it happen somewhat less to lesbians than to other women? If we could figure that out it might provide an interesting angle into attacking the larger problem, as if lesbians were a sub population which turns out to be unusually resistant to a disease. Is the disparity due to people without kids actually having more time to devote to work, and therefore excelling? Is it due to employer's biased belief that heterosexual women will tend to prioritise family life over work and therefore holding them back? Is it more a question of men (and lesbians, to a lesser extent) being rewarded (or merely less penalised) for assertiveness in a way in which heterosexual women are punished for? Are lesbians better able to fit in to male-dominated office cultures in a way that allows them to form stronger alliances?
I don't think this thin article gives you answers to any of that --- as it points out, even framing the question is difficult to do neatly. But I just thought it was interesting because it opened up potential avenues for further research into what's been a fairly intractable problem.
posted by Diablevert at 4:04 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's why I thought the paper was interesting. Unquestionably, it happens. But why does it happen somewhat less to lesbians than to other women? If we could figure that out it might provide an interesting angle into attacking the larger problem, as if lesbians were a sub population which turns out to be unusually resistant to a disease. Is the disparity due to people without kids actually having more time to devote to work, and therefore excelling? Is it due to employer's biased belief that heterosexual women will tend to prioritise family life over work and therefore holding them back? Is it more a question of men (and lesbians, to a lesser extent) being rewarded (or merely less penalised) for assertiveness in a way in which heterosexual women are punished for? Are lesbians better able to fit in to male-dominated office cultures in a way that allows them to form stronger alliances?
I don't think this thin article gives you answers to any of that --- as it points out, even framing the question is difficult to do neatly. But I just thought it was interesting because it opened up potential avenues for further research into what's been a fairly intractable problem.
posted by Diablevert at 4:04 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
One thing to bear in mind, is that the money isn't going to overpay men. It's going to line the pockets of the fuckers on Mahogany Row. The guys aren't getting what they deserve, too, the bosses just want them to think it's because you're in the workforce. You'll have to work harder to prove you belong there, which means the company gets even more out of paying you less.
Unions need a comeback in the worst way.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:05 PM on February 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Unions need a comeback in the worst way.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:05 PM on February 23, 2016 [5 favorites]
Research shows that wage gaps often persist even when people are doing the same jobs.
Yep. Happened to me just a couple of weeks ago -- I've been on a team with 6 other people at work, we were all just offered promotions... and they offered the two men in the group more money than the women, despite the fact that we all have the same job title/same length of time with this company/comparable work histories and educational backgrounds. The men were each offered double the salary increase that the women were offered. No differences in the roles we're taking on, the titles we're being given, the responsibilities we now have. The only differences between the people offered lots of money and the people not offered as much money is that the ones offered less money all have vaginas.
posted by palomar at 4:05 PM on February 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
Yep. Happened to me just a couple of weeks ago -- I've been on a team with 6 other people at work, we were all just offered promotions... and they offered the two men in the group more money than the women, despite the fact that we all have the same job title/same length of time with this company/comparable work histories and educational backgrounds. The men were each offered double the salary increase that the women were offered. No differences in the roles we're taking on, the titles we're being given, the responsibilities we now have. The only differences between the people offered lots of money and the people not offered as much money is that the ones offered less money all have vaginas.
posted by palomar at 4:05 PM on February 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
(we did go to management and point out that we know the offers weren't fair and that none of us want to take the positions we're extremely urgently needed in, if it's gonna be like this. ever seen a bunch of managers scramble to issue new offers that bring EVERYONE up to the base salary of the new role, not just the penis-enabled? it's pretty fucking gratifying.)
posted by palomar at 4:07 PM on February 23, 2016 [69 favorites]
posted by palomar at 4:07 PM on February 23, 2016 [69 favorites]
Can I give you a "Hell yeah!"? Because I think that deserves a "Hell Yeah!".
There's a reason the bosses want you to think sharing your salary is a firin' offense. Solidarity works.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:27 PM on February 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
There's a reason the bosses want you to think sharing your salary is a firin' offense. Solidarity works.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:27 PM on February 23, 2016 [25 favorites]
it's pretty fucking gratifying
i am cackling like ursula the sea witch
posted by poffin boffin at 4:35 PM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
i am cackling like ursula the sea witch
posted by poffin boffin at 4:35 PM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
The Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap
This is completely bonkers to me. Women start out making similar salaries as men, and then as their careers progress, they stop. How is that evidence the wage gap isn't due to women being treated differently in the workforce?
And this means that women are not underpaid compared to men? If women are not advancing because they are considered bitchy under the same circumstances men are considered aggressive, that's a sexist wage gap to me. If women are not advancing because they are putting their careers on hold due to an expectation they'll take on the heavy lifting of beginning a family, that's a sexist wage gap to me. And yes, if industries are under-compensated due to pink labor, that's a sexist wage gap.
posted by politikitty at 5:22 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is completely bonkers to me. Women start out making similar salaries as men, and then as their careers progress, they stop. How is that evidence the wage gap isn't due to women being treated differently in the workforce?
And this means that women are not underpaid compared to men? If women are not advancing because they are considered bitchy under the same circumstances men are considered aggressive, that's a sexist wage gap to me. If women are not advancing because they are putting their careers on hold due to an expectation they'll take on the heavy lifting of beginning a family, that's a sexist wage gap to me. And yes, if industries are under-compensated due to pink labor, that's a sexist wage gap.
posted by politikitty at 5:22 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
And this means that women are not underpaid compared to men? If women are not advancing because they are considered bitchy under the same circumstances men are considered aggressive, that's a sexist wage gap to me. If women are not advancing because they are putting their careers on hold due to an expectation they'll take on the heavy lifting of beginning a family, that's a sexist wage gap to me. And yes, if industries are under-compensated due to pink labor, that's a sexist wage gap.
That article isn't really claiming otherwise. (Whether it's actually even correct about what it is claiming is a different question which I don't know the answer to but several people here seem to have sources that suggest it is not.)
posted by atoxyl at 5:40 PM on February 23, 2016
That article isn't really claiming otherwise. (Whether it's actually even correct about what it is claiming is a different question which I don't know the answer to but several people here seem to have sources that suggest it is not.)
posted by atoxyl at 5:40 PM on February 23, 2016
So the problem is not so much that women are being paid less then men for the same work - otherwise there would be a MASSIVE arbitrage opportunity here, where firms would exclusively hire women to obtain the same quality of work for only 78% of the cost and thus beat out their competition.
The problem is more systemic than that, where women are not given the same opportunities to acquire those skills, and they're more often than not the ones who have to put their career on hold to have babies.
