>
Men’s Rights Myth: The Pay Gap between men and women doesn’t exist, but if it does, it’s because women choose to take lesser paying jobs, or because they decide to have kids, or because men work more dangerous jobs, or something.
The Truth: It’s complicated. Some of those things do make a difference. But no matter how you crunch the numbers or spin the results, there is a persistent pay gap between men and women that can’t be explained away by life choices or any of the other factors that MRAs and others suggest may “really” account for the differences.
You want the gory details? Check out these articles, studies and blog posts.
AAUW (American Association of University Women): The Gender Pay Gap
Women have made remarkable strides in education during the past three decades, but these gains have yet to translate into full equity in pay — even for college-educated women who work full time. A typical college-educated woman 25 years and older working full time earns $50,000 a year compared to $70,000 for college-educated male workers 25 years and older — a difference of $20,000! …
For the entire full-time workforce, a typical woman earned $35,745 compared with $46,367 for a typical man, a pay difference of $10,622.
EXAMINING THE CRACKS IN THE CEILING: A SURVEY OF CORPORATE DIVERSITY PRACTICES OF THE S&P 100 (Calvert investments)
The “Glass Ceiling” is still a problem (emphasis added):
We remain disheartened by the glacial pace at which women and minorities are reaching the upper echelons of power. … Of the 100 CEOs represented [in the S&P 100], 92 are Caucasian males. While women make up approximately 18% of director positions within the S&P 100, they represent only 8.4% of the highest paid positions within the same group of companies, positions that provide the opportunities to develop the expertise and networks needed for future board-level appointments.
Why Do Women Still Earn Less Than Men? by Laura Fitzpatrick (Time magazine)
U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) …
Once you control for factors like education and experience … women’s earnings rise to 81% of men’s. Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%. That’s partly because women tend to cluster in lower-paying fields. …
But industry doesn’t tell the whole story. Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 … Female secretaries … earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers … earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts.
Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings (GAO report, 2003) (Emphasis added)
Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men. Other factors that account for earnings differences include industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000. While the difference fluctuated in each year we studied, there was a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over the time period. Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women. … we cannot determine whether this remaining difference is due to discrimination or other factors that may affect earnings.
Blaming Women’s Choices for the Gender Pay Gap, by Hilary M. Lips
The language attributing women’s lower pay to their own lifestyle choices is seductive—in an era when women are widely believed to have overcome the most serious forms of discrimination … Women work in lower-paid occupations; on average they work fewer paid hours per week and fewer paid weeks per year than men do; their employment is more likely than men’s to be discontinuous. …
However, a closer look reveals that the language of “choice” obscures larger social forces that maintain the wage gap and the very real constraints under which women labor. The impact of discrimination, far from being limited to the portion of the wage gap that cannot be accounted for by women’s choices, is actually deeply embedded in and constrains these choices.
See also:
The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the Rationalizations, by Hilary M. Lips
Confronting the Gender Gap in Wages, by Deborah Kolb, Judith Williams, and Carol Frohlinger
Barry Deutsch at Alas, a blog has written a series of excellent posts analyzing various antifeminist pay gap myths. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights:
Wage Gap Myth: The pay gap only exists because men work so many more hours than women.
[T]he argument is generally that the pay gap … has nothing to do with discrimination. … Women are paid less because they work so many fewer hours …
According to a [Department of Labor] web page in 2001 … comparing only hourly wages, women were paid 83.2% of what men were paid in 2000. 83.2% is a noticible difference from the 76% figure for weekly full-time wages – but it still leaves the majority of the pay gap unaccounted for.
Myth: The pay gap only exists because women take time off from work to raise kids.
[T]he average female worker has 12.79 years of full-time experience, while the average male worker has 17.41. This difference accounted for between 26% and 30% of the total wage gap.
Myth: The pay gap only exists because women haven’t been in the workplace as long as men
In this view, the pay gap is only still around because women only recently entered the workforce; as such, women haven’t had as much time to work their way up the employment ladder to the well-paid positions. …
[E]xactly how long must we wait…? A woman who had been in the workforce five years when the Equal Pay Act was passed [in 1963] might well be retired by now, and the pay gap still hasn’t gone away.
