This young woman’s recognition of the dedication a top career requires and the tradeoffs that she will face is disturbing to Betty Holcomb. Holcomb complains that these subjects set off “urgent, personal questions that have become the stuff of late-night heart-to-hearts” and that “All too often, the conversation is infused with, and confused by, assumptions about gender.”1
These young women are engaged in important soul-searching about life’s priorities in these late-night heart-to-hearts. None of the women cited in her book were suggesting that they couldn’t have fulfilling work lives while having families, but these women recognized that they may not want to do what it takes and make the sacrifices necessary to reach the highest levels of their professions.
In fiercely defending women’s right to work, Holcomb places the blame for the conflicts between work and home on society:No serious researcher denies that real conflicts exist between work and family duties today, but the point is that they are not inherent to women’s expanding roles. They are not inevitable. Instead, they result from the hostility working moms face on every front. And the old and false stereotype about what makes a good worker and a good mother serve to encourage some of the darkest treatment women face as they try to earn a decent living and raise their children.2
A Milestone in Feminist History
“Well I just wanted to let you know that sometimes I get concerned about being a career woman. I get to thinking that my job is too important to me. And I tell myself that the people I work with are just the people I work with. But last night I thought what is family anyway? It’s the people who make you feel less alone and really loved.” [she sobs]
—Mary Richards, The Mary Tyler Moore Show
Contrary to what Holcomb asserts, conflicts are inevitable: There’s no way to eliminate the problem that there are only twenty-four hours in a day and that women cannot be two places at once. Women are going to face a choice between spending more of their day at work or more of their day at home, and there inevitably will be consequences.
Feminists sometimes resent that people have the choice to devote (and be rewarded for devoting) significant extra hours to their jobs. Yet women are fortunate to live in a time when the choice between working and staying at home has become much less mutually exclusive. Technology is making working from home efficient and effective. Companies are increasingly offering employees more flexible schedules through programs like comp-time and flex-time. Both make the choice between working and staying at home less difficult.
Still, there will be tradeoffs forever in balancing career with other interests, including family. It will be always hard for someone opting for a flexible arrangement or reduced work week to compete with someone willing to devote all their waking hours to the job. The man or woman who wants to give the extra effort deserves the additional rewards that come with additional work—just as the person who opts to spend more time on outside interests will be rewarded with the fulfillment that these bring.
Athletes face similar calculations. A young runner may show great promise, enjoy competing in the sport, and have the potential to make it to the Olympics. Yet only a select few are willing to do what it takes—put in grueling hours of training at great personal expense and forgo the pleasures associated with a more “normal” life—to make it to the Olympics. Those who choose not to make those sacrifices can still have a rewarding experience running, but they can’t complain that they won’t get the national television coverage and financial rewards received by the dedicated few who make it to the Olympics and win gold medals.
The same dynamic is true in business. People willing to put in extra hours and devote themselves fully to their profession will usually rise higher than those who take on outside responsibilities or activities—whether those outside activities are children or community service or competitive dog training. Young women are wise to consider how they envision allocating their time between family and career. We should strive to ensure that young women know that all options are open to them, but it’s wrong to tell them that there aren’t any tradeoffs between work and family.
Wage gap wars
Many feminists refuse to recognize that women and men make different choices when it comes to work and family. These choices lead to different outcomes. It’s politically correct to blame these different outcomes on discrimination.
Consider the feminists’ concern over the so-called wage gap. The Department of Labor collects multitudes of data and compiles statistics that provide a snapshot of the occupations that Americans work in and how much they are paid. None receives more attention than the statistic that compares the median income of a full-time working woman to that of a full-time working man. Typically, the government finds that the average working woman makes about three-quarters of that of the working man.
If you accept that all women are professionally identical to men—working in the same jobs, and dedicating just as much time and energy to their occupations—then this statistic is a call to arms. Women are being discriminated against and something needs to be done now!
Liberal politicians are responding to this call to arms. Former presidential candidate, Senator John F. Kerry, highlighted how he thinks the government needs to take action to address the vexing problem of the wage gap in a debate during the 2004 campaign. Each year, feminist groups hold events and rallies on “Equal Pay Day.” In 2005, it was April 19th and Senator Hillary Clinton was among the speakers at the rally to raise awareness about women’s oppression as evidenced by the wage gap. According to feminists, Equal Pay Day is the day that women have finally worked enough in the new year to make up for last year’s wage gap.