Interestingly there's a kind of similar comparison to be made - using full time median income as a measure the US census bureau says females earn 18% less than males. In Singapore - males have to undergo mandatory 2 years military service upon leaving school, effectively "losing" two years of their career. The full time median income wage gap is smaller, at 10% so that puts some rough numbers on how harmful losing 2 years of career might potentially be. An interesting side effect is that it has become the norm that females who want to date males of roughly the same age will be resigned to dating someone who is earning less than them - a twist of the patriarchal idea that men are the financial provider in a relationship!
posted by xdvesper at 6:02 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
The problem is more systemic than that, where women are not given the same opportunities to acquire those skills, and they're more often than not the ones who have to put their career on hold to have babies.
Interestingly there's a kind of similar comparison to be made - using full time median income as a measure the US census bureau says females earn 18% less than males. In Singapore - males have to undergo mandatory 2 years military service upon leaving school, effectively "losing" two years of their career. The full time median income wage gap is smaller, at 10% so that puts some rough numbers on how harmful losing 2 years of career might potentially be. An interesting side effect is that it has become the norm that females who want to date males of roughly the same age will be resigned to dating someone who is earning less than them - a twist of the patriarchal idea that men are the financial provider in a relationship!
posted by xdvesper at 6:02 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is completely bonkers to me. Women start out making similar salaries as men, and then as their careers progress, they stop. How is that evidence the wage gap isn't due to women being treated differently in the workforce?
There's a whole bunch of people who argue, wide-eyed, that because women leave the full-time market for blocks of time to bear and raise children, that means they aren't treated differently in the workplace, because it's a ~choice~, you see. Never mind what the numbers say about division of labor related to children in marriages, never mind how lousy workplace choices are in the US for supporting women during pregnancy and children's early lives, never mind the way we demonize "childless women", never mind the fact that 80% of women have had a child by age 44. Nope, women aren't treated differently, they are just making life choices that happen to result in a gargantuan pay disparity.
And you are not going to convince me, given that little graph at the top of the original post, that the slight pay preference for "lesbians" isn't about the fact that women married to women are much less likely to have children than women married to men.
posted by gingerest at 6:06 PM on February 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
There's a whole bunch of people who argue, wide-eyed, that because women leave the full-time market for blocks of time to bear and raise children, that means they aren't treated differently in the workplace, because it's a ~choice~, you see. Never mind what the numbers say about division of labor related to children in marriages, never mind how lousy workplace choices are in the US for supporting women during pregnancy and children's early lives, never mind the way we demonize "childless women", never mind the fact that 80% of women have had a child by age 44. Nope, women aren't treated differently, they are just making life choices that happen to result in a gargantuan pay disparity.
And you are not going to convince me, given that little graph at the top of the original post, that the slight pay preference for "lesbians" isn't about the fact that women married to women are much less likely to have children than women married to men.
posted by gingerest at 6:06 PM on February 23, 2016 [14 favorites]
politikitty: "Women start out making similar salaries as men, and then as their careers progress, they stop. How is that evidence the wage gap isn't due to women being treated differently in the workforce?"
Ooh, as a guy I almost never have a relevant anecdote, but my partner's story seems appropriate here. Her work is in many respects similar to mine but it's coded female and has a service component to it. About 10 years ago we were hired at similar times by the same organisation at roughly similar pay. And yet over the years, one tiny decision at a time, she found herself stuck in a position that was essentially unpromotable and increasingly precarious as resources were funnelled away from her group. While I of course got promoted multiple times: because I am so awesome obvs. Management took the view that these decisions were perfectly sensible and reflective of the relative market value of the work (again, I am soooo awesome). Finally we gave up, and decided that we'd both quit and take new jobs in a new city. Out on the open market, I get rehired into basically my old job with a tiny pay rise. My partner? She gets offers from the top two organisations in town along with a huge pay rise that completely wiped out the salary differential that had opened up between us over the last decade, leaving only a tiny gap corresponding to the difference between us when we were first hired. A cynic might suggest that it's almost as if the old organisation had entirely devalued her contribution and taken her for granted. But that would be uncharitable and mean of me. I'm sure there was nothing sexist going on there at all.
What I find super annoying about all this - besides my personal gripes about needing to quit my job, sell my house, move my kids across the country etc - is that our solution isn't an option for a lot of people. It's great for my partner that she really can say "fuck it I quit" and then command a more reasonable salary by going to the open market. But it's a brutal world out there and you really need to have all your ducks lined up before risking a move like that. If you lack the advantages we had, which let us organise a move on our own terms, then you're sort of fucked. So to the extent that this asymmetry exists for internal advancement, it seems like it creates this ever-widening gap that it's almost worse than if there were just some one-time penalty that occurs when women are first hired. But then I'm a guy and I don't really feel like I have a good grasp of all the awful realities of the situation, so it's probably even worse than I think it is.
mai: "One question I am thinking about: I am the spouse of a feminist man. Might that perhaps erase some of the causes of the wage gap that I would experience? He does equal chores, supports my career, and would be willing to stay home with our potential future children."
Possibly our experience is relevant as anecdata? Looking at our own situation, I feel like I have tried (and am trying) to be that partner, and the older I get the closer I get to genuinely achieving it. Though in our case I'm trying to split child minding duties fairly rather than being a stay at home dad. I think being conscious of this stuff helps? But I guess I also feel that a lot of structural factors still work against you (and us), especially once kids become part of the picture. Random example: I've found it very hard to convince schools, childcare, medical professionals etc to direct questions to me rather than my partner, so a lot of things that I've tried to take on still fall partly on her. Another random example: if I show up at a professional meeting with a toddler, I get a certain amount of kudos for being able to manage this terrible terrible burden and people tend to think more kindly of me. Women that I have seen doing the same thing tend ... um ... not to get that kudos. So my experience has been: I think it helped a bit that I've tried not to be a jerk. Not as much as I would have hoped.
Gosh. That was a long comment. Sorry.
posted by langtonsant at 6:10 PM on February 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
Ooh, as a guy I almost never have a relevant anecdote, but my partner's story seems appropriate here. Her work is in many respects similar to mine but it's coded female and has a service component to it. About 10 years ago we were hired at similar times by the same organisation at roughly similar pay. And yet over the years, one tiny decision at a time, she found herself stuck in a position that was essentially unpromotable and increasingly precarious as resources were funnelled away from her group. While I of course got promoted multiple times: because I am so awesome obvs. Management took the view that these decisions were perfectly sensible and reflective of the relative market value of the work (again, I am soooo awesome). Finally we gave up, and decided that we'd both quit and take new jobs in a new city. Out on the open market, I get rehired into basically my old job with a tiny pay rise. My partner? She gets offers from the top two organisations in town along with a huge pay rise that completely wiped out the salary differential that had opened up between us over the last decade, leaving only a tiny gap corresponding to the difference between us when we were first hired. A cynic might suggest that it's almost as if the old organisation had entirely devalued her contribution and taken her for granted. But that would be uncharitable and mean of me. I'm sure there was nothing sexist going on there at all.
