Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Can someone explain why this is?

Women still make $0.81 to men's $1.00.


I read elsewhere--I think in relation to the GAO's study from 2000--that while women with children make less than women without children, men with children make more than their childless counterparts.


Clearly there is something about trying to combine motherhood and out-of-home work that is detrimental to a woman's earning power, and this makes sense in light of the potential for increased absenteeism and decreased "commitment" to one's job in favor of family responsibilities (although I find the latter arguable). But the fact that fathers' incomes are not similarly affected indicates that women are still bearing the brunt of the child-rearing burden. And I wish someone could explain to me why that is.


On the other hand, Diana Furchtgott-Roth argues in her blog that the gender pay gap is a myth. Predictably, she manages to blame feminists, saying that they view women who prioritize families as "societal problems." Those feminists, trying to destroy the family again.


What say you?

6 comments:

  1. I thought that fathers made the most because the fathers are least likely to (have to) run the household. Do they control for divorced fathers in that study? Because I bet divorced fathers who don't live with their children work a lot and make a lot as a result.

    I couldn't bring myself to read all of the blog post you linked to, mostly because she starts with unemployment numbers and uses them in a problematic way. Women are more likely to be working part-time and as a result not counted as unemployed. We're more often underemployed or forced out of the workforce, especially with child care costs being so high. I think the statistic showing that men are facing higher unemployment in part only reflects that men are employed in ways that are counted. I've been unemployed twice before (just ending unemployment now) but I was never eligible for unemployment pay, and I'm assuming that means I've never been counted as unemployed, either.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hope to be unemployed while the minnow is a baby, but we have to sit down and balance what it would cost for day care versus what it would cost for me to teach comp. part-time (versus what my sanity would look like staying at home with a little one... all... alone... except two crazed dogs). The crazy thing is, or maybe the normal thing is, because of our career choices, I will never catch up to Ryan in paychecks. We both started our professional career at the same time (me teaching high school, him at the place he's still at) and made comparable salaries. Maybe a few grand apart. But by the time I left teaching high school, his job that requires sitting at a computer all day had far surpassed my measly deal-with-crazed-students paycheck. It has nothing to do with gender, since my male counterpart was just as paycheck-starving and his female counterpart was doing just fine, but sometimes I wonder why my brain didn't have a passion for something society valued more. And then I just remembered I was happy I could *do* something that made me happy and didn't decide to simply teach high school until I withered away.

    This has nothing to do with your post. I'm just being a memoirist. (Ha ha) (And by the way, after poetry, memoir is my second genre I write in! Surprise.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Molly: I think women -- especially women who value family -- often choose careers that will allow for a certain amount of child-flexibility. I don't think that's the same for most men who plan to be fathers someday.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I haven't felt the gender gap quite so much in my last few jobs. What I have felt is being paid less because I don't have a degree, even though I have far more experience than the person with the degree.
    I also have felt the divide between childless women vs. mothers in the working world. I tend to have to take on more work and more OT while mothers take a lot of time off to tend to sick kids, run to doctor appointments and take leave to bond with their newborns. Don't get me wrong, I full-on support motherhood and I'm glad there's laws to protect women and fathers who want to bond with their children and take care of them...but I wish companies would hire temp help instead of piling the extra work onto other employees just because we don't have children. At my last job I kept being denied time off for my own doctor appointments because of "business needs" but the pregnant ladies got to be gone three times a week for doctor appointments under FMLA. Should I be denied time to go to the doctor just because I'm not pregnant? Where's my protection so I can stay healthy?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Amber, I agree, and I think employers are doing both camps of women a disservice. It isn't fair that childless employees are put under additional strain to cover the parents who are forced to take time off for child-related reasons, and it isn't fair that the parents are passed over for promotions and viewed as "not team players," when often the absenteeism is unavoidable (e.g. kid has a fever and daycare policy means they have to stay home until 24 hours after the fever has broken). It breeds resentment in the workplace, and that's not good for anyone.

    It would be nice if more communities had sick child daycares, and more employers would kick in for the cost, so that parents could still be at work when the kid is just a little sick, but too sick for school/daycare. I looked into a couple of sick child babysitting services here, but at $25 an hour plus travel fee, and a 4-hour minimum, it was impossible on a grad student's stipend...so my sick kid came to my thesis defense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree about sick-child services being desperately needed. Knowing their sick child is being taken care of at a fair price would do a lot to ease a working parent's mind and let them focus on doing their due diligence for the workplace. What I've noticed is that companies just don't care. With the economy the way it is, companies have the mindset that there's always someone willing to take your place who can be paid less and will be trained to do more work. It's not a worker's market anymore.
    Childcare is so freaking expensive in general that many couples I know choose to have one parent stay home because it's cheaper to lose that person's income than pay for monthly childcare. That is HORRID. Families struggle to survive and often are forced into some sort of State or Federal help programs while companies report record earnings. Isn't the point of having a job that you don't need assistance or have to amount substantial debt? Apparently, not anymore.

    ReplyDelete