In philosophy, there is an element of triage in addressing social problems. Like a medic on the battlefield, a philosopher must assess which maladies are most urgent, and among those, which are within his ability to improve. Most of the issues put forward as problems by modern feminists fail the test of urgency, and also the test of improvability. In this essay series, I will present some common complaints by modern feminists. I will show how they explicitly fail the test of triage. I will show that it is difficult to argue that some of these issues are problems at all, either for lack of evidence or lack of definition. Finally, I will compare these issues to other social problems, to demonstrate the fact that there are things more worthy of consideration; solutions to which may indeed remedy the very maladies that are initially put forth.
The type of feminist to which I refer is defined by the arguments I put forth. I recognize that not everyone that thinks of themselves as a feminist supports the positions I will present (myself included), but it would be tedious for both you and I to wade through the numerous caveats necessary to produce a pertinent definition of “feminism” in this context.
One of the most important distinctions I will discuss is between arguments of victimhood, and arguments of empowerment. This is crucial to the improvability element of triage. It is often important to point out victimhood, but be wary when this is not followed by a strategy of personal empowerment; thus is laid the snare of rhetorical treachery.
Part 1: The Gender Pay Gap
One of the most common complaints is the income disparity between genders. This disparity is presented as proof that there is a general bias against women in the workforce; that there is a patriarchal conspiracy granting men higher pay for the same work. Barack Obama said it like this: "Women (are) paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men" (It is interesting to note that the White House itself demonstrates a significant gender pay gap). I explored this 77% claim briefly in another essay, Sexting and the Sexes, but will now go to a greater depth to reveal its fraudulence.
First, a look at the hard data. The 77% claim originated in a report from 2010 by the U.S. Census Bureau. On page 5, it says, “In 2010, the female-to-male earnings ratio was .77…” Contrary to the common claim, this figure does not take into account what kind of work is being performed, and only takes into account those working full time. Pew Research has published several reports on the gender pay gap that offer an infinitely vaster perspective on the issue than the single cherry-picked figure of “.77.” In one report from 2012, they claim .84 to be a more appropriate figure. They explain how their method of measuring income disparity is different from the government’s, and why the difference may render more accurate results. Still, there is disparity, you may say; but is there inequality? Is there discrimination? Do women earn less just because they are women? To find out, we need to look deeper.
To gain insight, let us look at a few statistics that contradict this trend. When do men earn less than women? Young women working in big cities can earn over 120% (about +8% average) of what the males in their peer group make. The same Pew report linked above states, “women working part-time earn 104% as much as men working part-time; and, at the extreme, women who worked five to nine hours in a week earned 119% as much as men who worked the same number of hours.” This helps explain why the gap was narrowed by including part-time workers in the analysis. Beyond those outside instances, men do earn more, but what about the “working the same job” part? If you consider what men and women working in the same field earn, the gap closes considerably, from 23% to 1-4%.
So what is the explanation for the lingering disparity? Motherhood seems to have a lot to do with it. Mothers earn 7-14% less than their female peers without children. I couldn’t find a statistic or analysis comparing childless men and childless women with similar experience, but it’s probably close to the data we get from observing men and women fresh out of college; which tends to be about equal. Many sources claim the contrary, and there is something to this claim, as it is crucial to weigh the differences in career selection (fig. 3). Men tend to go into higher-paying careers, such as engineering and information sciences, whereas women more often major in things such as education, social sciences, and the humanities. When this tendency is compensated for, the income disparity is substantially less significant. Still, it exists, however. The reason? For now, I’ll just say my theory considers, “potential future losses” and leave it at that, but I will explore this more toward the end of this essay.
“But wait!” you may say, “men earn more after they have children, but after women have children, they earn less! This is clear proof of the patriarchal conspiracy! This is proof of sexism! All other things being equal, men benefit from the patriarchal construct of breadwinning!” To see why this is the case, we need not analyze social trends and constructs; rather, it is simply a question of biology and economics. As we evaluate the issue in the most simple, straightforward manner, the answer becomes painfully obvious.
Studies suggest that the children of mothers who take less than 12 weeks maternity leave are more likely to have behavioral problems, and score lower on cognitive tests. Moreover, they are less likely to be breastfed for the recommended time, and less likely to have the recommended checkups and immunizations. One study indicates that the optimal maternity leave may be 40 weeks. So, if a women has a child, she is most likely going to be out of the work force for 12-40 weeks, or at least take a substantially less demanding role. Even when mothers do return to the work force in full, they tend to take significantly more time off to attend to family matters. They are also more likely to quit their job or turn down a promotion due to family matters.
