ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
A contestant on "The Apprentice Los Angeles" is the latest to promote a story about the horrors of working for women. But research shows women don't actually hold one another back; when they become senior managers, women's salaries rise.
(WOMENSENEWS)--Jenn Hoffman believes that, sometimes, working for other women ought to be avoided.
The 27-year-old reality TV contestant believes some women unconsciously construct a "pink ceiling" in workplaces, which holds all women back.
"It seems to be almost a sport among women," said Hoffman, a former contestant on "The Apprentice Los Angeles" who was fired from the show by New York real estate magnate and host Donald Trump on March 4. "Women can become very aggressive and judgmental about your weight, your hair, your dress, whether you have the latest Prada bag. Battle lines are drawn between who is friends with who and your friendships directly affect which projects you work on. Now I think women are holding back other women more than the old boys' club mentality."
Hoffman has been using the spillover media attention from her "Apprentice" participation to promote the idea of the pink ceiling. Her public relations firm has contacted press and she hopes to speak on college campuses and in workplaces to warn women against the dangers of building pink ceilings.
Hoffman said working on a team dominated by women on the television show--who competed against another team with a member of the losing team fired by Trump at the end of each episode--made it difficult for any of the women to succeed because of female infighting.
In her off-screen life, Hoffman works for Orca Communications, a female-dominated public relations firm in Phoenix in which the publicists work from home "to curtail the water-cooler gossip."
The idea of the malevolent female manager--and the toxic female-dominated work environment--is riding a pop-culture wave.
Hoffman's pink-ceiling charges come on the heels of "The Devil Wears Prada," the 2003 book and 2006 film chronicling a young woman's first job as an assistant to a cruel and demeaning female fashion magazine editor, and arrive ahead of the September debut of the movie "The Nanny Diaries," based upon the 2002 book about an upper-class couple's maltreatment of their child's female nanny, in which the mother is a particularly nasty employer.
As much as feminists love to parrot the statistic that women earn only 76 cents on the male dollar, they rarely bother to provide an explanation or solid evidence for this claim. But fortunately a smart new book has hit the shelves just in time for Equal Pay Day to help them out.
Equal pay for equal work has been enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act since it was made law in 1972. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also ban sex-based wage discrimination. So it seems pretty remarkable that the wage gap is so wide and pervasive even today. Attorneys should be having a field day with class-action lawsuits. But they are not. Could it be that even the legal establishment is complicit in this glaringly obvious patriarchal conspiracy?
The 76-cent statistic (now actually 80 cents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau) is misleading because it is a raw comparison of all working men and women. Thus a female receptionist working 40-hour weeks is tossed in with the male orthopedic surgeon putting in 70-hour weeks.
A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.
Warren Farrell, three-time board of directors member of the National Organization for Women New York City, exhaustively debunks the wage gap myth in his book "Why Men Earn More." Farrell documents occupations requiring bachelor's degrees in which women's starting salaries actually exceed men's. Female investment bankers and dieticians, for example, can expect to earn 116 percent to 130 percent of their male counterparts' salaries.
The real reason than men tend to out-earn women is the choices they make. Men are far more likely to take unpleasant and dangerous jobs, what Farrell calls the "death and exposure professions." For example, firefighting, truck driving, mining and logging -- to name just a few high-risk jobs -- are all more than 95 percent male. Conversely, low risk jobs like secretarial work and childcare are more than 95 percent female.
Farrell points out that in California, prison guards can earn $70,000 per year plus full medical benefits and retire after thirty years with a hefty retirement package. But it takes little imagination to figure out why California still has a difficult time staffing its prisons, and it goes without saying that most prison guards are male. Says Farrell, "As with most jobs, there's an inverse relationship between fulfillment and pay."
Because men are more likely to take jobs that are unpleasant, dangerous or dull in exchange for higher pay, they reap the financial benefit. Farrell summarizes this phenomenon this way: "Jobs that expose you to the sleet and the heat pay more than those that are indoors and neat."
