NYT: Are Women Responsible for Their Own Low Pay?

[Sgent]

DO you think that Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard's president, stirred up a hornets' nest by suggesting that women's brains are not genetically wired for math or science? Wait until you hear Warren Farrell on the subject of women's pay.

Sure, Dr. Farrell accepts that women, as a group, are paid less than men. But the way he sees it, using pay statistics to prove sex discrimination is akin to using the horizon to prove that the world is flat.

<snip>

In fact, Dr. Farrell points to subgroups - male and female college professors who have never married, or men and women in part-time jobs - in which women average higher pay than their male counterparts. "Control for all these things, and the women make as much, or more," said Dr. Farrell, 61, whose new book on the shaky myths of pay disparity, "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap - and What Women Can Do About It" (Amacom), arrived in bookstores in January. "Let's face it: men do a lot of things in the workplace that women just don't do."

<snip>

It's pretty subversive stuff. But then, Dr. Farrell - the doctorate is in political science, "but I walk and talk like a psychologist," he said - is accustomed to flouting convention. In the early 1970's, when the idea of equality for women still had novelty status, he served on the board of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women. In 2003, by then living in San Diego, he unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nomination for governor of California on a platform promoting legislation to force courts to grant divorced fathers equal time with their children. He has a lucrative business as an expert witness in custody cases, and in speaking and consulting on fatherhood issues. (He has no children, but he has served as a stepdad to several.)

NYTimes Article

[Not_Giving_Up]

1. Yeah, that's it

I go to work every day and just hope they will pay me less and less to do twice as much work as the men. :puke:

[coloradodem2005]

2. Oh.

So now the woes of people in the work force are not the fault of the corporations. :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

3. You got it. The corporations are victims of their employees.

That's why they're on welfare. :shrug:

[ikojo]

54. Of course...as the "president" said when asked how

workers can improve their lives, they can go to community college! So, if people don't make a living wage it is not the fault of Wal-Mart not wanting to pay them well. They should have made the prudent choice and been born rich, like Bush and many members of Congress and the Senate!

[Technowitch]

4. Another variant on 'blame the victim'

[dameocrat]

5. Basically their saying if we don't have kids

They will treat us better. Of coarse this assumes men aren't responsible for them. Baloney! Businesses are clearly discriminating against mothers and that is the whole damn problem.

The other trouble with these arguments like all neocon arguments, is that they ignore places in the world where women have had much more progress at achieving equality. In the Scandinavian countries 50% of the legislatures are female and 50% of there top executives are female. Guess what they are all societies which are more supportive of working mothers. We need to stop playing this game that says we are sabotaging ourselves because we have children.

[WhiteTara]

36. And of course if women didn't have children

none of their sorry asses would be around now!  My belief is
that until the feminine is considered divine, we will continue
to have just the same horrible cycle of violence and
repression for several more thousand years. The text of the
religious and history books tells of the millions of women who
were murdered so that we can say God, not Goddess and it has
been a long battle to kill every feminine thing, including
Gaia Herself.  

[Extend a Hand]

6. uummm....

I work in a technical field. I have been fortunate to be able to choose to work part-time from home so that I can spend more time with my family. And it most definitely has had a very negative impact on my earnings as I expected that the "mommy-track" would.

Having said that, I can tell you that very competent unmarried, full-time women in technical fields often do *NOT* receive either the respect or the parity in pay that they deserve.


edit for spelling.

[burrowowl]

8. Amen

a male ass who didn't realize (among other things) that the traction control on a rear-wheel drive vehicle should be on the rear axle and not the front axle got paid more than me for over a year. Of course many of the so-called engineers and techs were not very bright either.

[Skittles]

13. in my experience that premise is incorrect too

absolutely

[fortyfeetunder]

7. Once again, a simplified explanation

with inadequate foundation.

The reasons why women are underpaid are so complex; the problem actually lstarts when we gendertype kids from infancy. Then it bogs on down from there.

