Admittedly, there are many. Among them, one of the most glaring is the following:
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37289063&nid=151&title=americas-cheap-labor-women&s_cid=queue-4
Ok, I do understand some of this. The rationale goes like this:
1. Women choose career paths that are lower-paid (teaching being the most obvious, but nursing, administrative/office workers, etc. are also very clearly where more women are employed).
2. Women are a riskier choice for tenure-track and higher-paying positions due to potential health and lifestyle choices (bearing children and raising families are traditionally the purview of women).
3. Men tend to be in a particular industry longer, allowing them to have more time in grade.
4. Women simply aren't demanding the higher wages. If women were to ask for better money, they'd get it.
I'd like to look at each one of these.
1. Lower-paid career paths. This is interesting to me on two levels. First off, as the news story points out, this is just not true. Even in the same career tracks, women make less money than men. It is not equal pay for equal work. And there's no logical reason why this should be the case, other than latent sexism that is built into our society. But more troubling to me is the idea that these career paths are viewed for some reason as being less valuable. We pay millions for talented professional athletes, musicians, and actors, while neglecting the foundation of our society. It says a lot about us as a society, and it's not good.
2. Women's health and lifestyle choices. This bothers me for a couple of reasons. We should encourage people (of both sexes) to pursue their lifestyles of choice, understanding that motivated people in any area and of any sex are beneficial to any endeavor. Whether raising a family or climbing a corporate ladder, whether changing diapers or changing engineering standards, women and men should feel free to choose their own life, and should be encouraged to do so. Surely parents of small children feel responsibility towards their families, which is only right. But that does not limit them in any way from contributing. Further, having time off for the nurture and care of these children does not diminish one's ability to innovate, to be creative, or to help an organization succeed. In fact, some people come back to their positions better focused and refreshed. These kinds of decisions should be celebrated, not punished.
3. Tenure. I'm not sure that this argument is justified or rational. I've heard it a lot, but I don't know that it's necessarily true. Regardless, even those folks who have similar time in grade, who should be getting the same pay, clearly do not. And it's a detriment.
4. Wage demanding. This one may be true, but it's also perhaps the most damning. What we do to women in our society in terms of self-esteem and self-value is absolutely appalling. It's unconscionable. On one hand, women are considered to be "too pretty" to be an engineer, while on the other hand they're discouraged from being "too smart", "too aggressive", or "too masculine". So while those women who may succeed for all the best reasons - talent, intelligence, ability, experience, etc. - they're discouraged from doing so on every hand, and for those very reasons. Men feel intimidated by successful women, which is the ultimate irony. A successful woman does not diminish a man any more than a bright star diminishes another star. We all work together in the great constellation that is our society, each contributing light where we can. And we should be valued for the light we contribute, not for our sex.
I realize that this is a very complex issue, one that has deep roots and great implications for our society. But I believe that people should be paid commensurate with their skill and ability, not for their sex. I also believe that we should reevaluate which occupations command the highest wages. How we do that may take years to achieve, but awareness is always the first step.
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37289063&nid=151&title=americas-cheap-labor-women&s_cid=queue-4
Ok, I do understand some of this. The rationale goes like this:
1. Women choose career paths that are lower-paid (teaching being the most obvious, but nursing, administrative/office workers, etc. are also very clearly where more women are employed).
2. Women are a riskier choice for tenure-track and higher-paying positions due to potential health and lifestyle choices (bearing children and raising families are traditionally the purview of women).
3. Men tend to be in a particular industry longer, allowing them to have more time in grade.
4. Women simply aren't demanding the higher wages. If women were to ask for better money, they'd get it.
I'd like to look at each one of these.
1. Lower-paid career paths. This is interesting to me on two levels. First off, as the news story points out, this is just not true. Even in the same career tracks, women make less money than men. It is not equal pay for equal work. And there's no logical reason why this should be the case, other than latent sexism that is built into our society. But more troubling to me is the idea that these career paths are viewed for some reason as being less valuable. We pay millions for talented professional athletes, musicians, and actors, while neglecting the foundation of our society. It says a lot about us as a society, and it's not good.
2. Women's health and lifestyle choices. This bothers me for a couple of reasons. We should encourage people (of both sexes) to pursue their lifestyles of choice, understanding that motivated people in any area and of any sex are beneficial to any endeavor. Whether raising a family or climbing a corporate ladder, whether changing diapers or changing engineering standards, women and men should feel free to choose their own life, and should be encouraged to do so. Surely parents of small children feel responsibility towards their families, which is only right. But that does not limit them in any way from contributing. Further, having time off for the nurture and care of these children does not diminish one's ability to innovate, to be creative, or to help an organization succeed. In fact, some people come back to their positions better focused and refreshed. These kinds of decisions should be celebrated, not punished.
3. Tenure. I'm not sure that this argument is justified or rational. I've heard it a lot, but I don't know that it's necessarily true. Regardless, even those folks who have similar time in grade, who should be getting the same pay, clearly do not. And it's a detriment.
4. Wage demanding. This one may be true, but it's also perhaps the most damning. What we do to women in our society in terms of self-esteem and self-value is absolutely appalling. It's unconscionable. On one hand, women are considered to be "too pretty" to be an engineer, while on the other hand they're discouraged from being "too smart", "too aggressive", or "too masculine". So while those women who may succeed for all the best reasons - talent, intelligence, ability, experience, etc. - they're discouraged from doing so on every hand, and for those very reasons. Men feel intimidated by successful women, which is the ultimate irony. A successful woman does not diminish a man any more than a bright star diminishes another star. We all work together in the great constellation that is our society, each contributing light where we can. And we should be valued for the light we contribute, not for our sex.
I realize that this is a very complex issue, one that has deep roots and great implications for our society. But I believe that people should be paid commensurate with their skill and ability, not for their sex. I also believe that we should reevaluate which occupations command the highest wages. How we do that may take years to achieve, but awareness is always the first step.
Comments