Myth: The best way to measure the pay gap is to consider only the young and the childless
[T]he effects of discrimination add up over a lifetime. So, for example, losing a single job offer or promotion usually won’t make a big difference; but dozens of such small losses over the course of women’s careers eventually add up to a big wage gap.
Some industries have, in effect, saved money by gradually replacing a male work force with a female work force. But there are many reasons employers might retain a male workforce, even though … men are paid more on average.
[E]xamples that clearly demonstrate that economic discrimination against women, contrary to the claims of the anti-feminists, is a real problem.
Myth: The Wage Gap is Caused by Men’s Higher Pay for Dangerous Jobs
It’s true that men are much more likely to die or to be injured on the job than women. Surely no one would be willing to risk their life without getting paid a premium for it; and no reasonable person would argue that extra pay for extra danger is unjust. …
The problem is, there is no premium for dangerous jobs. And since the “danger premium” doesn’t really exist, it can’t explain the wage gap.
Myth: The CONSAD report clearly refutes the notion that there is pay discrimination
There are important kinds of direct employer discrimination which CONSAD’s methods cannot measure or disprove. For example, some employers are more likely to hire women to lower-paid positions and men to higher-paid positions. (Empirical testing – by sending male and female testers to apply for the same jobs — has proven that this sort of sexist occupational sorting sometimes happens.) …
[P]robably the most important kind of sexism going into the wage gap is the sexism of unquestioned assumptions; unquestioned assumptions about who does the housework, unquestioned assumptions about who does the child-rearing, unquestioned assumptions about innate ability, and most of all, unquestioned assumptions about how jobs are designed for people with wives at home.
I call this last factor the “Father Knows Best” economy; most jobs implicitly assume that workers have wives at home who are taking care of the kids and house, so that these responsibilities never need to be accommodated by employers. Maybe that assumption made sense half a century ago, but it doesn’t make sense now; and by continuing to implicitly make this assumption, our economy is making it unfairly difficult for caretakers (who are usually women) to have careers.
>If companies could get away with paying a woman who has equal experience and education to a man less money for the same position, why would they ever hire men in the first place?
>J. Durden, did you even read this post? Some industries have, in effect, saved money by gradually replacing a male work force with a female work force. But there are many reasons employers might retain a male workforce, even though … men are paid more on average.
>You keep posting links to things like "aauw", "womens media" – clearly biased.aauw accepts donations to "combat the problem".If there were no problem – they would get no donations – would they.Also, it seems like many of the links you provide – explain why there is a wage-gap (and it has nothing to do with "sexism").What exactly is the purpose of this post?To back up MRA claims?That is what most of the links you provide do – except the ones that are accepting donations.Get a clue.But of course, you'll just brush me off and tell me to "read" your post eh…
>Scarcrow: are cancer research facilities unreliable sources for the extent of the problem of cancer?If there is a problem in their methodology, point it out. You cannot just throw out an argument because of the source.
>I also like how you put read in quotes. "Read", pshaw, whatever that means.
>As usual, not one specific employer who pays women less than men for doing the same job at the same proficiency with the same seniority is named, NOT ONE. Gee, could that be because the claim is bullshit and if any specific employer were named, a libel suit would result?
>Cold, that is some very sloppy thinking. It does not matter what a specific employer. Statistically, a woman makes less than a man for the same work, and the difference is not accounted for in hours worked, experience, time off, or any other factor that has been examined. It is true whether you compare all jobs or like jobs. It would not prove or disprove anything if we cited examples of specific employers behaviors without a statistical analysis.
>It most certainly DOES matter, because you can't actually identify any discriminators, then it's VERY sloppy thinking to claim that discrimination has anything to do with the income gap.
>No, it is not sloppy thinking, Cold. This is statistical evidence of discrimination because there is a real difference between the groups that cannot be fully explained by any other factor.Even if it is not due to discrimination, it is a real difference, not explained by factors such due to choice, which makes it a problem.