What I find super annoying about all this - besides my personal gripes about needing to quit my job, sell my house, move my kids across the country etc - is that our solution isn't an option for a lot of people. It's great for my partner that she really can say "fuck it I quit" and then command a more reasonable salary by going to the open market. But it's a brutal world out there and you really need to have all your ducks lined up before risking a move like that. If you lack the advantages we had, which let us organise a move on our own terms, then you're sort of fucked. So to the extent that this asymmetry exists for internal advancement, it seems like it creates this ever-widening gap that it's almost worse than if there were just some one-time penalty that occurs when women are first hired. But then I'm a guy and I don't really feel like I have a good grasp of all the awful realities of the situation, so it's probably even worse than I think it is.
mai: "One question I am thinking about: I am the spouse of a feminist man. Might that perhaps erase some of the causes of the wage gap that I would experience? He does equal chores, supports my career, and would be willing to stay home with our potential future children."
Possibly our experience is relevant as anecdata? Looking at our own situation, I feel like I have tried (and am trying) to be that partner, and the older I get the closer I get to genuinely achieving it. Though in our case I'm trying to split child minding duties fairly rather than being a stay at home dad. I think being conscious of this stuff helps? But I guess I also feel that a lot of structural factors still work against you (and us), especially once kids become part of the picture. Random example: I've found it very hard to convince schools, childcare, medical professionals etc to direct questions to me rather than my partner, so a lot of things that I've tried to take on still fall partly on her. Another random example: if I show up at a professional meeting with a toddler, I get a certain amount of kudos for being able to manage this terrible terrible burden and people tend to think more kindly of me. Women that I have seen doing the same thing tend ... um ... not to get that kudos. So my experience has been: I think it helped a bit that I've tried not to be a jerk. Not as much as I would have hoped.
Gosh. That was a long comment. Sorry.
posted by langtonsant at 6:10 PM on February 23, 2016 [21 favorites]
I came in here to jerk my knee but am pleased to see that many other people beat me to it.
posted by rmd1023 at 6:20 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by rmd1023 at 6:20 PM on February 23, 2016 [2 favorites]
If you're talking about the wage gap and pink labor, remember how secretaries used to be more than just secretaries:
A job once filled by men became a pink profession.
(no paywall)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 7:35 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
A job once filled by men became a pink profession.
(no paywall)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 7:35 PM on February 23, 2016 [1 favorite]
I was fairly sure in my teens and early twenties that I, a woman, would end up with a woman long term. Research already existed to let me know that lesbian couples are often poor. I chose my major in college fully intending to be the breadwinner in my household and support my spouse who'd majored in something impractical. I will also admit it occurred to me that I might be able to impress young ladies with my earning power, since I had low confidence in my ability to attract attention with my looks or my winning personality. Women who know they're straight don't do that. In fact, many of them do the opposite to avoid intimidating their dates.
I also was reasonably gender nonconforming which meant that the whole "computer science isn't for girls" thing was a plus-to-neutral attribute of my field, not a minus. Lots of things I liked weren't for girls, it wasn't an affront to my identity the way it was for some of my classmates.
I ended up marrying a man and lo and behold his career has pulled ahead of mine as we've started a family. The wage gap is alive and well around here. But hell if I don't still make more than pretty much every other woman I know other than my coworkers.
I'm not saying I'm the common case, but surely my type is represented in this data.
posted by town of cats at 10:40 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
I also was reasonably gender nonconforming which meant that the whole "computer science isn't for girls" thing was a plus-to-neutral attribute of my field, not a minus. Lots of things I liked weren't for girls, it wasn't an affront to my identity the way it was for some of my classmates.
I ended up marrying a man and lo and behold his career has pulled ahead of mine as we've started a family. The wage gap is alive and well around here. But hell if I don't still make more than pretty much every other woman I know other than my coworkers.
I'm not saying I'm the common case, but surely my type is represented in this data.
posted by town of cats at 10:40 PM on February 23, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm a butch lesbian, I'm pretty clear that I experience positive discrimination and it's likely because of my masculine presentation. I am given an unusual amount of respect and autonomy for a nurse, and am often assumed to be a doctor. I look like Ira Glass, basically.
Fortunately, I'm in a union organization where all my fellow nurses are paid the same based solely on seniority, but male nurses are definitely and disproportionately promoted into higher paying management positions.
posted by latkes at 10:53 PM on February 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
Fortunately, I'm in a union organization where all my fellow nurses are paid the same based solely on seniority, but male nurses are definitely and disproportionately promoted into higher paying management positions.
posted by latkes at 10:53 PM on February 23, 2016 [7 favorites]
So the problem is not so much that women are being paid less then men for the same work - otherwise there would be a MASSIVE arbitrage opportunity here, where firms would exclusively hire women to obtain the same quality of work for only 78% of the cost and thus beat out their competition.
You are making an unpersuasive market efficiency argument. The very definition of discrimination means that people are making prejudicial decisions that are not economically rational.
posted by JackFlash at 11:28 PM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
You are making an unpersuasive market efficiency argument. The very definition of discrimination means that people are making prejudicial decisions that are not economically rational.
posted by JackFlash at 11:28 PM on February 23, 2016 [10 favorites]
So the problem is not so much that women are being paid less then men for the same work - otherwise there would be a MASSIVE arbitrage opportunity here, where firms would exclusively hire women to obtain the same quality of work for only 78% of the cost and thus beat out their competition.
Oh my god, do people still make that argument? How credulous.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 11:43 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
Oh my god, do people still make that argument? How credulous.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 11:43 PM on February 23, 2016 [4 favorites]
I chose my major in college fully intending to be the breadwinner in my household and support my spouse who'd majored in something impractical. I will also admit it occurred to me that I might be able to impress young ladies with my earning power, since I had low confidence in my ability to attract attention with my looks or my winning personality. Women who know they're straight don't do that. In fact, many of them do the opposite to avoid intimidating their dates.
