WOMEN AND THE PAY GAP--PART 2

Dear Cathy: I got a "trackback" regarding my blog piece (http://camp2008victory.townhall.com) piece on the "pay-gap" between women and men. I was writing on a conservative site, and as you may imagine, I got a lot of negative comment. (I wrote about my experience at Gulf Oil, U.S. Steel (now USX), and Aetna (among others). I heard often that women "choose" low-paying jobs, so they make less money. I said in essence that I'd never met anyone, male or female, who wouldn't choose a dollar over 77 cents. In politics, economics, and life generally, fair is fair. Anyway, thanks for mentioning my blog. I wish you, your family, and your readers all the best.

steve maloney
ambridge, pa (near pittsburgh)

Cathy - I love that you are talking about this issue. It's something that is usually just swept under the rug and easily forgotten about. Thank you for bringing this out from under the rug, dusting it off and presenting it.

Strike Two.

The comments against your first piece never said that women weren't getting less money overall.

They said that the conclusion.. (ie: women should be getting more than they are) was flawed, because of flawed assumptions.

Namely that men take more risks, work more overtime, are more willing to take on extraneous tasks, and often have more overall years of experience over time as they tend not to take time off for raising children.

The census bureau quotes say nothing about this; and the anecdotal evidence quoted is only that. Obviously many people believe the exact opposite, and stated opposite anecdotes.

And finally, your assertion that "a lot of men have strong opinions" can only be based on your own sexist beliefs. The comments left in the talkback of your previous piece didn't list the gender of the respondents. You simply don't know. Furthermore people with both male and female names were outraged.

Cathy were the three links you provided at the end supposed to support the point of view that you've expressed and that so many were offended by?

In the first link:

"The gender wage gap has indeed been misused by some feminists and some on the political left, to imply that the total difference in average earnings between men and women is evidence of direct wage discrimination of the type where women are not paid the same for exactly the same work as the one men do."

The middle link has the following flaws listed:
(some of which were actually criticisms from your first article.)

"If more women than men worked in jobs that
offered a greater percentage of total compensation in the form of fringe benefits, part of the remaining gender earnings difference could be
explained by differences in the receipt of fringe benefits."

"...does not contain data on education quality or field of study, such as college major."

"Our model is also limited in that the industry and occupation categories that we used are broad."

And from your third and final link...

"Men and women generally have equal pay for equal work now—if they have the same jobs, responsibilities, and skills."

Did you even read any of this stuff?

One final comment to add...

The consensus even from the material you've linked to here is clear.

The "wage gap" is much less than is typically reported (for example, by you); and the much smaller gap that does apparently exist isn't easily discernible as either discrimination or life choices by the individual. To continue to cry that there is gender-based discrimination based on existing reports is just wrong. And that is why you've received so many complaints.

The comments on your first post pointed all of these facts out to you.

You provided material that plainly supports that point of view... and yet you post again about the bleak situation we're in ("I have to agree, all is not well").

Incredible.

I'm done now.

If the only possible reason why men earn more than women is discrimination, why is it that most HR textbooks report that young women now earn substantially more than men in their age group? Why do women earn more than men in some professions with equal qualifications and experience? Men and women are involved in all professions so if your thesis were correct both of these observations would be impossible.

See? You're not the only one who can misuse averages, statistics and generalities in an effort to avoid discussing cause or responsibility, Cathy.

Nobody's saying that there isn't a difference in the average earnings of men and women, even within individual occupations, or that women are somehow worth less. What we're saying is that women need to stand up and take responsibility for their choices because it's those choices which cause the differential in earnings. This has been demonstrated repeatedly as a quick visit to Google or the library will show. Warren Farrell has done some excellent work on this, and you need to read it over.

When you tell women not to accept responsibility for their choices, you're telling them that they aren't equal or capable of doing so and that's an insult to women everywhere. Men are expected to take responsibility for the choices they make so women who wish to remain men's equals are expected to do the same. You're condescending to women by telling them not to take that responsibility and unlike you, I believe women are just as capable as men of doing so.

You seem to be far more interested in supporting the antiquated, misogynistic view that women are incompetent to take responsibility for their own choices than you are in looking for ways to help women optimize their earnings. Perhaps if you were busy using your column to help women understand how those choices can affect their income potential, you'd make a difference in someone's life instead of fanning the flames of sexism.

Alen, Ron -- Calm down.

I generally don't like to respond to comments because I'm not of the belief that the writer must always have the last word, but I do want to set a few things straight.
1) Alen, I surmise that most of the responders to both my postings on this issue are men because I see the original email address, and they appear to be male names. Granted, this evidence would not stand up in a court of law, but then again, neither would any other of the opinions expressed in this contentious debate.
2) I included the links at the end of the second posting because they presented other points of view or analysis on the same topic, and I thought readers might be interested in what others are saying. I expressed no opinion on them--I thought readers could evaluate their material for themselves. As a reporter I try to research all sides of an argument. I am always amazed at how many people respond to a study or report by simply dismissing as untrue any data or analysis that disagrees with theirs, while swearing that their own "evidence" is unimpeachable.
3) Ron, of course I agree that the choices women make affect their income, as I thought I made clear in my first post when I suggested that women might be partly to blame for the wage gap by not asserting themselves in the workplace (a point also made in the AAUW report). But I believe most of all that no one--not you, not me, not the AAUW, not Warren Farrell--knows the definitive story on all this. I do think plenty of people think there is a problem, and I'd rather listen to what they have to say, and try and figure out possible solutions, than attacking them as irresponsible.