The Department of Labor statistic used as the basis for this hoopla ignores the many relevant factors that affect a worker’s take-home pay. For starters, it doesn’t adjust for number of years worked. On average, women spend about a decade out of the workforce caring for their families. It should come as no surprise that a thirty-five-year-old woman reentering the workforce after ten years off earns less than a man or woman who worked continuously during that time.
Red Scare
The National Committee for Pay Equity, which organizes Equal Pay Day events, urges activists to:Wear RED on Equal Pay Day to symbolize how far women and minorities are “in the red” with their pay!
The wage-gap statistic also fails to consider educational attainment. Today, women earn more than half of all bachelor’s and master’s degrees, but it wasn’t always that way. Older women in the workforce tend to have less education than their male peers, which affected their career path, their salaries, and ultimately Department of Labor data.
Women and men in general also have different priorities when assessing employment opportunities. One survey of working women found that for nearly three-quarters a flexible schedule was “very important” when considering a job. This means that many women are willing to trade more money for more flexibility or time off.3
Gender warriors at the Feminist Majority and NOW lament that women still sacrifice their careers to take on a disproportionate share of childcare responsibilities. But as surveys indicate, many women sincerely want to spend more time with their families. And regardless of whether it’s out of duty or desire full-time working women tend to spend less time in the office than full-time working men. The Department of Labor time-use study revealed that a full-time working woman spends a half hour, or 7 percent, less time in the office on an average work day than the typical full-time working man.4
Several studies that took these factors into account found a considerably smaller wage gap between men and women. One study focused on childless men and women aged twenty-seven to thirty-three and found that women in that group earned ninety-eight cents for every male dollar.
Warren Farrell, a former board member of NOW’s New York chapter, wrote a book called Why Men Earn More that dissects the decisions that individuals make when choosing a career and individual jobs.5 He identifies twenty-five decisions that
individuals make about work and reveals how, on average, men tend to make decisions that increase their pay, while women do not always opt for the highest paying alternative. In addition to women taking more time out of the labor force and working fewer hours than men, women tend to opt for jobs that require less travel and are less likely to move for a job. Men take on more high risk jobs—they account for 92 percent of deaths that occur in the workplace—and jobs that require braving the elements outdoors.6
Recognizing these tradeoffs empowers women to make more money and frees them from the sense that they’re automatically victims of discrimination. In identifying the factors affecting earnings, Farrell lays out a roadmap for how women can increase their pay if they want to achieve parity with men. In doing so, he also highlights the tradeoffs that individuals must make. Higher pay typically comes with a price—whether it’s taking greater physical risks, spending more time on the road, or logging extra hours in the office. Once you realize that you could make more money, but are unwilling to do what it takes to earn those extra dollars, you feel better about the situation that you face.
If you still aren’t convinced that “75 cents on the dollar” is a misleading statistic, consider what its veracity would mean. If women perform the same work as men for three-quarters of the pay, then a company that hired only women would have a huge advantage over its competitors. Its fixed employment costs would be much lower for the same amount of output. Sexism in the marketplace would have to be so strong that other companies would rather lose businesses and have higher labor costs— maybe go bankrupt—rather than to hire more female employees. To believe that a huge persistent wage gap exists is to believe that American businesses—including those run by women—are economically foolish.
The market would not tolerate such foolishness. Certainly some women experience discrimination and are treated unfairly, which affects their pay and these statistics. But the feminist insistence that this wage gap is the result of pure discrimination ignores the real choices that American women make about their careers.
Why do we want women to work like men?
It’s important to understand the causes of the wage gap, but it’s equally important to recognize why achieving parity on this artificial measure is a nonsensical goal. Why would we expect or want men and women to exhibit exactly the same preferences for work?
If some women want to forgo more dollars for more time with family, then the “wage gap” that results isn’t a problem—it’s just a number.
A Book You’re Not Supposed to Read
Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can Do About It, Dr. Warren Farrell, Ph.D; NewCan Do About It, Dr. Warren Farrell, Ph.D; New York, AMACOM, 2005.
Attempts to “fix” the perceived problem could make women worse off. For example, feminists groups push for regulations that would force businesses to report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission their processes for setting and adjusting wages. But how would businesses respond under this new regime? To comply with this regulation and avoid the threat of government action, many employers would no longer offer the very kinds of flexible work arrangements most appealing to many women. They would require all workers to be in the office from precisely nine to five and receive the same compensation. Those who want to negotiate a different contract—working fewer hours or from home—may find it more difficult to find a job.