This got me to thinking about my own situation. I would almost certainly be in poverty without my incredibly smart and skilled (female) partner. She's supported me through a lot of mental illness and artsy flakiness and difficulty fitting into the normal-people world, without any expectation that I would be a homemaker or have children. This sort of arrangement seems more common to me among female-female couples than male-female couples, though I could be wrong about that. I don't think my anecdata says much one way or another about the study's conclusions, but I do suspect that women who expect to be single or have a chance of ending up partnered to a woman make some different choices about where to put their time and energy than women who expect to be partnered to a man.
posted by thetortoise at 12:04 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
This got me to thinking about my own situation. I would almost certainly be in poverty without my incredibly smart and skilled (female) partner. She's supported me through a lot of mental illness and artsy flakiness and difficulty fitting into the normal-people world, without any expectation that I would be a homemaker or have children. This sort of arrangement seems more common to me among female-female couples than male-female couples, though I could be wrong about that. I don't think my anecdata says much one way or another about the study's conclusions, but I do suspect that women who expect to be single or have a chance of ending up partnered to a woman make some different choices about where to put their time and energy than women who expect to be partnered to a man.
posted by thetortoise at 12:04 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
To town of cats and thetortoise's points:
I find it compelling to divide the gender wage gap into pre-working-age factors (like courses of study, industry choice, and pre-work skill building) and during-working-age factors (like hiring, promotion, and treatment in the workplace).
I'm still pretty much brand new to the labor force, so I can only claim to have personal experience with pre-work factors, like major choice. I'm hardly shocked to read studies that show that women choose (or "choose") courses of study/industries/careers with more focus on interest and fulfillment and less focus on earning power and supporting a family than men. For better or for worse (we talked about how much bigger a role financial/career success plays in men's sense of self-worth and mental health before), women are setting themselves up to be in less lucrative careers even before they enter the work force.
Here's the New York Fed on major choice:
Many factors go into the wage gap and all of them contribute and matter very much. Women graduating with the same training still do not make the same amount as men, and so obviously pre-workforce choices don't explain the whole gap. At the same time, I think it's an interesting facet to consider if only because it is significantly easier to affect on an individual and societal level than the more insidious factors.
posted by R a c h e l at 7:18 AM on February 24, 2016
I find it compelling to divide the gender wage gap into pre-working-age factors (like courses of study, industry choice, and pre-work skill building) and during-working-age factors (like hiring, promotion, and treatment in the workplace).
I'm still pretty much brand new to the labor force, so I can only claim to have personal experience with pre-work factors, like major choice. I'm hardly shocked to read studies that show that women choose (or "choose") courses of study/industries/careers with more focus on interest and fulfillment and less focus on earning power and supporting a family than men. For better or for worse (we talked about how much bigger a role financial/career success plays in men's sense of self-worth and mental health before), women are setting themselves up to be in less lucrative careers even before they enter the work force.
Here's the New York Fed on major choice:
Pecuniary determinants explain about half of the [major] choice for males and more than three-fourths of the choice for females. Males and females have similar preferences regarding choices at college, but differ in their tastes regarding the workplace; females mostly care about non-pecuniary outcomes (gaining approval of parents and enjoying work at jobs), while males value pecuniary outcomes (social status of the jobs, likelihood of finding a job, and earnings profiles at jobs) more.Even worse, women's participation in STEM majors, which is probably a decent proxy for career-focused and higher-earning courses of study, has been leveling off and even declining since the 1990s.
Many factors go into the wage gap and all of them contribute and matter very much. Women graduating with the same training still do not make the same amount as men, and so obviously pre-workforce choices don't explain the whole gap. At the same time, I think it's an interesting facet to consider if only because it is significantly easier to affect on an individual and societal level than the more insidious factors.
posted by R a c h e l at 7:18 AM on February 24, 2016
re: the "choices" women make :
The Peer Perception Gap. The Washington Post describes a study in PLOS One which had a goal of identifying peer gender bias in the biology classroom: Men over-ranked their peers by three-quarters of a GPA point [...] In other words, if Johnny and Susie both had A's, they’d receive equal applause from female students — but Susie would register as a B student in the eyes of her male peers, and Johnny would look like a rock star.posted by nadawi at 7:31 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Like I said, it's not a full explanation (and "choices" are of course never made in a vacuum). Perception of skill and ability definitely plays a massive role, but isn't there room to believe that women may also have been socialized to have different priorities that affect the career decisions they make? Anecdata, but I have so many more female friends than male friends who are choosing to pursue something they really care about (nonprofit work and less-profitable graduate degrees chief among them) instead of making a safer but less fulfilling choice in a cubicle farm. I don't meant that it's objectively a better or worse choice, but I believe that it is a pattern that happens. From that, since being a lesbian woman has been excluded from traditional conceptions of femininity (and family structures), lesbian women may also be more willing to (or are forced to) buck the career-related feminine ideals.
Especially since we're talking about queer identities interacting with the gender wage gap, it's a great opportunity for me to plug one of my favorite articles, Kristen Schilt's "Just One of the Guys: How Transmen Make Gender Visible at Work" (I don't know about the conventions around here, but if you google the subtitle a free PDF version of the article comes right up). The really striking part of the article is how much of workplace discrimination was so entrenched that people living as women weren't even able to fully conceptualize it until they transitioned and were able to directly compare their experiences. It seems pretty evident from those interviews that the differences in the way that women's and men's skills/abilities are evaluated are so stunningly deep that they're difficult to conceptualize without having had both experiences.
posted by R a c h e l at 7:54 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Especially since we're talking about queer identities interacting with the gender wage gap, it's a great opportunity for me to plug one of my favorite articles, Kristen Schilt's "Just One of the Guys: How Transmen Make Gender Visible at Work" (I don't know about the conventions around here, but if you google the subtitle a free PDF version of the article comes right up). The really striking part of the article is how much of workplace discrimination was so entrenched that people living as women weren't even able to fully conceptualize it until they transitioned and were able to directly compare their experiences. It seems pretty evident from those interviews that the differences in the way that women's and men's skills/abilities are evaluated are so stunningly deep that they're difficult to conceptualize without having had both experiences.
posted by R a c h e l at 7:54 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
My direct experience of this wage discrimination against women is that it can also come from a seemingly benevolent place. Several times in meetings discussing offers and budgets for new hires, I heard my bosses say things along the lines of, "Well, he's got a wife and kids, so let's sweeten up that salary by 20K."
They meant WELL. They were all family men with good hearts (mostly.)
But that's not fair to single men.
And it's not fair to women.
And it's part of the problem.
posted by jfwlucy at 8:10 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
They meant WELL. They were all family men with good hearts (mostly.)
But that's not fair to single men.
And it's not fair to women.
And it's part of the problem.
posted by jfwlucy at 8:10 AM on February 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
At the same time, I think it's an interesting facet to consider if only because it is significantly easier to affect on an individual and societal level than the more insidious factors.
