This email on the wage and education gap between men and women caused quite a stir. A reader writes:
Your earlier reader wrote:
Of course women with PhDs are likely to earn less than men with PhDs. Women are overwhelmingly earning PhDs in liberal arts, while men earn more PhDs in hard science and business. Hard sciences and business PhDs pay a lot more, for two simple reasons (and neither of them gender-related)
Your reader completely misses the fact that gender-related socialization starts *immediately.* There is plenty of research that supports the fact that boys are steered toward math and science even in elementary school. Girls "like" to read and write; boys "like to do math and science." This is purely socially constructed, not at all related to the biology of the students. It only makes sense that it would continue to play out throughout life, including college choices, and career choices.
Another reader digs into the literature:
There's no reason to perpetuate the it's-their-own-impoverishing-choices myth when defending unequal pay for women. What about this? A full report of the study can be downloaded here. Or just read this:
Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers, for instance, earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts.
We women are really, really tired of being told that it's our own fault we're paid so little. We're even more tired of pointing to the research that shows persistent inequality, and having men dismiss it with a wave of the hand and whatever explanation suits them best. The reaction is so predictable and fighting it feels so pointless, every time the topic comes up – so most the time it's just like, why bother anymore? My favorite is always when a man tells me "I know for a fact every women in my organization is paid as much if not more than men of similar experience and rank." (Eerily similar to how my very white friends know for a fact that black people aren't discriminated against anymore in their town.) You know what? Maybe it IS a fact, in what you've seen of your little corner of the world. But your truth isn't the truth.
Another piles on:
REALLY? Women just happen to make these particular choices completely freely?
Your reader starts out with a comparison between hard science and liberal arts, completely eliding the biological sciences where women have earned more than 50% of advanced degrees for some time now and where there are plenty of career paths outside academia and plenty of grant money within for universities to compete over.
Then:
"For example, men are far more likely to: work in dangerous professions, work outdoors, commute long hours, work 50+ hours a week, travel at work’s behest, and enter fields that are less personally satisfying (e.g., accountant vs. kindergarten teacher)."
Who exactly do you think is freeing men from the other responsibilities of life (childcare primarily) so they can work 50+ hours a week and take on long commutes? It's notable that dangerous professions (firefighting, thw military, etc.) have been among the most hostile and sexist environments for women who do try to enter them. And who says being a kindergarten teacher is more satisfying than being an accountant? I'd tend to think it depends on the person in question. Next:
"Further, many young women will choose a career path in college (when they are 19) in anticipation of balancing work and family demands that may not arise for a decade or more."
Where are women getting the idea that they should do this? Not out of thin air – our society tells young women that it's entirely their responsibility to plan and accommodate their careers so they don't inconvenience their employers if/when they have kids. (Young women get way too many messages that they shouldn't inconvenience other people in general.)
The expectations on men don't help at all – in fact they're one of the biggest problems now. Particularly for high-achieving men, there is an expectation that work will come first in their life, period. For that to be a reality and for them to have a family (things never presented in opposition or as a "choice" when we're talking about men), that means somebody else does all of the accommodating. Guess who?
Even at the high end, this New York Magazine article about older parents mentions that 75% of executive women have spouses who work full time; 75% of executive men have spouses who don't do paid work at all. Which executives are able to give more focus to their jobs?
Look, I 100% agree with the guy about Sheryl Sandburg's talk – it's a great one and great advice, but the idea that there's no sexism in this situation is ridiculous.
A final reader:
Women straight out of MBA programs earn $4,700 on average less than their male counterparts and start lower on the business ladder, as well. That research study controlled for the factors your reader cites, namely his claim that women shoot lower because we just think about having babies. This may certainly be what some women are doing, but it doesn't affect the results of the study.
Now for law degrees. From the National Law Journal (via Above the Law):
"The National Association of Women Lawyers concluded last year that female equity partners make an average $66,000 less a year than male equivalents." [my emphasis].
$66,000 dollars! That's an incredibly significant amount of money, especially over many years of not being able to build the same amount of wealth. The authors of this study also ruled out family responsibilities as a major factor in the gap, finding that straight up gender discrimination and bullying accounted for the majority of the disparity.
I understand this argument began with Ph.D's. But looking at the original chart, women are earning over half the degrees in life sciences, which includes medical research, biotechnical fields, and agricultural sciences, not ivory tower material. It also includes social sciences, of which surely many are Psychology, also a practicing field not simply fit for academia.
I have a feeling the same imbalances would persist in these fields as in business and law. The reader may have a point about liberal arts degrees, but it is ridiculous and, frankly, insulting to claim that the wage gap isn't real and we are all simply bringing it on ourselves by being less ambitious. (And this isn't even getting into the historical reasons that teachers, librarians, and health workers make less. It couldn't possibly be that they have always been devalued because it's women's work, could it?)
The Dish 