>Oh, and statistically, men are four times more likely to kill themselves and ten times more likely to wind up in prison, but you'll probably chalk that up to "life choices".
>No, I would not. It is also a serious problem that men are more likely to kill themselves and be in prisoned, and a serious problem that black people are more likely to be in prison.I do not need affidavits from individual judges stating that they sentence black men to longer sentences because they are black men to know there is discrimination. I can see it because a singe factor: race, is a predictor of sentencing, while no other factors explain the difference.The same is true for the gender gap. A factor: gender, effects differences in wages, and other factors do not fully explain the difference.
>If it's not due to discrimination then I don't give a shit about it because we're talking about differences in outcome instead of differences in opportunity. An individual who is not facing any discrimination can take it upon him/herself to find the best-paying job that his/her skills and experience justify, or start his/her own business and run it to the best of his/her ability. Incidentally, female entrepreneurs enjoy "positive discrimination" in the form of government grants.
>My point is we have not found any factor that is a personal choice that explains the difference, and that is a problem.
>"I can see it because a singe factor: race, is a predictor of sentencing, while no other factors explain the difference."Does this hold true when you remove EVERY other variable, i.e. nature of the crime, past criminal history, etc.?"A factor: gender, effects differences in wages, and other factors do not fully explain the difference."This is practically creationist logic. "Science doesn't explain this perfectly and fully, therefore God did it." Except in this case, other factors actually do explain it just fine, but David sites biased sources that look for ways to handwave away those explanations.
>Yes, it holds true when you remove every variable. The same for the gender wage gap.It is not creationist logic. Gender, unlike god, is a testable factor. We can see that gender effects wage and other factors do not explain the difference. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it is the gender that is causing the wage difference.
>Actually it's a faulty analogy to compare judges and employers for two important reasons:1. Judges don't have any of their own money riding on their decision; it costs them nothing to be prejudiced in their decision-making as long as nobody can ever prove it. Employers, on the other hand, are throwing their own money away if they don't hire the best-qualified person for a job.2. If you don't like the decisions your employer makes, you can quit and find another job. If you don't like the sentencing decisions a judge makes, you don't have the option of finding someone else to sentence you.
>It is not a faulty analogy because we are not arguing over whether the Judge or employers behavior is a problem or one is bigger problem than the other, we are arguing over whether we can tell there is discrimination without asking the individual decision makers or examining the individual decision makers decisions.God, your thinking is sloppy.
>"Yes, it holds true when you remove every variable. The same for the gender wage gap."Prove it."Gender, unlike god, is a testable factor."You completely missed the point. I wasn't comparing God to gender, I was comparing God to the specific things causing a wage difference. To imply that your idea of what causes it is true as long as all alternative explanations fail to fully account for it is a logical fallacy, same as when creations claim that because science doesn't explain the origin of like PERFECTLY, the creationist claim that "God did it" must be correct.I still have yet to see a situation where women get paid less than men for doing the same job at the same proficiency with the same employer, but I just remembered that there is one field where MEN get paid less after accounting for all other variables, and that is in the porn business.
>"God, my thinking is sloppy."Fixed it for you.
>The specific thing that causes the wage difference is gender.
>Prove it.
>Read the post above, women get paid less for doing the same jobs, and this is not explained by experience, time off, hours worked, or job danger. If you want to see it for yourself, you have only to read the studies cited above.
>But it is explained by: gender. Gender is the factor that explains the difference.
>The studies do not prove that women get pain less for doing the same jobs with the same hours, proficiency, and experience with the same employers. If you think they do, then YOU either did not read them or failed to apply any critical analysis.
>"But it is explained by: gender. Gender is the factor that explains the difference."If you're talking about the porn industry pay gap, it's actually explained by differences in supply and demand for female "talent" vs. male "talent". So, while it's technically true that "gender explains the difference" in an indirect way, it's sloppy thinking to say that without actually looking carefully at WHY this is the case.