So I think I understand where you're coming from, but seriously, no.
We plain old need to stop underpaying women who do the same jobs as men.
Sure, maybe we should encourage more women to go into bond trading and we definitely need to make workplaces less actively hostile to women, but there's no 'let's do this first and that later'. Let's do it all.
posted by GuyZero at 9:00 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
So I think I understand where you're coming from, but seriously, no.
We plain old need to stop underpaying women who do the same jobs as men.
Sure, maybe we should encourage more women to go into bond trading and we definitely need to make workplaces less actively hostile to women, but there's no 'let's do this first and that later'. Let's do it all.
posted by GuyZero at 9:00 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry that I was unclear: we're in agreement. Of course, let's start paying women the same amount as men in the same jobs. That can and should happen today, and transparency alone would probably provide enough pressure to catalyze that. I don't see any "first" and "later" - there is absolutely no reason why this can't or shouldn't happen concurrently.
But that underpayment still only accounts for one slice of the wage gap, so let's also get women (of all types) into the same jobs and make sure they're treated and recognized equally when they get there. There are a lot of forces maintaining the status quo and I pointed out one of them because it's one that's more (and still obviously not entirely!) under the control of the women actually affected.
Realistically, fighting these forces is going to require the hard work of several more generations. I'm 22 today, and I'd like to have the same opportunities as my male peers, and I'd like other people in other groups facing barriers to also have every one of those opportunities. Things aren't going to happen exactly like that and I'm trying to find pragmatic ways to live with/despite that.
posted by R a c h e l at 11:39 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
But that underpayment still only accounts for one slice of the wage gap, so let's also get women (of all types) into the same jobs and make sure they're treated and recognized equally when they get there. There are a lot of forces maintaining the status quo and I pointed out one of them because it's one that's more (and still obviously not entirely!) under the control of the women actually affected.
Realistically, fighting these forces is going to require the hard work of several more generations. I'm 22 today, and I'd like to have the same opportunities as my male peers, and I'd like other people in other groups facing barriers to also have every one of those opportunities. Things aren't going to happen exactly like that and I'm trying to find pragmatic ways to live with/despite that.
posted by R a c h e l at 11:39 AM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Transparency isn't as big a hurdle because promotions make up a vast majority of your career.
If men are recognized promoted quicker, then you mask the wage gap in a survey like Payscale's by having different 'job titles'. And different job titles does not guarantee different work duties. In my company, the head of a small team can start as an Manager and get to Senior Director solely as recognition for their excellence and increased experience. Not because they are changing roles.
Those gains widen as our career go on. Sexism isn't a huge deal early in the game. But each time a woman is ranked slightly below a man solely due to subconscious bias, that gap widens, because that decision is baked into your value on the market.
Your past is used as evidence of their worth. When a hiring manager sees that someone is paid under market, their instinct isn't to see a great arbitrage opportunity. It's to think the market has priced them correctly, and they'll perform at 78% capacity as a male market candidate.
And hiring is a risky proposition. Even if you can fire them easily, there's a lot of transition costs. Plus there's usually a lot of blowback on the hiring manager for failing to forsee the problem. So it's an area firms tend to be risk averse and follow market biases.
posted by politikitty at 12:07 PM on February 24, 2016
If men are recognized promoted quicker, then you mask the wage gap in a survey like Payscale's by having different 'job titles'. And different job titles does not guarantee different work duties. In my company, the head of a small team can start as an Manager and get to Senior Director solely as recognition for their excellence and increased experience. Not because they are changing roles.
Those gains widen as our career go on. Sexism isn't a huge deal early in the game. But each time a woman is ranked slightly below a man solely due to subconscious bias, that gap widens, because that decision is baked into your value on the market.
Your past is used as evidence of their worth. When a hiring manager sees that someone is paid under market, their instinct isn't to see a great arbitrage opportunity. It's to think the market has priced them correctly, and they'll perform at 78% capacity as a male market candidate.
And hiring is a risky proposition. Even if you can fire them easily, there's a lot of transition costs. Plus there's usually a lot of blowback on the hiring manager for failing to forsee the problem. So it's an area firms tend to be risk averse and follow market biases.
posted by politikitty at 12:07 PM on February 24, 2016
There's a whole bunch of people who argue, wide-eyed, that because women leave the full-time market for blocks of time to bear and raise children, that means they aren't treated differently in the workplace, because it's a ~choice~, you see.
I have to admit this is how I feel, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Having children is (usually) a choice, and the world would be a far better place if far, far fewer people made that choice. The only argument you seemed to make against this that resonates with me is the fact that childless women are demonized. We should definitely work on changing that. But why should, for example, two people who had both worked for twenty years in one career make the same amount of money if one of them left the workforce for five of those years? It's a damn shame that this is typically the woman when the choice is made by a man as well, but the pay disparity is understandable.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 1:41 PM on February 24, 2016
I have to admit this is how I feel, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Having children is (usually) a choice, and the world would be a far better place if far, far fewer people made that choice. The only argument you seemed to make against this that resonates with me is the fact that childless women are demonized. We should definitely work on changing that. But why should, for example, two people who had both worked for twenty years in one career make the same amount of money if one of them left the workforce for five of those years? It's a damn shame that this is typically the woman when the choice is made by a man as well, but the pay disparity is understandable.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 1:41 PM on February 24, 2016
because it exists in a society where women still do a majority of housework and childcare even when both parents work. you can't separate the society from the choices women make. men and women decide to have kids, but women's careers suffer while men's careers often get a family boost, even if the women aren't leaving the work force for anything close to 5 years.
also, there's a significant swath of the united states where if a woman finds herself pregnant it's a pretty big hill to climb to not become a mother before you even get into social pressure. the idea that all babies are a "choice" ignores a lot.
posted by nadawi at 2:10 PM on February 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
also, there's a significant swath of the united states where if a woman finds herself pregnant it's a pretty big hill to climb to not become a mother before you even get into social pressure. the idea that all babies are a "choice" ignores a lot.
posted by nadawi at 2:10 PM on February 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
the pay disparity is understandable.
If I left my job for five years for a vastly more challenging, stressful, time-consuming and ultimately more important job, I would expect that at the end of that five years, when I went looking for a new position I would be making significantly more, than if I had stagnated in the same old job another five years.
posted by mittens at 2:14 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
If I left my job for five years for a vastly more challenging, stressful, time-consuming and ultimately more important job, I would expect that at the end of that five years, when I went looking for a new position I would be making significantly more, than if I had stagnated in the same old job another five years.
posted by mittens at 2:14 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
But why should, for example, two people who had both worked for twenty years in one career make the same amount of money if one of them left the workforce for five of those years?