Another reason women's average earnings are less than men's is that they take more time out of the workforce for care-giving. Women, more so than men, adjust their work schedules to accommodate their families, and in poll after poll, they express a preference to do so.
"Well, why can't men and women share domestic responsibilities 50-50 so women will be just as free and unencumbered as men are?" the conventional feminist argument goes. Such an arrangement is unrealistic as it requires both husband and wife to work part-time. Couples typically find it easiest for each partner to specialize and make the sacrifices required to sustain the family.
Scholars can debate whether it is societal pressure or innate desire that makes women elect to spend more time with their children. But so long as these decisions are a reflection of women's expressed preferences, this isn't a problem that needs to be solved.
Arrah Nielsen is a junior fellow at IWF.
Some links to sites that discuss the fallacy of the so-called wage gap between men and women and the real reasons the gap exists rather than the feminist propaganda. Note some are PDF downloads. Credit to Marc A. on Glenn Sacks, October 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
U.S. Federal Government, Department of Labor, and the DoL even has a forward in the report.
ABC News: “Is the Wage Gap Women’s Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity”
And the whole "housework" thing was debunked too when you factor work both in and out of the home.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
The best recent work on the alleged wage gap was done by Warren Farrell in his book Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap And What Women Can Do About It. Warren's newest release--"How the AAUW Pay Equity Study Undermines Women"--details fallacies with the recent assertions of widespread wage discrimination against women. It is reprinted with permission below. Warren, whom I consider the intellectual wellspring of the men's movement, will be speaking atthe Third National Men's Equality Congress July 13-14 in Washington D.C. Warren can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
How the AAUW Pay Equity Study Undermines Women
By Warren Farrell, Ph.D.
April 24 is Pay Equity Day. Hillary Clinton is leading a protest against the alleged discrimination behind the gender pay gap, and introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act. The AAUW (American Association of University Women) is publicizing a study that appears to document the discrimination against women reflected by the gap. And restaurants are giving discounts to women to help compensate and show support.
When I was on the Board of the National Organization for Women in New York City in the seventies, I also led protests against the male-female pay gap. And I also assumed the gap reflected both discrimination against women and the undervaluing of women.
Then one day I asked myself, "If we can pay women less for the same work, why would any one hire a man?" And if they did, wasn't there a punishment--called "going out of business?" In other words, did market forces contain a built-in punishment against discrimination?
The answer to what the pay gap was really about became more than theoretical as two daughters entered my life. After a decade of research for Why Men Earn More, I discovered 25 differences in men and women's work-life choices. All 25 lead to men earning more money; and all 25 lead to women having better lives--lives more balanced between work and home. (Since real power is about having a better life, well, once again, the women have outsmarted us!)
As it turns out, the road to high pay is a toll road. High pay is about trade-offs. Men's trade-offs include working more hours (women work more at home); taking more-dangerous, dirtier, and outdoor jobs (garbage collecting; construction; trucking); relocating and traveling; training for more-technical jobs with less people contact (engineering); taking late night shifts; working for more years; being absent less frequently...
In her column "You've come a long way, maybe" (Viewpoint, May 25), Angela Walters writes "According to the U.S. Department of Labor's Women Bureau, women are paid 74 cents for every dollar that men make." According to former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich the current number is actually 76 percent, not 74 percent, but the better question is "Why do men make more money than women?"
The answer has little to do with discrimination.
To begin with, men work considerably more hours than women do. Men work 90 percent of the overtime hours in the United States and full-time employed males work, on average, eight hours a week (or over 400 hours a year) more than women do.
The "76 cents for every dollar" statistic is misleading because it creates the illusion that women are making 76 percent of men for the same number of hours worked. Women earn 76 percent of what men earn but for working roughly 84 percent (not 100 percent) of the hours that men work.
If we use wages based on an equal number of hours worked (rather than gross income) over half of the gender difference between men and women disappears.
So, going by wages for equal hours worked women are up to earning roughly 90 percent (76 percent divided by 84 percent) of what men earn. What else are we leaving out?
Plenty. Men earn more money than women because:
1) Men do the dangerous jobs. Every year between 6,000 and 10,000 people are killed in work related accidents in the United States - roughly 95 percent of them male (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).