Assuming that the people that disagree with you are men is poor form, and sexist, and I think you know it.

"I am always amazed at how many people respond to a study or report by simply dismissing as untrue any data or analysis that disagrees with theirs, while swearing that their own "evidence" is unimpeachable."

And yet, you presented an opinion that ignored all three of those articles overall findings. That the wage gap presented in studies like the census is not as large as previously believed. Instead you quoted the old census numbers.

PS: I am quite calm. Are you?

"I do think plenty of people think there is a problem, and I'd rather listen to what they have to say, and try and figure out possible solutions, than attacking them as irresponsible"

PPS: One of the dissenting commenters with a female name on your first post even said that she was a woman.

So, it seems that your desire to "listen to what [people] have to say" that state problems rather than "attacking" has its boundaries... perhaps the exact same boundary as your ability to "research all sides of an arguement" rather than "simply dismissing [it] as untrue"

If I thought you were actually interested in listening to all of the available evidence or that you were open to conclusions other than those you've already reached I wouldn't have criticized you in the first place. In addition to your use of a biased and incomplete sampling of the data available on this subject, I was criticizing was your blatant attempt to discourage women from taking responsibility for their choices that *materially* influence earnings. Negotiating style is only one of many responsiblities, but you've latched onto that as the only conceivable cause because it supports your preconceived thesis that men are the only reason for women's wage woes (i.e. your suggestion that men somehow prevent women from being assertive - notice the transfer of responsibility to the man in the situation). Just as you assume that any man who disagrees with you is somehow a misogynist, you've predetermined that women earn less only because of male actions.

Women are adults Cathy, not children, and they are perfectly capable of accepting responsibility for their own actions despite what you might think. When people like you begin to realize that, we can start to make some actual progress towards equal opportunity and full legal equality between the sexes. Until then, women will remain where they are and it will be the fault of people like yourself for supporting anachronistic sexism instead of conducting proper research that ignores ideological preconceptions.

To address your methods: you chose to use only data from feminist sources in your pieces aside from references to anecdotes and vague, overly-general census data, demonstrating your clear bias in the process. You then attempted to use those overly-general government statistics and anecdotes to support your predeterminations. Hence my criticism of your methods in addition to my criticism of your ideological conclusions on this matter.

Women's choices about negotiating and "asserting themselves" are a small component of the wage differential but it's been shown time and again that the material choices women make in their careers and working lives are the factors that are most relevant in determining earnings. Regardless of the evidence which you chose to ignore, I see that you have once again chosen to deny that women should take any responsibility for themselves. You've somehow managed to be sexist towards both men and women Cathy, and that's not an easy thing to do.

Once again you've done your level best to dismiss any possible responsibility that might accrue to the women making those choices, not that I'm surprised to see this from a feminist author. It seems to be a sacred cow among your peers that women cannot ever be asked to take responsibility for themselves, which suggests that you and your peers believe that women are somehow incompetent to do so. Ironically enough, this was a major complaint among early feminists, i.e. that patriarchal men were denying women the right or the ability to take responsibility for themselves. Now women like you are doing it. I see no difference between your sexism and the sexism which our ancestors fought.

Where to begin?

Since Cathys statistics are rightfully being called in to question, as any source should be, especially a feminist source, I’ll take the parts of her articles I find the most disturbing.

‘letting them rip…roundly attacked…critics may protest too much…complained….more hate mail…rotten tomatoes…for all those men who complained…let the brickbats rain…etc’

A sample of how Cathy is trying to establish her ‘better than thou’ position by automatically, and negatively, labeling anyone who might possibly disagree with her follow up article as childish or unjustly confrontational. It seems 30 years of misandry has produced exactly what it set out to do. You have to be the correct gender before your taken seriously. When a woman voices her opinion, it’s to be taken seriously, with thought and tact, an example of free speech and healthy debate. When a man does the same, its ‘rotten tomatoes’ and we are just complaining.

Well, here are the main points with regards to my supposed ‘rotten tomatoes’ I posted about her first article.

Cathy sites a female chemical engineer in order to counter my arguments about women not ‘getting their hands dirty’. I’m sorry, but finding one ENGINEER does not provide a stand point for stating that women enter construction work, mining, oil field or other labor intensive, dangerous careers in equal numbers to men. However, many of the ‘reliable’ sources that have established the wage gap simply compare the average male salary to the average female salary. I have even been told by admin assistants in my own company that they think it is unfair that they don’t make as much as the men – I guess a computer keyboard can be just as dangerous as a 3000hp reciprocating compressor. It’s a short sited and spiteful judgment to make, and Cathy backs it up well.