Arguing about population vs. overpopulation is a whole can of worms that opens up issues of nationalism, racism, economics, etc. I'm not going there.
However I will say, that the desire to procreate is a real thing, and in many, many, many parts of the world, not just developing countries, a woman's value is tied up very closely with her (presumed or otherwise) ability to reproduce.
Moreover, having babies and growing them into adults IS an important job that contributes new members to a society; members that consume, members that labor, members that lead, members that caregive, members that protect, etc. It's simply that no one wants to pay for it to happen, despite the fact that it produces tangible, financial benefits to a nation.
posted by jfwlucy at 2:34 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Arguing about population vs. overpopulation is a whole can of worms that opens up issues of nationalism, racism, economics, etc. I'm not going there.
However I will say, that the desire to procreate is a real thing, and in many, many, many parts of the world, not just developing countries, a woman's value is tied up very closely with her (presumed or otherwise) ability to reproduce.
Moreover, having babies and growing them into adults IS an important job that contributes new members to a society; members that consume, members that labor, members that lead, members that caregive, members that protect, etc. It's simply that no one wants to pay for it to happen, despite the fact that it produces tangible, financial benefits to a nation.
posted by jfwlucy at 2:34 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
But why should, for example, two people who had both worked for twenty years in one career make the same amount of money if one of them left the workforce for five of those years?
You are asking entirely the wrong question. What you should be asking is "Why is it (statistically speaking) always the woman who is asked to leave the workforce for five years?" and "Why, since children are regarded as a social good by all but the most thoughtless contrarians, do we not reward people for participating in family building?"
posted by gingerest at 2:43 PM on February 24, 2016 [12 favorites]
You are asking entirely the wrong question. What you should be asking is "Why is it (statistically speaking) always the woman who is asked to leave the workforce for five years?" and "Why, since children are regarded as a social good by all but the most thoughtless contrarians, do we not reward people for participating in family building?"
posted by gingerest at 2:43 PM on February 24, 2016 [12 favorites]
gingerest: You are asking entirely the wrong question. What you should be asking is "Why is it (statistically speaking) always the woman who is asked to leave the workforce for five years?" and "Why, since children are regarded as a social good by all but the most thoughtless contrarians, do we not reward people for participating in family building?"
Yes, exactly. THANK YOU for saying this.
posted by zarq at 2:48 PM on February 24, 2016
Yes, exactly. THANK YOU for saying this.
posted by zarq at 2:48 PM on February 24, 2016
Having children is (usually) a choice, and the world would be a far better place if far, far fewer people made that choice
Except that having children is also a social necessity.
Well - before that, in many places, having children is also a personal necessity, in that the only way someone can retire in their old age is to have children who will support them. (And more than that, they have to have enough children that at least one will survive and be successful enough to do so.) It's a rational economic choice. In many areas of the world, it's also a short-term economic solution for women to attach themselves to a partner that will support them. They trade their labor (in childbirth, childcare, eldercare, and homemaking) for economic security. I don't know that this is the best possible solution for the women involved, but these are rational choices.
Back to the broader social scope -- on preview, everyone got it. You may say that there should be fewer children, but it's absolutely necessary that there be some children for the next generation.
Society as a whole benefits from having children, full stop. And it particularly benefits if those children grow up to be skilled, eusocial, and reasonably healthy, for example. Someone who contributes to that (by birthing and raising children) is providing value.
This is precisely the reasoning behind those "well he's got a wife and kids" raises, and I don't object to that, personally. Supporting children is a social good. Giving women a break when they return to the workplace is simply giving women that same benefit.
(it might be more fair to compensate parents otherwise, like with a universal income, for example, but hey whatever)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 2:49 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Except that having children is also a social necessity.
Well - before that, in many places, having children is also a personal necessity, in that the only way someone can retire in their old age is to have children who will support them. (And more than that, they have to have enough children that at least one will survive and be successful enough to do so.) It's a rational economic choice. In many areas of the world, it's also a short-term economic solution for women to attach themselves to a partner that will support them. They trade their labor (in childbirth, childcare, eldercare, and homemaking) for economic security. I don't know that this is the best possible solution for the women involved, but these are rational choices.
Back to the broader social scope -- on preview, everyone got it. You may say that there should be fewer children, but it's absolutely necessary that there be some children for the next generation.
Society as a whole benefits from having children, full stop. And it particularly benefits if those children grow up to be skilled, eusocial, and reasonably healthy, for example. Someone who contributes to that (by birthing and raising children) is providing value.
This is precisely the reasoning behind those "well he's got a wife and kids" raises, and I don't object to that, personally. Supporting children is a social good. Giving women a break when they return to the workplace is simply giving women that same benefit.
(it might be more fair to compensate parents otherwise, like with a universal income, for example, but hey whatever)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 2:49 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
(i did my best to use gender neutral language there wrt childbirth because sometimes people who identify as not-women give birth, but it is a very gendered issue)
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 2:51 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 2:51 PM on February 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
Oh my god, do people still make that argument? How credulous.
I don't think we're in disagreement on why the gender gap still exists despite most firms having strict salary banding rules to avoid the HR nightmare of a discrimination suit - the reality is - both women and minorities aren't given the same opportunities for advancement. It's learning by doing: no one learns to be a manager or executive without being promoted into that position first. Companies are consciously giving that kind of training to men. The idea that "performance reviews" are entirely based on merit is a bit naive. Sure, it looks like it from the outside. But basically what happens is the council gets together, says, ok our goal is to promote this guy, but before that happens he needs to score the maximum points in our performance review program for 2 years straight. He needs to demonstrate X Y Z qualities of leadership and initiative. So they'll subtly put him in areas with "weaker" oversight and more freedom of work that will allow him to "take control" and "show initiative", they'll give him a roadmap to success (make sure you look impressive to these guys X and Y who are influential in the council, make sure you step up and be seen) they'll put him in "challenging" positions where traditionally the controls have been weak so there are major defects he can "fix up" and "enact business improvements". After two years he looks like a model citizen, but more importantly he's gained all the valuable experience, skills and networking contacts he needs, THEN he gets promoted, and on his promotion documents it all looks above board - this guy is amazing, we'd be silly not to promote him. Compare that to someone who has been stuck in an unexciting tax accounting role for 2 years and has not had the opportunity to do anything except file tax returns and the only time anyone notices him is when he screws up.
The company doesn't have this kind of resource to train everyone in this way - there are only so many positions that allow this kind of growth - so they pick and choose the winners - with conscious or unconscious bias.