Ten times that number die from occupational diseases, such as black lung disease and occupationally related lung cancers - again overwhelmingly male.
Over 6 million suffer work related injuries from broken limbs to bad backs to blindness - again overwhelmingly male ("Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect," Bureau of Labor Statistics).
While even working-class women are likely to work in safe, comfortable offices as secretaries and file clerks, men are working on roofs and sides of buildings, in sewers, in mines, in factories, on power poles, in the heat and in the cold, at night and on weekends.
Many of these jobs, such as construction worker, fireman, roofer, miner, welder, oil worker, forklift and crane operator, electrician, truck driver, etc., pay better specifically because there are clear hazards associated with them.
There is a straight progression along gender lines between safe jobs and hazardous jobs - the more hazardous it is, the more male it is (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings).
2) Men are far more likely to work graveyard shifts, endure long commutes and working weekends, and to travel for their work.
3) Because men have been saddled with the breadwinner burden for longer than women, there is a large experience gap between them. Full-time employed females have, as a whole, 25 percent less job experience than their male counterparts, which is (of course) reflected in their wages (June O'Neill and Solomon Polacheck, "Why the Gender Gap in Wages Narrowed in the 1980s," Journal of Labor Economics 11, no. 1, Jan. 1993).
The majority of this gap appears in older workers and, accordingly, the wage gap among older workers is far greater than that among younger workers.
The 76 percent statistic is also distorted by the large number of 50 and 60 year-old males who, with 30 or 40 years of experience, are making higher wages. Many of their wives spent much of their lives working part-time or as full-time homemakers and thus make far less money, even though they, as a group, spend more money than their male counterparts.
4) Women entered the workplace in large numbers at a time when unions were weak. Thus the mostly male unions, largely formed 50 or 75 years ago, are generally more entrenched and stronger than the majority female unions.
5) Women often take years off (or work part-time) to take care of their young children. When women return to their full-time careers years later they are way behind men.
It is upon the birth of a family's first child that the wage gap between men and women really kicks in. The man, overwhelmed with bills, sets himself upon the task of supporting his newly enlarged family and the woman takes on the burden of primary care-giver to the children.
Because of the far-more constraining gender roles imposed upon men, taking years off to rear children is simply not an option, although studies have shown that many men (wistfully) long for just such an option.
So, accounting for all this, what wage gap, if any, is left?
Not much. According to surveys by the Independent Women's Forum and by the Cato Institute, when all of the above factors are considered, women earn over 98 percent of what men earn.
One of the problems is that American society does little to compensate women or make adjustments for the earning loss they take when they have children.
An example in university life is that women are often under pressure to "publish or perish" in the struggle for tenure at just the same time in their lives when their biological clock is putting them under pressure to have children.
This is not "discrimination" but it is insensitivity. Society could go a long way toward eliminating the gender wage gap by trying to institute measures to reduce the career damage done to women by child-rearing. In turn, by reducing the damage done to women's careers by child-rearing we could take some of the financial burden off of men and free them to do more child-rearing, which in turn would help women's careers.
Is the male role of breadwinner and primary wage-earner a privilege?
For successful men in safe jobs, perhaps it is. But for the majority of men it is not privilege at all, even if their wages are still somewhat higher than that of their female counterparts.
Interestingly, the founders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) saw the male breadwinner role as highly burdensome. The original NOW Statement of Purpose reads:
"We reject the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home, and family are primarily woman's world and responsibility - hers to dominate - his to support."
And support men do, at the expense of their health, their safety, and sometimes their lives. Men earn more money than women because they make more sacrifices to make money, not because of "discrimination."
The 76-cent myth Do women make less than men? The wage-gap ratio isn't the best gauge for pay discrimination, and overemphasizing it can undermine an important issue.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - When you have a legitimate point to make, it can undercut your argument to rely heavily on a sound-bite statistic that easily can be misinterpreted.
When it comes to pay discrimination, the one statistic you hear over and over is that women make only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns.