[Sgent]

9. I'll let the article speak for itself

But I've seen the results even in my area of the econosphere.

Although women now make up over 50% of medical school graduates, the pay of women physicians tends to be less than male physicians.

Without getting into issues such as length of work or accepting hospital call, I can tell you that when we post a lower paid specialtiy such as pediatrics or family practice, a significant majority of the applicants are women.

When we post a higher paid specality such as cardiology, radiology, or orthopedics, most applicants are men.

I don't have any real reason why this would be true, but what I've noticed is backed up by the choices that residents make -- many of the lower paid residencies are dominated by women, while many of the higher paid are the exact opposite. This is not true in every field, for instance dermatology has slightly more women (about the same as medical school), but in most.

[WhiteTara]

35. Could it be that the pay scale is lower

BECAUSE women are attracted to those areas rather than women
are just attracted to the lower paying specialties?

[Sgent]

44. I rather doubt it

Women traditionally have not been a significant force in medicine, and the payscales are fairly similar between genders in starting pay in the same specialty. In addition, most physicians are independent (or partners), and to some extent make their own payscales.

The reality is in medicine at least, surgery and highly specialized work is IMHO grossley overrewarded. An orthopedic surgeon or radiologist doing 8 hours of surgery will probably bill 3-8K (or more). A radiologist reading of an MRI will collect $250 from Medicare for 10 minutes work. The family physician has to see 4-5 patients @ 15-20 minutes each for the same.

A family practitioner doing 8 hours of office visits will bill 2-3k.

The pay disparity also is evident in such specialties as neurology and psychiatry which require brain work rather than dexerity.

Some of this is obviously evident in training, but more of it is societies values. Even though a radiologist spends 2 more years in training than their collegue in family practice. The FP physician will earn about $6,000,000 less over a course of a 20 year carreer.

[TygrBright]

46. Nope... watch what happens when...

...a formerly "male dominated" profession starts reaching 51% female incumbents, or the reverse.

One example: College Development (Advancement) Officers (fundraisers, basically) used to be almost exclusively male. Very high-paying position, right behind the big money athletic coaches and the college Pres. Then they started hiring/promoting females. Guess what? In real dollars, the average salary plunged.

Likewise, the trend of medium/large nonprofit organizations to hire male rather than female chief executives has coincided with a spike in executive salaries.

There are other environmental and demographic factors at work in any particular job category, but the overall trend is too consistent and too marked to be mere coincidence.

resignedly,
Bright

[Fridays Child]

10. The barriers this strong, handsome white boy had to climb, in his youth.

I tell you it just breaks my heart to think of what he had to go through to become financially stable. Now, sit up and pay attention girls. And that goes double for you women of color. Another great white father wants to bestow his wisdom upon us. And the only question we need to be asking ourselves is how will we ever be able to show him our gratitude. Hmm...let me think...

[alittlelark]

20. LOL... and

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[Mike Niendorff]

11. I'm going to take an unpopular position here:

I think there is merit to what Farrell says.

If you want to search for gender-disparities in pay, you first have to control for external factors which are gender-corellated, but which are not due to employer-discrimination.

It shouldn't even be controversial to make this point, frankly. It's just a matter of getting honest numbers.


MDN

[dameocrat]

12. That makes no sense what so ever

Why are factors which are gender correlated like childbirth not related to discrimination?

[Skittles]

14. good question

nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dameocrat]

18. I asked you an honest question and you resort to

calling me a troll then you claim you want an honest discussion on gender?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Runcible Spoon]

30. WHO exactly is gender-baiting here??

hmmmmmmmm?

[Runcible Spoon]

32. don't let a few nasties deter you from sharing your opinions here!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Runcible Spoon]

29. accusing a poster of being a troll is against DU rules....

"Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

Plus it is mean spirited and impolite to not give a new poster the benefit of the doubt when s/he is raising relevant issues. Your positions seem to be unnecessarily inflammatory on this thread, IMHO.