The feminist dream of fifty-fifty in all walks of life may never happen. If women on average don’t want to spend their lives fighting to climb the corporate ladder, then feminists should respect that decision and not force them to take on roles that ignore their true preferences.
Instead of assuming that women are making poor choices and designing public policies to make women act more like men, Warren Farrell challenges his readers to consider that women are making rational choices when they opt not to maximize their incomes:Here’s the pay paradox that Why Men Earn More explains: Men earn more money, therefore men have more power; and men earn more money, therefore men have less power (earning more money as an obligation, not an option). The opposite is true for women: Women earn less money, therefore women have less power; and women earn less money, therefore women have more power (the option to raise children, or to not take a hazardous job).... Low pay makes us feel powerless unless we are conscious of the decisions that we make to accept low pay as a trade-off for the slice of life we receive in return. Then we feel powerful and happy, rather than angry because we feel like victims of discrimination.7
Feminists should trust that women are making choices in their best interests and stop complaining about the outcomes revealed in meaningless statistics like the “wage gap.” After all, most women know that money isn’t everything.
More women working isn’t reason to celebrate
Women’s increasingly prominent role in the economy is often celebrated as defacto evidence of progress for women. I began the preceding chapter with much the same assumption.
But the reality is that many women don’t want to have to work outside of the home and do so only out of financial necessity. They would prefer to spend their time raising their children and contributing to their communities.
Instead of pursuing public policies that facilitate women’s increased entrance into the workforce—such as providing subsidized childcare and regulating businesses—policymakers should consider how to create an environment that allows women to make choices that reflect their preferences. For many women that may mean working less and spending more time with their children.
Chapter Thirteen
DAYCARE DELUSIONS
Anxiety about women working isn’t really about women. It’s about children. Some women’s groups would have you believe that the anxiety surrounding women’s migration into the workplace is that men just aren’t comfortable with women in positions of power. Nor do they want to compete with women for jobs or watch their language around the ladies. And, sure, there’s some truth in this: A few men want to go back to a largely mythical world where offices were like locker rooms and women were just a part of the decorating scheme.
If it were just about having a few more women in the office and a few less meals waiting for men when they get home, however, this cultural breeze would have passed quickly. It’s a storm because children are at its center.
Women with children don’t just enter the workforce. They also leave home and, in doing so, must find alternative arrangements for caring for their children. The almost constant needs of infants and toddlers must be attended to by someone else—either a daycare provider or another family member. School age children have to return to an empty house or spend the afternoon at an after-school program when mom’s not at home.
Of course, dad has a role to play in this equation too, and fathers are taking a greater role in caring for their children.
Guess What?
Feminists recoil at research suggesting that children with parents as primary caregivers are better off than those in full-time daycare.
The type of daycare most often pushed by feminist groups and the government—institutional daycare—is the type of care least popular with parents.
People generally believe that parents and family members or close friends do a better job caring for their children.
But traditionally, women have been the primary caregivers for their children, and most mothers, including working mothers, continue to want this role. As women leave home for the workforce, they must rely on others to assume these responsibilities while they are gone. What’s the effect of this major social change in the lives of children?
It’s an important question and one that is difficult to answer. Researchers face an uphill battle in isolating daycare’s affects from the numerous other factors that impact children’s lives. It’s also an ideological powder keg.
Feminists recoil at research suggesting that children with parents as primary caregivers are better off than those in full-time daycare. They
may not like it, but we need to have an open and honest discussion about the effects of daycare on children. And while it isn’t politically correct to say so, the weight of the evidence shows that children cared for by their parents tend to be slightly better off, in terms of behavior and attachment, than their peers in daycare—particularly when the quality of that care is low.
This doesn’t mean that all mothers need to quit their jobs and head home to their children, but women should be aware of the research when making decisions about childcare arrangements.
The politically correct position: more government funding of institutional daycare
Questioning daycare’s effects on children is commonly characterized as an attack on working women. Feminist groups and women’s studies programs often cite the federal government’s lack of support for daycare as evidence of an unwillingness to promote women’s equality. They see the societal norm of women taking on the role of primary caregiver for children as a product of patriarchy.
For example, the women’s studies textbook Thinking About Women takes as a given that existing norms that place women at the center of caring for children are wrong-headed, unnatural, and anti-woman.1 The section on childcare closes by highlighting how families are “an ideological concept” and the nexus for numerous problems, and calls for new policies to support child care, given the new realities of family life.2
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism Page 15