20070518   

Michael considered fate at 15:02   |   Permalink   |   Post a Comment

I'm always writing about the gender wage gap around here because I do truly believe that equal work (all things being relative, of course) deserves equal pay. On more than one occasion I have been appalled at the sort of statistical numbers that you can dig up on the differences between male and female salaries. They all say women make less than men - I've seen everything from 59% to 95% - but what they don't make obvious sometimes is the complexity of the issue.

85% of all statistics are misrepresented due to a lack of clearly stating the assumptions in the numbers, and 50% of those are used to support the opposite argument that the numbers support, given a proper understanding.

Okay, that last paragraph was a joke, obviously, but I digress. Back to the wage gap:

..during the 1970s, I led protests against the pay gap. I wore a "59 Cents" pin to reflect my objection to the discrimination I felt was the cause of women earning only 59 cents to each dollar earned by men..

.. But one question haunted me through the years: If an employer has to pay a man one dollar for the same work a woman would do for 59 cents, why would anyone hire a man?

The reality is that the pictures that statistics paint are often made with broad strokes and little to no fine detail. Reporting that the average female wage is 59% that of men, for example, is misleading. Women tend to relocate less, be less inclined to work long hours, and more likely to give up extra money for more family time. If the average female worker in the statistic works 40 hours a week but the average male worker in the statistic works 42 or 45, then the number is flawed or at the very least misleading.

Research on the matter from this decade suggests that things are much less equal than we are led to believe, but not because women get paid less, it is because they get more:

A 2001 survey of business owners with MBAs conducted by the Rochester Institute of Technology found that money was the primary motivator for only 29% of women, versus 76% of men. Women prioritized flexibility, fulfillment, autonomy and safety..

.. But what happens when women make the same lucrative decisions typically made by men? The good news — for women, at least: Women actually earn more. For example, when a male and a female civil engineer both stay with their respective companies for ten years, travel and relocate equally and take the same career risks, the woman ends up making more. And among workers who have never been married and never had children, women earn 117% of what men do. (This factors in education, hours worked and age.)

So, all things being equal, ladies, how is this equal?

I jest. The reality is that our species has some particularly odd social tricks and the female gender is, historically speaking, the lesser sex. Whether this is due to a submissive nature, an overly aggressive attitude by men, or what, it doesn't matter. The facts still remain. I'm not arguing that women haven't gotten the raw end of the deal in many respects. What I am arguing is this:

Life isn't always fair, folks, and the best we can do is put our heads down, motivate, and do what we love and what makes us happy. Women who are career-oriented and willing to put time into their jobs and education and also to select higher paying positions (as opposed to less stressful or responsiblity-bearing spots) can make as much if not more than men. If they aren't, then they don't.

But what about the fact that only women can give birth. This puts them at a disadvantage in the workplace if they want to have children and at a happiness disadvantage if they forgo children for their jobs.

And I reply that men can't have children. This is not an option. See? Life; unfair.. or at the very least, unequal. That's the way it goes.

The more immediate problems to worry about, in my opinion, are the high numbers of children living in poverty and, often, their single mothers who are seemingly getting one of the rawest deals around.