To the average person, that ratio gives the false impression that any woman working is at risk of being paid 24 cents less per dollar than a man in the same position.
But all the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men who log at least 35 hours a week on the job, any job. That's it.
It doesn't compare those with equal work, equal training, equal education or equal tenure. Nor does it take into account the hours of overtime worked.
The wage gap, in short, "is a good measure of inequality, not necessarily a measure of discrimination," said Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
Unequal doesn't always mean unfair. Much depends on the reasons for disparity. And, Hartmann notes, "parsing out (the reasons for the gap) is difficult to do."
Factors may include: more women choose lower-paying professions than men; they move in and out of the workforce more frequently; and they work fewer paid hours on average.
Why that's the case may have to do in part with the fact that women are still society's primary caregivers, that some higher-paying professions require either too much time away from home or are still less hospitable to women than they should be.
However, while those factors account for a good portion of the wage gap, actual pay discrimination likely accounts for the balance, experts say.
Hartmann believes discrimination accounts for between 25 percent and 33 percent of the wage gap. Compensation specialist Gary Thornton, a principal in the HR management consulting firm Thornton & Associates, figures at least 10 percent to 15 percent does.
Whatever the breakout, there certainly are numerous studies that show discrimination -- however unconscious -- still exists. For instance:
Take human resources, now a female-dominated profession. I asked Thornton if he thinks female human-resource managers today are paid as well as he and his male colleagues were 15 years ago. "Not at all," he said. He estimates that in inflation-adjusted terms they're paid about 20 percent less.
Why? "That's the million-dollar question," he said. "There are many things at play. But we still have a long way to go to change unintentional discrimination."
A few years back, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that its women scientists were routinely given less pay, space, funding and rewards than their male colleagues.
"Did anyone intentionally give them smaller offices and labs? Probably not. It's just one of those things (that) accumulate and add up to barriers and institutional discrimination," Hartmann said.
Even though discrimination may not be intentional, Hartmann said, companies should be intentional about regularly reviewing their compensation structures and promotion records to correct for patterns of discrimination.
But maybe there can never be absolute parity because often there are many non-discriminatory variables that cause a differential in pay. What determines someone's pay isn't just a title and job description, but also performance, tenure and market forces -- e.g., what it takes to get a desirable job candidate to accept a position.
And then there are situations in which a company may do well by a female employee but still be vulnerable to charges of discrimination and reverse discrimination.
In an article, Warren Farrell, author of "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It," tells of a company that promoted good women employees faster than men. But consequently the women moving into the higher positions often were paid less than men in the same position because the men had greater tenure at the company.
Or, Thornton noted, a man's request for pay equity is more likely to fall on deaf ears if he finds out a newly hired female colleague is paid more. But if a woman made the same request, it's more likely to be treated seriously, due to fear of a lawsuit.
If anything is clear cut, it's that pay equity can be a complex issue. And it's one that a single, overly generalized statistic does little to elucidate.
Why do men earn more than women? Because they deserve to, argues this contrarian challenge to feminist conventional wisdom. Men work longer hours at more dangerous and disagreeable jobs. They more readily accept night shifts, hardship postings to Alaska and entrepreneurial risks. Men get in-demand degrees in engineering, while women get degrees in French literature. Female librarians earn less than garbagemen, not because of discrimination, but because so many applicants compete for the safe, clean, comfortable, convenient, fulfilling jobs women prefer. Indeed, the author insists, statistics show that women and men with equal experience and qualifications, doing the same job, for the same hours, under the same conditions-get paid the same. Farrell, author of The Myth of Male Power, usefully points women towards high-paying, male-dominated fields that are becoming female friendly and suggests that ambitious women marry stay-at-home husbands. But he considers men the real victims, taken advantage of because of their innate chivalry and social expectations that they trade earning power for love and sex and be "willing to die to support the wives and children." He decries anti-male discrimination in occupations like teaching, nursing and cocktail-waitressing, and pillories comparable worth initiatives as "spoiled-brat economics." A whole chapter is devoted to "genetic celebrities"-i.e., beautiful women (exemplified in photos of same) whom men shower with free dinners, gifts and home repairs and who "marry up" into cushy lifestyles paid for by workaholic husbands. Ostensibly a road-map to workplace equality, Farrell's portrait of pampered, ungrateful women and stoic, self-sacrificing men may strike some readers as an unhelpful caricature.