Of course, these facts take their toll. A CEO looking to grow a business needs employees that are heavily invested in the long-term prospects of their careers. When a woman takes on the burden of children, she is generally less invested in her career (and rightly so!), while the opposite is true of a man. The opposite is true because a man, knowing the mother of his children will be indisposed for at least 3 months, unable to provide an income, and is requiring more resources as well, recognizes that it is his responsibility to provide. Employers recognize this responsibility, and perhaps desperation, as well, and so they compensate for the man’s increased investment in his career. These disparate trajectories of ambition have further consequences down the road, and in the way a company plans, as each parent settles into their respective role.
So do I think everyone should be confined to the construct of the traditional family? Not at all! What I think doesn’t have anything to do with it, anyway; this is just the way it tends to happen. If a mother decides that she’d like to return to work after 2 weeks, leave the father at home, and devise a prodigious breast-pumping strategy, of course the woman should not be penalized for this. I imagine her dedication would be proven with such action, prompting more investment from her employer. An employer with any brains at all would say to themselves, “she’s back at work two weeks later, she convinced her husband to stay home, she’s put a lot of thought into how to properly nurse her child, and she’s fighting her maternal instincts every step of the way… What do I need to pay to keep such an invested employee?”
Even if we were to take gender out of the equation, we can reason that whatever parent is spending more time with the child is spending less time at work! There being only 24 hours in the day, this is a zero-sum game. Furthermore, if I were a CEO, and a parent of any gender said to me, “well, my child will be fine with the formula and the daycare. Don’t worry boss, work is my first priority!” I would seriously question this person’s character, and would probably not feel comfortable employing them at the expense of their child.
So why the gender pay gap? The short answer is, “because gender.” As long as there is physiological disparity, men will run faster and lift more weight in The Olympics, and probably earn more at work. Until the day we can raise a fetus in a test-tube, and nurture a child in a lab, we will experience income disparity between the genders. What I said earlier about “potential future losses” refers to the fact that, in the eyes of an employer, every woman is a potential mother. Even if a woman insists that she has no plans to be a mother, many women experience a change of heart in this regard; and employers are keenly aware of this “baby rabies” anomaly. Employers, by the nature of their station, need to consider long-term prospects, and potential obstacles. Unfortunately, it is simply a biological fact that there exist more potential obstacles for women; and biology isn’t sexist. To prove that it is an issue of biology and economics, and not an issue of sexism, let us consider the following example:
A man sits down for an interview with an employer. After the usual round of questioning experience, education, and the rest, the employer is rather satisfied with the answers he receives. Then, he asks, “and do you plan to take any time off of work in the near future?”
The man replies, “I don’t plan on it, no. But, some time over the next ten years there is a chance I will take 3 to 9 months off, and when I come back, my availability will be dramatically reduced. My productivity may suffer as well. After that, there is a 27% chance I will quit altogether in order to pursue other interests. I will also cost the company more in the way of health care benefits, and you can be sure I will use all of my sick leave and paid vacation.”
Is the employer unethical if they consider this information in their decision? After all, this is exactly what is implied by the interviewee if she is female. Is an employee that prompts these considerations worthy of the same investment as an employee that says, for instance,
“I desperately need a job to provide for my family. There is nothing more important to me than receiving a stable income, and I am willing to work 80 hours a week if that’s what it takes to secure my position. I won’t take time off, I’ll work from home if I’m sick, and I’ll be with the company as long as you provide me with a competitive income.”
Of course not. Anyone who would say otherwise is either ignorant or disingenuous. The claim of income disparity between the sexes fails the test of triage on many levels: it’s hard to argue that it’s a problem, for lack of evidence, and it’s harder to argue that it can be improved upon, for lack of a reasonable solution. As long as there is economic incentive and physiological disparity, there will be income inequality between the genders; just as strength disparity determines who the athletes are, and cognitive disparity determines who the intellectuals are.
The gender gap is simply not a problem. As a matter of fact, it’s good that employers consider potential or actual motherhood in their hiring strategies. It’s good that women are willing to take the economic hit to breastfeed, and otherwise nurture their children. It’s good that people are willing to sacrifice material wealth in order to reproduce! The gender gap may indeed indicate we are somewhat healthy as a species.
Rather than fight for solutions to problems that may not even be, well, problems, why not focus on things that we can change in our personal lives? If you know someone that is a misogynist, let the world know! Reveal their misogyny; confront it, or at least disassociate from it. If you know a woman who is struggling as a mother, help her! Give her money, cook her dinner, do her laundry! But stop, for gods’ sake, STOP trying to pass laws that make employers afraid to do their job. Stop trying to enact strategies that make it more difficult for women to be mothers. In short, stop asserting false victimhood and start empowering yourself and society with your actions: that’s what a real feminist would do.
No comments:
Post a Comment