As for quoting an engineer – I am a project engineer myself in oil and gas. Engineers don’t spend 4-5 years in college to pick up a wrench and work in the field. I don’t know many welders who know the fluid mechanics of laminar flow in a pipe. Cathy seems to have some very short-sited misconceptions as to an engineer’s role. An engineer is NOT someone who fixes your car or installs a hot water tank. That is a technician. Good pay, but few women choose these careers. As I said earlier, I still wouldn’t ask anyone to do something I’m no prepared to do myself. However, my company will not be happy to have an engineer, on $55/hr, doing what an operator can do for $15/hr. Hope the math their doesn't cause you too much confusion, Cathy ;)

As for quoting Gloria Steinam – calling someone brilliant who once stated ‘Women need a man like a fish needs a bicycle’ and who then got married, doesn’t exactly help to support or add credibility to her position. I guess once again, it shows what women feel they can legitimately state, that a man would be called a chauvinist pig for if the genders were reversed.

If we don’t stand up and question these biased studies from organizations who have a vested interest in twisting the truth, like SOME areas of feminism (I could write a library on these areas) have for the last 30 years, the following kind of thinking might continue to go unabated.

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1149212.html

Wow, this is great -- actually being able to explain to these idiots in the press how horrible their articles are.

Cathy -- do you feel like a shoddy journalist? You should.

Actually, it isn't just men that realize that the pay gap (due to sexism) is false. Enlightened women realize it too. Take a look at this link over at the "Independent Women Forum"..

http://www.iwf.org/pdf/roomononesown.pdf

Sorry folks: the pay gap (due to sexism) is just plain false. The real pay gap is due to personal choices, risk adversity, and the desire for greater personal freedom: all on the part of women. Men are more likely to put aside personal interests and time in the pursuit of their careers. Women are more likely to prioritize their families above their jobs - therefore, they do and should make less money. They are also more likely to choose career paths that allow them to have the most flexibility. Guess what: these career paths explicitly pay less - not because of gender, but because these jobs are less risky, and less all-consuming. Take a good read:

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=621

The fact is that bad stats just hurt the cause, and more and more people (both men and women) are beginning to realize that folks like NOW and AAUW are just spinning the bogus science to further their own agendas.

It's kinda hard to believe that 30+ years after the feminist revolution there is still serious argument that women in general have not yet become completely whole in the workplace. Well, maybe not so surprising given the timeline of the civil rights movement: we're all treated equally now, and what a relief that is!

However, I do want to quibble with Cathy on one point. I happen to know that I was paid less than she -- a lot less -- when I replaced her as Boston bureau chief for Reuters. So, clearly, at least some talented women are properly rewarded in comparison to some male counterpart posers.

The AAUW study last month indicated that about 5 percent of the gap between male and female college graduates could not be explained by the choices of majors, jobs, hours, etc. The headline should have been "Three Quarters of Gap between Men and Women's Wages Explained by
Choices"

This does not mean that there is not some discrimination, but that the magnitude is less than the headlines would suggest....

Wow. I was feeling bad about some of the comments (nasty and misogynistic) that my blog on the same subject for The Huffington Post generated...until I read yours. My sympathies.
All of you men out there, who are indignant that women are talking about these wage gap studies: Do you ever wonder why this topic gets you so angry?

Pam - Frustration can look a lot like anger. Are YOU indignant about wage gap studies that show no discrimination, other than a small amount in FAVOR of women? I would hope not.

The frustration is not the appearance of the studies, Pam, it is the misuse of them. For example, the AAUW study admits that 80% of the $0.20 pay gap is accounted for by non-discriminatory factors. Yet in their call for remedial action, they repeatedly refer to closing the $0.20 gap - not the four cent gap that is unexplained. Pam, do YOU think "four cents" when you think of the unfair pay gap, or do you think "twenty cents"?

And honestly, the four cents is only ASSUMED to be due to discrimination - that is exactly what AAUW said in their report, because, try as they might, they could find no evidence of a discriminatory factor involved, nor could the census bureau in their report.

So Pam, here is the frustrating part: People like you ignore all of these things and go right on crying "Twenty percent pay gap!! Discrimination!!" as if they heard nothing at all. If any of this is incorrect, for God's sake point out the flaws. Show us how the four cent gap is really larger. Show us how discrimination is REALLY at work here, in spite of AAUW being unable to find any. Explain to us. Don't ignore, and then act puzzled at the frustration you see. I invite you to be the first feminist writer to actually respond to the facts, rather than continue to shout the hyperbole.

My question for you is, why are you so determined to be a certified victim, even to the point of ignoring all evidence that, at least in this area, you are clearly not one?

Just coming back to make the interesting observation about how the most vocal of feminist defenders of the right to be a victim always drop into utter silence when called upon to respond to the actual facts of their own studies, rather than to the hyperbole. This is by no means the first time that my blog comments requesting a direct response to the facts simply ended the thread, and it no doubt will not be the last.

Excellent post Stanton, but once again, unless you are of the opinion that women are perpetual victims and that we must only address issues which give women equality, your statements will fall on the deaf ears of people such as Cathy and Pam.