[Mike Niendorff]

15. *sigh* ... as I said.

Consider the following:

A man takes 5 years out of his career.
A woman takes 5 years out of her career.

Both come back and find they are paid less than their peers (who continued working and advancing during those 5 years), but both are nonetheless being paid exactly the same as those with the same skills and experience that they currently have.

Is this a case of employer-discrimination?


MDN

[dameocrat]

19. It is societal discrimination in that we all

know who is expected to take the time off. It isn't a matter of choice really unless you think women shouldn't have kids any more or you think the lack of women in positions of power is acceptable. I don't. I would like paid leave for both parents and more support for daycare.

[Mike Niendorff]

23. equal pay is equal pay.

What you are saying is, it's "discrimination" if a woman takes time out of the workforce, even if her pay is identical -- to the penny -- with anyone else of the same qualifications and experience.

So let's look at that a little further:

Suppose two women take 5 years out of the workforce.

One takes time out to raise a child.
The other takes time out due to a battle with breast cancer.

Both then re-enter the workforce.

Each is now has five years' less experience than she would otherwise have had, and her pay reflects this.

You are saying that this is an act of "societal discrimination" against the woman who took time out to have a child, and that she should therefore be credited with 5 years' experience that she doesn't have when it comes to determining her proper salary. But when it comes to the woman who lost the same amount of time to breast cancer, she apparantly should continue to receive the lower wage, because paying *her* less isn't "societal discrimination", so it's ok.

Same job, same experience, same skills -- but the woman who had a choice in the matter gets "extra credit", while the one who actually HAD to take time off gets nothing.

No sale.


MDN

[dameocrat]

33. If there were more support for daycare she wouldn't

have to take a full five years off. Breast cancer is irrelevant since men probably get male specific cancers at the same rate.

[Mike Niendorff]

37. you completely missed my point.

How do you tell a woman who's been forced out of the workforce for 5 years due to breast cancer that her loss of experience is just "tough luck", while the woman who voluntarily takes that time off to be a stay-at-home mother is supposed to be treated (for salary purposes) as though she hasn't missed a day?

Is that equitable to you? Even though they both have exactly the same skills, exactly the same experience, and both have taken exactly the same amount of time out of the workforce?


MDN

[Demeter]

50. If You Think A Man WOuld Suffer From Taking 5 Years Off, You Are Gullible

My ex took 7 years off and got a job paying more than when he was "Laid off" for getting out of child support requirements (which the judge didn't buy). The Old Boy Network is a wondrous thing!

[Skittles]

24. but that is not how it works

this is how it works:

I'm female, not married, don't have kids, never had plans for either. But I can guarantee you I've been paid less than men based on the perception that these WOULD be my plans. THAT IS DISCRIMINATION.

[Mike Niendorff]

26. I agree.

We have no disagreement at all on this point.

Farrell's point (however inflamatory the characterization of it gets) is that when quantifying the effects of gender-discrimination, you still have to control for other gender-correlated factors that may skew the data.

He's not arguing that discrimination doesn't exist. But he is arguing that it does get statistically overstated in most political discussions due to improper methodology.


MDN

[Sgent]

27. I don't buy

that women have to take off significant time due to childraising in the first place. Maybe its because I grew up in a home where id didn't happen (mother never took off more than two weeks for pregnancies), but unless there is a complication of delivery, it makes no sense.

Employment discrimination indicates (to me at least) that the company is doing something wrong. As a society, we may choose to value childraising by paying women who do it -- but do it through transfer payments and not by expecting business to be an agent societal change. Although sexual discrimination (which IMHO is a different issue) certainly exists, the loss of funds due to being a mother is something that we as a society need to address -- and not by blaming companies who very well maybe hiring the best candidate for the job.