Hence my point: we'll never get anywhere arguing that a female junior analyst should be paid the same as a male manager in the name of equality. We need to correctly identify the root causes and fix it. Companies can do that on a company level but sometimes the entire industry is complicit: for example, non profits as an industry pay less than for-profit companies, and the percentage of females are much higher in non profits. Fixing that even more difficult - and is a whole other multi paragraph post so I'll leave that for now...
posted by xdvesper at 2:55 PM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think we're in disagreement on why the gender gap still exists despite most firms having strict salary banding rules to avoid the HR nightmare of a discrimination suit - the reality is - both women and minorities aren't given the same opportunities for advancement. It's learning by doing: no one learns to be a manager or executive without being promoted into that position first. Companies are consciously giving that kind of training to men. The idea that "performance reviews" are entirely based on merit is a bit naive. Sure, it looks like it from the outside. But basically what happens is the council gets together, says, ok our goal is to promote this guy, but before that happens he needs to score the maximum points in our performance review program for 2 years straight. He needs to demonstrate X Y Z qualities of leadership and initiative. So they'll subtly put him in areas with "weaker" oversight and more freedom of work that will allow him to "take control" and "show initiative", they'll give him a roadmap to success (make sure you look impressive to these guys X and Y who are influential in the council, make sure you step up and be seen) they'll put him in "challenging" positions where traditionally the controls have been weak so there are major defects he can "fix up" and "enact business improvements". After two years he looks like a model citizen, but more importantly he's gained all the valuable experience, skills and networking contacts he needs, THEN he gets promoted, and on his promotion documents it all looks above board - this guy is amazing, we'd be silly not to promote him. Compare that to someone who has been stuck in an unexciting tax accounting role for 2 years and has not had the opportunity to do anything except file tax returns and the only time anyone notices him is when he screws up.
The company doesn't have this kind of resource to train everyone in this way - there are only so many positions that allow this kind of growth - so they pick and choose the winners - with conscious or unconscious bias.
Hence my point: we'll never get anywhere arguing that a female junior analyst should be paid the same as a male manager in the name of equality. We need to correctly identify the root causes and fix it. Companies can do that on a company level but sometimes the entire industry is complicit: for example, non profits as an industry pay less than for-profit companies, and the percentage of females are much higher in non profits. Fixing that even more difficult - and is a whole other multi paragraph post so I'll leave that for now...
posted by xdvesper at 2:55 PM on February 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
If I left my job for five years for a vastly more challenging, stressful, time-consuming and ultimately more important job, I would expect that at the end of that five years, when I went looking for a new position I would be making significantly more, than if I had stagnated in the same old job another five years.
If you're stagnating in your job in the current economic climate, your future is precarious. Continual professional development is becoming a necessity to stay competitive. As a scientist I have to keep reading journal articles and learning new methods. Raising a child takes a lot of time and skill to do correctly, but the skills are not as useful to the companies who are actually paying my salary as the ones I'd gain by continuing to focus on my work. I don't know why raising a child would be implicitly more important, either. It is important to society that children, in aggregate, are raised well, but the necessity to take the time to raise any one child in particular only arises once they exist in the first place.
in many places, having children is also a personal necessity, in that the only way someone can retire in their old age is to have children who will support them.
All of the countries mentioned in the OP are First World nations. At least in the U.S., investing in index funds and putting whatever spare income you have in your 401K are likely better bets than hoping your offspring might support you in your dotage.
You may say that there should be fewer children, but it's absolutely necessary that there be some children for the next generation.
Of course. But we have more than seven billion people presently, compared to around 3 billion just 50 years ago. We're really in no danger of going extinct if far fewer couples have children. Many, many other species are going extinct in the current Holocene extinction, though, because we keep pushing the limits of the planet's carrying capacity for humans.
Society as a whole benefits from having children, full stop.
Except in aggregate, when we're just beginning to suffer the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Society is also not benefited when its supply of workers is increasing while demand for its labor force is shrinking at an unprecedented rate (thanks to globalization and rapidly increasing efficiency brought to us by advances in software and automation). Resources are not infinite, and job growth is not unlimited.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 4:37 PM on February 24, 2016
If you're stagnating in your job in the current economic climate, your future is precarious. Continual professional development is becoming a necessity to stay competitive. As a scientist I have to keep reading journal articles and learning new methods. Raising a child takes a lot of time and skill to do correctly, but the skills are not as useful to the companies who are actually paying my salary as the ones I'd gain by continuing to focus on my work. I don't know why raising a child would be implicitly more important, either. It is important to society that children, in aggregate, are raised well, but the necessity to take the time to raise any one child in particular only arises once they exist in the first place.
in many places, having children is also a personal necessity, in that the only way someone can retire in their old age is to have children who will support them.
All of the countries mentioned in the OP are First World nations. At least in the U.S., investing in index funds and putting whatever spare income you have in your 401K are likely better bets than hoping your offspring might support you in your dotage.
You may say that there should be fewer children, but it's absolutely necessary that there be some children for the next generation.
Of course. But we have more than seven billion people presently, compared to around 3 billion just 50 years ago. We're really in no danger of going extinct if far fewer couples have children. Many, many other species are going extinct in the current Holocene extinction, though, because we keep pushing the limits of the planet's carrying capacity for humans.
Society as a whole benefits from having children, full stop.
Except in aggregate, when we're just beginning to suffer the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Society is also not benefited when its supply of workers is increasing while demand for its labor force is shrinking at an unprecedented rate (thanks to globalization and rapidly increasing efficiency brought to us by advances in software and automation). Resources are not infinite, and job growth is not unlimited.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 4:37 PM on February 24, 2016
So the only way to save the planet is by sexist pay practices? Excellent, we're well on our way to safety.
posted by mittens at 5:00 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by mittens at 5:00 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
Not sure how you came to that interpretation. I said in my original comment that the fact that women are more heavily burdened by a couple's choice to have children should be addressed. I'm just saying that it is understandable that someone who does choose to leave the workforce, male or female, for "blocks of time to bear and raise children" would make less than someone who does not make that choice, and I haven't seen a compelling argument otherwise. I brought up the environment in response to people arguing that more children is an unequivocal, "full stop" good thing for society. It most certainly is not, and I'm not sure why employers should be expected to foot the bill for it.
posted by Thoughtcrime at 5:18 PM on February 24, 2016
posted by Thoughtcrime at 5:18 PM on February 24, 2016
this isn't actually a blog about how you feel about people having kids.
posted by nadawi at 5:20 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 5:20 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
On a global scale, slowing our population might be beneficial. But it's one of the factors cited behind Russia's lackluster economy. The US's declining labor participation rate is cited as concern for market stability. It's not exactly an environmental position that comes without significant costs, particularly for a first world nation that depends on a stable payroll tax to fund it's social programs.
