My, oh my, the blogosphere is all a-sizzle with talk of the wage gap.
Not over whether there is one (there’s progress for you), but whether it matters. And whose fault it is, of course.
It started like this: Feministing took Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum to task for her recent Washington Post column on how, in sum, the wage gap is really the fault of women for choosing the wrong careers, staying home with children, prioritizing money less and being unwilling to do the "tough" jobs men do.
I will confess that reading her op-ed got my feathers in a ruffle. But, being the rational, responsible, informed blogger-type that I strive to be, I set off to do some independent research.
I checked out some information on the book Carrie cites, Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap and What Women Can Do About It by Dr. Warren Farrell. Not having time to read the entire book, because my boss actually insists that I work while I’m here, I consulted a review. The review explained that the book cites these issues as a significant factor in why women continue to earn less than men throughout our society:
1. Women choose fulfilling, overly saturated jobs and careers.
2. Women avoid well-paying, but risky work.
3. Women avoid nontraditional fields.
4. Women ignore career paths that would make them more upwardly mobil.
5. Women work fewer hours.
I found my feathers, again, ruffled. But wasn’t sure why. Was I having a knee-jerk reaction, unable to look the truth in the eye and see that really women’s issues are a result of women’s own, well, issues?
Nah, I didn’t think so. Given my last post on pay equity for women, I’m a girl who can own my gender’s stuff as a means to empowerment when necessary.
No, it felt like something more than that. It basically just felt like something wasn’t quite right, wasn’t entirely accurate here. That part of the picture was obscured.
So, of course, respectable blogger and all that I am, I checked the assumptions.
1. Women choose fulfilling, overly saturated jobs and careers (that pay less).
Really?
Because according to a recent article, "10 Industries Where Women Rule," women are moving upwards and onwards in fields like: healthcare (78%), employment services (57.4%), educational services (69%), social assistance (73.8%), pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing (46.3%), advertising and PR (52.3%), day care (95.8%), insurance (60.9%), hotels and lodging (57%) and advocacy/grantmaking/civic organizations (66.9%).
Health care is currently experiencing a serious nursing shortage, and has been for many years. As far as I know, quality educators are also equally sought after and increasingly harder and harder to find. The pharmaceutical field seems to be faring similarly.
And the issue in these fields (well, education and nursing in any case) is that, by and large, they do not pay well. Often, to be a teacher, a second income (either from a spouse or second job) is required if one is to be able to afford a reasonable standard of living.
Not to mention that these fields require ongoing education and certifications, none of which is free.
So, I would ask, is it really fair to say that the wage gap is a result of women’s tendencies towards saturated, overly desirable fields, when a number of the top fields employing women now are some requiring the most rigorous, difficult work with extreme stress (children and lives in your hands), difficult hours and generally low wages?
Rather, as per my last post on the inequity of women’s wages and advancement in the nonprofit sector (despite their being the overwhelming majority of employees), I would contend that the issue is that these sectors–despite their overwhelming importance and service of fundamental needs in our society–go largely undercompensated and undervalued.
Whether this is because they have always largely been fields occupied by women, or because of a general societal statement about their worth as industries, I won’t speculate. Because in the end it doesn’t matter. What matters is that women continue to subsidize–at the expense of their own economic security and equity–these fields crucial to our social makeup.
So is the only solution really that we discourage women from taking these jobs, that we narrow even further the already slim applicant pools and further drive down quality?
Or do we, perhaps, as a society, determine that perhaps these fields warrant the pay, respect and advancement opportunities worthy of the services they provide–that it no longer be acceptable to pay less for "women’s work" (which we do) just because it is done by women?
2. Women avoid well-paying, but risky work.
Or, again, perhaps our society has mis-defined "risky" work. A recent report done on trade union initiatives revealed that, in fact, it is a signfiicant misperception, in Europe and in the U.S., that, men do the physical hard work and women do not. The report states, "Men do heavy, dangerous work, women do light, safe work – so it’s men that are at risk of musculoskeletal disorders. Nothing could be further from the truth."
So, while no, women may not be terribly prevalent in The 10 Most Dangerous Jobs in America, it is not entirely correct to assume that their pay is a reflection of the physical risks associated with their work. There are risks (carpal tunnel syndrome, mental health strain, dangerous locations, contact with aggressive people, etc.) related to a number of industries that employ a number of women that are underestimated as a source of emotional, financial or phsycial strain on employees.
3. Women avoid nontraditional fields.
I guess if this were entirely untrue, the fields wouldn’t be considered nontraditional.
But I must say that given the number of successful training and placement programs for women to prepare them for nontraditional careers funded by The Women’s Foundation–from construction to telehealth to security to real-estate–I have trouble accepting this outright.
Then there is the fact that the barriers to nontraditional work for women are not minimal–and are not controlled by the women who may or may not choose to go into those fields. Barriers include sexual harrassment (in classrooms and on the job), unsupportive friends and family, lack of role models, lack of access to education, training or experience, lack of support services (child care, transportation) and discrimination on the job.
So, while yes, increasingly women entering nontraditional industries and jobs will help increase their pay equity and economic security, there are very real, complex societal and industry-based barriers to these careers that must also be addressed.
As a case in point, programs such as those funded by The Women’s Foundation do so, and women engage in these trainings with great enthusiasm and success.
And with that, I’ll stop. Numbers 4 and 5 are another post for another day.
For today, I wanted to just add my two cents to this dialogue with a statement that conversations that continually assert that the wage gap is entirely the fault of women’s choices concern me deeply because they ignore and invalidate two of the primary changes that need to be made to ensure economic security and equity for women:
1) Increased pay, respect and value of fields traditionally occupied by women–which, I feel, would not only benefit women, but society as a whole through increased quality of important social services such as health care, education, mental health care, etc. Underfunding and underpaying these fields is a disservice to everyone–not just those who work in them.
2) Elimination of barriers to nontraditional fields and increased support services to enable and encourage access to those fields for women, which must include a true understanding of–and commitment to addressing–the complex factors that inhibit women’s participation.
There, said it. I can feel my feathers unruffling as I type.
For more information on some exciting programs doing excellent work locally on removing the barriers to nontraditional work for women, check out the Goodwill’s construction training program for women or Northern Virginia Family Service’s Training Futures. Community Preservation and Development Organization has also had a successful training in telehealth and Casa of Maryland continually encourages women who take its English and women’s program courses to apply for jobs traditionally held by men.
There are multitudes of others, all of whom are doing the heavy lifting necessary not only to evaluate and determine those fields that will be increasingly lucrative and accessible to women, but providing the services and support necessary to help them get there.
And that’s what I call a holistic approach to the wage-gap.