Feminists keep demanding new laws to protect women from the so-called wage gap. Many studies have found that women make about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns. Activists say the pay difference is all about sexism.
"No matter how hard women work, or whatever they achieve in terms of advancement in their own professions and degrees, they will not be compensated equitably!" shouted Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., at a "wage equity" rally in Washington, D.C.
But how could this be possible? Suppose you're an employer doing the hiring. If a woman does equal work for 25 percent less money, businesses would get rich just by hiring women. Why would any employer ever hire a man?
Martha Burk, chair of the National Council of Women's Organizations, gave me this simple answer: "Because they like to hire men, John. They like to hire people like themselves and they darn sure like to promote people like themselves." In other words, men so love their fellow men that they are willing to pay a premium of, say, $10,000 on what would otherwise be a $30,000-a-year job, just for the sheer pleasure of employing a man. Nonsense. It's market competition that sets wages.
Men do care about money -- and that, not wage discrimination, is why men tend to make more of it.
"Women themselves say they're far more likely to care about flexibility," says author Warren Farrell. "Men say, I'm far more likely to care about money."
Farrell spent about 15 years going over U.S. Census statistics and research studies. His research found that the wage gap exists not because of sexism, but because more men are willing to do certain kinds of jobs. "The average full-time working male works more than a full-time working female," Farrell said.
Farrell illustrates his findings at lectures by asking men and women to stand in answer to a series of questions about job choices, such as whether they work more than 40 hours a week, outdoors or in a dangerous job. Again and again, more men stand.
Job choices explain the pay difference, Farrell argues in his recent book, "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap."
They also explain, Farrell said, why more top corporate executives are men.
"We have been suckered into believing that because there are more men at the top than women at the top, that this is a result of discrimination against women. That's been the misconception. It's all about trade-offs. You earn more money, you usually sacrifice something at home," Farrell said.
Suppose two people have equal potential, but one takes on more demanding, consuming, lucrative jobs while the other places a higher priority on family. The one who makes work the focus will be more productive for an employer than the one who puts his or her home life first. The latter will get more of the pleasures of family. So he (and it tends to be "he") will make more money, even though she would be equally productive and equally rewarded if she made the same choices.
"Women and men look at their life," said Farrell, "and women say, 'What do I need? Do I need more money, or do I need more time?' And women are intelligent enough to say, I need more time. And so women lead balanced lives. Men should be learning from women."
One irony is that some people, especially young women, may make the choices that lead to the pay gap precisely because they have been taught the job market shortchanges women. Women who see the market as hostile may put their hearts into their homes instead of their careers -- thus making less money.
But the market isn't hostile. The market is just. It rewards you for the work you do, not for the work you choose not to do. If men want the family time many women have, we must accept lower financial rewards -- and if women want the money, they have to work like money-grubbing men.
It's our choice.
Harriet Harman, the feminist Minister for Women and Equality in the UK has been recommended by the Office Of National Statistics to present “gender wage gap” statistics differently in this report in order to give the figures in a fairer light. There is more evidence that her use of statistics are causing consternation in Whitehall. Previously to this, Ms. Harman has claimed that ”on average women are paid 22.6% per hour less than men”. However, this figure is based on total hours worked by both sexes - but does take into account the actual amount of hours worked by women.
From the Office Of National Statistics report (emphasis mine) ;-
The measure for all employees showed a pay difference of 22.5 percent in favour of men and the pay difference for full-timers was 12.8 per cent in April 2008. When looking at part-time employees, the difference was -3.5 per cent, meaning that part-time men were paid less on average than part-time women.
However, Ms. Harman’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission continues unabated with their own investigation on how best to provide the figures for public consumption.
Why not read the report and judge for yourself?
Victim Feminist Central
Christina Hoff Sommers