[ElectroPrincess]

34. No, we don't dare think of disparaging GOD (Corporate Big Brother) ...

After all, HE shows HIS love for us by producing more and more jobs, just like our "dear leader" has promised. :puke: /sarcasm off

[LizW]

40. Well, then. let's look at everything

Let's look at how many women are paid less from the first moment they start a job, because, "She's going to leave to have babies, anyway."

Let's look at how many young married women without children don't get the job in the first place, because corporations assume they will have children.

Let's look at how often women are given the unfulfilling, dead-end assignments and the effect that has on their decisions to stay with a particular company.

Let's look at how often women get put on a "mommy track" after having a child and how that affects their decisions to stay in the work force or become full time mothers.

And let's be sure to look at other disparate treatment while we're at it. I worked for a firm that gave paid leave for a male employee who went off to the first Gulf War (his wife was a stay at home mother of small twins) but FIRED a female employee for excessive absences because her child was sick a lot and her husband was away at the same war.

[Mike Niendorff]

43. Yes, let's do exactly that.

The point is to get to the bottom of things and get a clear, accurate and reliable picture of the nature and extent of gender-discrimination as it currently exists.

Farrell's argument on this front is correct: you must control for gender-correlated factors outside of employer-discrimination in order to get accurate comparisons -- job for job, experience for experience.

Your argument then gets to interpretation: if disparities still exist once extraneous factors are filtered out -- (and, yes, those disparities clearly do still exist) -- then what precisely is the nature of those disparities? How do they arise, how are they perpetuated, and how can they best be rectified? That's where the search for solutions actually becomes meaningful. But you can't get to this point if you don't have accurate data to start with, which is the whole point of the discussion here.


MDN

[Extend a Hand]

21. how can you get honest numbers

when discriminatory practices by male co-workers and bosses are rampant in the work-place(and may or may not be sanctioned or tacitly sanctioned by employers)?

[sendero]

39. For the record...

.. I agree with you.

The same folks that shout "science not faith" from the rooftops will turn in a second if it is science they don't agree with. Any statistical study that does not correct for unimportant variables is useless. That is all this guy did.

Whether his study was completely fair, I don't know - I have not analyzed it. But anyone with an IQ in 3 digits knows that summing up the wages of men and women and dividing by the number of workers is a totally meaningless number. And that is where the "76% of what men make" number comes from apparently.

[Sivafae]

17. Oh! Big daddy is gonna take care a'me.

<snip>
It is O.K. to trade a fatter paycheck for more time with children and hobbies. Just recognize that society did not force the choice on you. "Feel powerful and happy that you have control over your own life," Dr. Farrell said. "It's better than feeling like an angry victim of discrimination."
<snip>
remember chicas you made your own choices. Tell that to Bianca Montgomery.

I especially loved the bit about-
<snip>
Jobs that are hazardous for men can be pretty safe for women. Women in the military are rarely sent to the front lines, Dr. Farrell said. Studies have shown that women who are cabdrivers usually pull daytime hours, female postal workers get safer routes, and male coal miners try to keep their few female colleagues out of danger. "When women need protection, men will compete to give it," he said.
<snip>

You mean a big, strong, handsome man like you is gonna look out for me? *swoons*

[aquart]

22. This is a comfy theory for a man, isn't it?

And look! A man thought of it.

[SoCalDem]

28. We still live in a patriarchal society, but it may not be for much longer

There are more women graduating from college than men these days.(Some) men are scared to have "wimmen" in the workplace, because women tend to be natural multi-taskers, and lots of men are "single-focused". The women workers I have known were usually faster at their jobs, and willing to look for other things to do,while the men around them tended to fit the job to the time.. If he had an 8 hr shift, it took him 8 hrs to do his "work". It makes men nervous when a woman comes in and "upsets" the "way things always were done".

In the overall scheme of things women have not been "in the workforce" all that long. Just a bit longer than one generation. The "bosses" are old now, but for the most part, they are still the same people as when women first entered the workforce. It will probably take another 30 years to gain real parity.

