The Rage Gap

Having read numerous articles and arguments against the 'wage gap' issue, I assumed this myth was well on its way to being shelved as another Feminist lie. But evidently it's alive and kicking and will take much longer to die.

As classic examples of such debunking, there's Glenn Sacks's article and Warren Farrell's book.

Side Note: It's interesting to note that while women allegedly earn less than men, surveys show that women spend more than men, own 65% of America's wealth, and six times more retail space is allotted to women's personal items than to men's. Hmm...

There are numerous arguments against this Feminist lie, the strongest ones being:

1. Many women place higher priorities on their social life, families and children, or on personal hobbies. Even high-school girls, when surveyed as to their career expectations, said that they plan to drop from the workforce for at least a year when they have a baby. Now, there's nothing wrong with this. Quite the opposite. But it does have several obvious consequences on their careers and wages:

a) It means women usually spend less time at work and put in fewer extra hours. It has been proven statistically that men put in 8-10 more hours per week than women. This obviously means women are worth less to employers and that they will get fewer raises. It also obviously means that with hourly-wage jobs, men will get higher salaries.

b) Women's disappearance from the workforce will affect their seniority, work experience and industry knowledge.

It cannot be argued that just because women bring children into the world and work harder at home, paying them less is unfair, because companies are not socialist charities. Governments may impose on companies to pay social benefits and take into account basic human needs such as sick-pay, pregnancy and vacations, but not personal choices. If an employee chooses to go back to the university to find a cure for cancer, or to go home and raise a family, their career and wages must suffer.

2. Most wage gaps have nothing to do with gender. There are many other factors that are not taken into account when collecting statistics: Position, seniority, education, experience, hours, etc. Even two people in the same position and title may have different responsibilities that necessitate a wage gap. For example, one developer may be working on the product's complex core algorithms whereas another developer may be doing some web programming. Alternatively, one position may be more demanding or dangerous than the other despite having identical titles.

3. When you combine the above arguments with the fact that many women prefer more 'convenient' jobs and usually don't go after fast-track and more difficult or high-prestige positions, or usually aren't willing to be stationed in Alaska or work long hours, the wage gap is not only understandable, it may even be biased towards women. For example, as this blog argues, female psychologists often specialize in the lower-level child psychology field.

Women disproportionately major in the social sciences and enter lower paying, but more personally fulfilling, careers. Degrees in science and technology provide higher incomes than those in the liberal arts. Also, women who want to spend time with their families will obviously look for more flexible positions and careers.

Also, take the classic example of the computer and technology industry. Women's numbers in computer science have not significantly risen since 1970 despite the fact that these careers are wide open to them and nobody is dissuading them from such choices, yet we have organizations such as Women in Technology (WIT), the Society of Women Engineers (SWE), and now the ridiculous Women In Games International (WIGI). Men have always been passionate about computers and gaming and now that computers have become a lucrative industry and you can earn a fat paycheck developing games (which sounds like a lot more fun than it is), we have feminists popping up whining about how not enough women are interested in these careers and pushing for affirmative action, even blaming society for women's lack of interest. (Of course, there is no such thing as Women in Garbage Collection International (WIGCI) but that's another story.)

Perhaps one can argue that it's chauvinism that determines the lower wages for typically female careers. But this is untrue. It's the market that determines wages, not some patriarchal conspiracy.

4. I remember reading a survey that showed that the turnover for women was much higher than for men. Whatever the reason for this, it can easily contribute to the wage gap as, obviously, seniority is a very important factor for a career.

All this disqualifies these so-called statistics that show 76 female cents for every male dollar, simply because they ignore all the important variables and factors that affect a wage decision. In these surveys that have been mindlessly quoted a million times as signs of chauvinistic oppression, women and men are grouped together regardless of their actual merit and market worth. Equal opportunity does not ensure equal outcome and just because the wages are not equal, it does not logically follow that women are being treated unequally.

These same arguments shatter the Glass Ceiling lie. Most women lack seniority or make career choices that would obviously affect their promotion to upper management. An employee who disappears from the workforce, has a high turnover, or who chooses to put in minimal hours and to avoid demanding jobs will not be a likely candidate for CEO.

Personally, I've been in the workforce for over 15 years, and I've seen no evidence of the wage gap. Not only that, but in the world of hi-tech where long hours are the norm, the women I've worked with have consistently been 9-to-5 workers and have long gone home when others stay in late to get the work done in time. If women want equal wages then I'm afraid they are going to have to work for them.

I've also experienced the decision making involved in assigning wages and seen how even men with seemingly identical jobs get different wages for various reasons.

And, as Glenn Sacks argues, if companies benefit from the same amount and quality of work from women as they do from men and it is truly accepted practice to pay women less, then why aren't they exclusively employing women in order to save money?

I can perhaps accept an argument that says that chauvinism gets in the way of a woman's promotion. If men saw women as incapable of fulfilling certain roles then women would indeed be promoted less. But this wage gap argument is basically saying that millions of managers around the world, when presented with work given by a woman who worked just as hard as everyone else and has the same qualifications and position, consistently think to themselves "well I normally pay my marketing assistants 15 but since she's a woman I'll give her 11". Excuse me, but that's just extreme paranoia.

As usual, angry, working women rant and rave, proving that the only real gap is between men that work hard, and women that whine.