But regardless of your opinion on child-rearing: Women shouldn't bear the full economic cost. Men should be equally expected to put their career on hold for this environmentally unsound venture. These women typically aren't getting pregnant by themselves.
But married men are expected to be better workers, because they have wives to manage their personal lives so they can be fully present at the office. Married women are viewed as a risk, because they will deprive the office of labor when they get pregnant, and will always have one foot out the door as they try to juggle their work and home life.
And I don't buy that comparative advantage applies here. Productivity is u-shaped. Our current climate of expecting overtime hours is simply baking poor decision making and stupid mistakes into the system. Biases work here as well. If we think the person is a hard worker, we are impressed that they went the extra mile to deal with significant market headwinds. If we don't, we attribute success to easy market conditions, or failure due to the fact that they are a failure.
posted by politikitty at 5:31 PM on February 24, 2016
But regardless of your opinion on child-rearing: Women shouldn't bear the full economic cost. Men should be equally expected to put their career on hold for this environmentally unsound venture. These women typically aren't getting pregnant by themselves.
But married men are expected to be better workers, because they have wives to manage their personal lives so they can be fully present at the office. Married women are viewed as a risk, because they will deprive the office of labor when they get pregnant, and will always have one foot out the door as they try to juggle their work and home life.
And I don't buy that comparative advantage applies here. Productivity is u-shaped. Our current climate of expecting overtime hours is simply baking poor decision making and stupid mistakes into the system. Biases work here as well. If we think the person is a hard worker, we are impressed that they went the extra mile to deal with significant market headwinds. If we don't, we attribute success to easy market conditions, or failure due to the fact that they are a failure.
posted by politikitty at 5:31 PM on February 24, 2016
Except in aggregate, when we're just beginning to suffer the effects of anthropogenic climate change.
Children are still a social good even though we have global overpopulation. The forces driving fertility rates and human lifespans are much more complex than any individual's or couple's decision to reproduce.
posted by gingerest at 5:38 PM on February 24, 2016
Children are still a social good even though we have global overpopulation. The forces driving fertility rates and human lifespans are much more complex than any individual's or couple's decision to reproduce.
posted by gingerest at 5:38 PM on February 24, 2016
All of the countries mentioned in the OP are First World nations. At least in the U.S., investing in index funds and putting whatever spare income you have in your 401K are likely better bets than hoping your offspring might support you in your dotage.
I was talking about the USA. Like, people I personally know. There are lots of people who don't have a 401k and never will. That includes immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but it also includes born-American citizens who work retail, or food service, and that's the extent of their career. They make a living wage, generally, but they're not going to be a manager, so there is no job security and no benefits and no employer-matched anything, and no retirement for them. Not until their children have children and they can take a role as live-in childcare. Maybe not even then.
There's also a few young women I know who want to be a mother and a homemaker in part for lack of other career options. In the USA. Though to be fair at least one of them actually wants to be a mother, and there's no other career or vocation she actually wants to do.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 6:16 PM on February 24, 2016
I was talking about the USA. Like, people I personally know. There are lots of people who don't have a 401k and never will. That includes immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but it also includes born-American citizens who work retail, or food service, and that's the extent of their career. They make a living wage, generally, but they're not going to be a manager, so there is no job security and no benefits and no employer-matched anything, and no retirement for them. Not until their children have children and they can take a role as live-in childcare. Maybe not even then.
There's also a few young women I know who want to be a mother and a homemaker in part for lack of other career options. In the USA. Though to be fair at least one of them actually wants to be a mother, and there's no other career or vocation she actually wants to do.
posted by Rainbo Vagrant at 6:16 PM on February 24, 2016
xvender, I objected to the argument that otherwise there would be a MASSIVE arbitrage opportunity here, where firms would exclusively hire women to obtain the same quality of work for only 78% of the cost and thus beat out their competition.
This does exist. It is illegal to say "I only hire women" so you set the pay rate lower and target the jobs at primary caregivers by offering things they need (like maternity leave to allow them to not work while recovering from stitches in their vagina, and the option to pick up kids from school with flexible hours). Then when women disproportionately take these jobs because the other option is to not work at all or leave their children sitting outside their school for four hours each afternoon or pay 120% of their salary in childcare, the market points and says 'well I guess it's just WOMEN'S CHOICES causing the pay gap, nothing to see here!' and 'well I'd take a pay cut too for all that vacation time! (but I don't want to and don't have any commitments that force me to)' Or you take your existing female employees and refuse to give them a promotion because they don't stay for happy hour or express dedication by working weekends and so they continue turning out the same quality work as their 'senior' colleagues but never get the pay raise to go with it.
This is arbitrage. This is profiting by exploiting the more limited options that primary caregivers have, and they are disproportionately women. And it's invisible to people who want to pretend it doesn't exist because it's "different jobs".
Hence my point: we'll never get anywhere arguing that a female junior analyst should be paid the same as a male manager in the name of equality.
It shows a truly infuriating dedication to building strawmen to even think that sentence, let alone type it out for public viewing.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 6:53 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
This does exist. It is illegal to say "I only hire women" so you set the pay rate lower and target the jobs at primary caregivers by offering things they need (like maternity leave to allow them to not work while recovering from stitches in their vagina, and the option to pick up kids from school with flexible hours). Then when women disproportionately take these jobs because the other option is to not work at all or leave their children sitting outside their school for four hours each afternoon or pay 120% of their salary in childcare, the market points and says 'well I guess it's just WOMEN'S CHOICES causing the pay gap, nothing to see here!' and 'well I'd take a pay cut too for all that vacation time! (but I don't want to and don't have any commitments that force me to)' Or you take your existing female employees and refuse to give them a promotion because they don't stay for happy hour or express dedication by working weekends and so they continue turning out the same quality work as their 'senior' colleagues but never get the pay raise to go with it.
This is arbitrage. This is profiting by exploiting the more limited options that primary caregivers have, and they are disproportionately women. And it's invisible to people who want to pretend it doesn't exist because it's "different jobs".
Hence my point: we'll never get anywhere arguing that a female junior analyst should be paid the same as a male manager in the name of equality.
It shows a truly infuriating dedication to building strawmen to even think that sentence, let alone type it out for public viewing.
posted by the agents of KAOS at 6:53 PM on February 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
« Older "Side Note: Three Broomsticks Inn does not take... | There are trolls in this forest Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mittens at 2:48 PM on February 23, 2016 [19 favorites]