The lack of unions is hampering women too. They are often pitted against each other and men are still "networking".

[cap]

31. What if we took Farrell's advice

and stopped going into the psychiclly fulfilling jobs and stopped being at home mom's. Many women work two jobs and have latch key kids. Those kids arent well raised.

What if we ignored our kids needs if they seem to be demanding mom's attention?

What if we just showed up at the office at 5 pm with our kids in tow and said, "Honey, it's your turn to take the kids now. I've got a late night at the office tonight" and did this over and over and over again.

What if, after night after night, of hubby coming home at 8:30, we said, "This is not a marriage. I get no real partnership from someone working a 70 hour week. You're not able to do the 20-30 hours/week that it takes to run a house."...Especially for stay at home mom's who are isolated at home without adult companionship. Or from the working mom's who are saying "This just aint fair. I'm working and doing all the housework."

Also, after 10 years experience in the field, one more year more or less doesnt matter. There are no job postings that discriminate between 10 and 15 or 20 years worth experience. This is a red herring.

No. Our supervisors give us the dead end work in our field deliberately. This was shown to be a factor in a DOJ study posted over at the memory hole.

[Ellen Forradalom]

38. Oh Christ, they're really crawling out of the woodwork now, aren't they?

First Lawrence Summers, then this bozo.

This is just why I want to shoot myself half the time. The minute I became a mother, I ceased to be a person in the eyes of the world. Half the time I have to stuff down the urge to abandon my family just to get half of a life back.

[newportdadde]

41. Well I can only speak for my own experiences.

I work in the IT industry and would say my office place has many more women then men... ie in meetings I will often be the only man out of 6. I know from asking about that I do make less then women with similar experience to me, just as men talking about sports, golf etc the reverse can happen in a workplace. Then it becomes talk of children, horseback riding etc.

I will say though that when a recent younger lady <30 was promoted up to a very high level(looked ridiculous to us) I found the women in my workplace were very critical of it while the men turned a blind eye(this particular woman is very attractive).

[cap]

47. your office is a rarity

I have done a lot of consulting in IT over 25 years and the offices are mostly male.

[Skittles]

49. male and sexist

nt

[Sabriel]

42. Soooo, my female friends who got tenure-track jobs...

...and made less than men in similar positions did it to themselves? Give me a break! Does he ever stop to think that perhaps there are societal and gender factors that might weigh into negotiating salaries and increases? Another moran who likes to justify inequity. Look for his next book: "The Bell Curve-- for Women!"

[Mabel Dodge]

45. Sometimes I feel like a dinosaur calling myself a feminist.

It seems so out of step with society, so old school.

However people like Warren Farrell with "credentials" who are so blatantly sexist are the reasons why we should never let our guard down.

Maybe the feminist movement isn't as in touch as it should be, but the younger ones should take it off the shelf, give it a good dusting and try it on. With the improvement and changes of a younger generation of women, the organized feminist movement could be stronger than ever.

It does seem the need for an organized movement just never goes away.

[fortyfeetunder]

48. Yo Canadian and other non-US DUers

I believe this editorial is a reflection of US policy. Do you think this is indicative in your countries?

[libodem]

51. The way I understand it ....

men make more because they are willing to negotiate, for better terms. Women are more accepting of what is offered.

[Eloriel]

52. My God. He's been writing anti-woman stuff for 3 or 4 decades now

Time to put the old fart out to pasture, if not out of his misery.

He used to write a column for Mademoiselle Magazine back in the 70s, maybe even 60s. (Is that still published? Probably not.) And it was pure garbage then. I see he's not improved or grown any.

:puke:

[RedCloud]

53. Most be reverse affirmative action in effect

I mean I am just so tired of all the women dominated things...
such as religion...
and the presidency...
and the senate...
and the house...
and the captains of industry...

Oh wait, that world has yet to exist.