![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Why the Pay Gap is Not What Matters
Oct. 15th, 2009 05:56 pmI went straight to university from school, and did a three-year undergraduate course. Then I did my one-year prerequisite library experience, before applying for my Library Masters. Essentially, I am as young as I could possibly be to have this qualification, without having skipped years in school.
I've now chosen to take a year out, because there are things that matter to me more than career progression. This puts me a year behind the person who went straight into a professional position after zir one-year Library Masters.
People talk about the pay gap between men and women with relation to childbirth; they note that women carry a disproportionate amount of childcare responsibility, as well as (generally) bearing the brunt of the actual child-bearing. This means that people see the pay gap as having two components:
1. sheer discrimination, where men and women doing the same job in the same company are paid different amounts based on gendered criteria
2. the fact that, over their career-span, women are more likely to take time out to raise a family, meaning that they are considered to have less workplace experience than a man of a comparable age
These are often put forward as the only explanations, and as self-evidently bad things. I'd like to reframe the debate: what do you think of the following?
Women are more likely to take lower-paid jobs which have a kind of job satisfaction borne of vocation - librarianship, publishing, nursing - but gender statistics at the top of these careers are noticeably reversed. Certainly, some of this comes from socialisation which prepares women for nurturing/service roles, and from the fact that women bear the brunt of childcare. But why, from the principle that women and men should demonstrate equal employment profiles, does it follow that our activism should take the form of encouraging women to strive for more money, and more power in the workplace?
What if I don't want money or power?
Stop there a second - you've just scoffed at me, haven't you? Who could possibly not want money and power?! But these are patriarchal values, and privileging them can be seen as an aspect of "the scapegoating of femininity". Choosing to 'step off the conveyor belt' - is it a devalued, feminine act?
I've been thinking about why I feel like a failure for having chosen to take lower-paid jobs that I know I can do well. Am I a dupe, the victim of a kyriarchy which says I can never be perfect, so why bother trying? Have I fallen, where a hypothetical comparable man wouldn't, into self-deprecation that causes me to undervalue my potential and my abilities? No. But I think we have all fallen victim to a mindset that tells us we should strive for money and power and status more than we should strive for happiness. A patriarchal mindset.
Although.. is it easier to have money and power and status and happiness, if one is a man? Or am I falling victim to socialisation which tells me that I shouldn't worry my pretty little head about money and power? My gods this is a thorny one..
I've now chosen to take a year out, because there are things that matter to me more than career progression. This puts me a year behind the person who went straight into a professional position after zir one-year Library Masters.
People talk about the pay gap between men and women with relation to childbirth; they note that women carry a disproportionate amount of childcare responsibility, as well as (generally) bearing the brunt of the actual child-bearing. This means that people see the pay gap as having two components:
1. sheer discrimination, where men and women doing the same job in the same company are paid different amounts based on gendered criteria
2. the fact that, over their career-span, women are more likely to take time out to raise a family, meaning that they are considered to have less workplace experience than a man of a comparable age
These are often put forward as the only explanations, and as self-evidently bad things. I'd like to reframe the debate: what do you think of the following?
Women are more likely to take lower-paid jobs which have a kind of job satisfaction borne of vocation - librarianship, publishing, nursing - but gender statistics at the top of these careers are noticeably reversed. Certainly, some of this comes from socialisation which prepares women for nurturing/service roles, and from the fact that women bear the brunt of childcare. But why, from the principle that women and men should demonstrate equal employment profiles, does it follow that our activism should take the form of encouraging women to strive for more money, and more power in the workplace?
What if I don't want money or power?
Stop there a second - you've just scoffed at me, haven't you? Who could possibly not want money and power?! But these are patriarchal values, and privileging them can be seen as an aspect of "the scapegoating of femininity". Choosing to 'step off the conveyor belt' - is it a devalued, feminine act?
I've been thinking about why I feel like a failure for having chosen to take lower-paid jobs that I know I can do well. Am I a dupe, the victim of a kyriarchy which says I can never be perfect, so why bother trying? Have I fallen, where a hypothetical comparable man wouldn't, into self-deprecation that causes me to undervalue my potential and my abilities? No. But I think we have all fallen victim to a mindset that tells us we should strive for money and power and status more than we should strive for happiness. A patriarchal mindset.
Although.. is it easier to have money and power and status and happiness, if one is a man? Or am I falling victim to socialisation which tells me that I shouldn't worry my pretty little head about money and power? My gods this is a thorny one..