Redefining Feminism
Last week, I read some depressing statistics about "the wage gap". Looking at the historical data, it seems like this gap is unlikely to just go away (as it should) . . .
Forty-some years after the Feminine Mystique, most employers are now following equal employment opportunities, girls are outperforming boys on the SAT and women are dominating in colleges. So, how come the wage gap isn't shrinking? To explain this bizzare trend, the wage gap is being attributed to women's behaviour. A host of experts have identified a plathera problems: women are increasingly choosing family over work, women not negotiating to success to women smiling too much in the boardroom. For some of these problems, solutions are suggested like "Negogiate Damnit" and "Stop smiling", etc. However, most experts are not sure what to tell women about balancing work and family. After all, women are the social caretakers and if they do not make the sacrifices, who will?
Recently, I read a refreshing article (thanks M for the link) about what we can do to close the gender gap. The Rules for women are:
Suprisingly, Hirshman (herself a beneficiary) points her finger at liberal arts education . . .
The second rule suggests women should look for more lucrative careers. . .
The last and possibly most controversial rule is that women should avoid being on a less powerful position in their family life (here, money is equivalent to power). The refreshing part about this article is that it contains suggestions that actually make sense.
For some reason, this mercenary approach to picking a career and a husband does not mesh well with my way of thinking. However, Hirshman has a point. In this world, where money is power, women are voluntarily "choosing" the short end of the stick, even Harvard educated MBAs. On the small scale, these are individual choices but globally this brings down the value of all educated women . . .
After working for a few years, it seems to me that women have to overcome significant gender handicaps at the work place in order to succeed. While their biological clocks are racing, women often times make decisions that make it difficult for them to compete equally in the job market (and therefore make the world a better place). However, the good news is that science is on our side (with women living longer and able to have kids at an older age) and other options are becoming more socially viable (adoption). Hopefully, a redefinition of feminism and a women-friendly instutional and societal changes will ensure that the future will not be as bleak . . .
Forty-some years after the Feminine Mystique, most employers are now following equal employment opportunities, girls are outperforming boys on the SAT and women are dominating in colleges. So, how come the wage gap isn't shrinking? To explain this bizzare trend, the wage gap is being attributed to women's behaviour. A host of experts have identified a plathera problems: women are increasingly choosing family over work, women not negotiating to success to women smiling too much in the boardroom. For some of these problems, solutions are suggested like "Negogiate Damnit" and "Stop smiling", etc. However, most experts are not sure what to tell women about balancing work and family. After all, women are the social caretakers and if they do not make the sacrifices, who will?
Recently, I read a refreshing article (thanks M for the link) about what we can do to close the gender gap. The Rules for women are:
There are three rules: Prepare yourself to qualify for good work, treat work seriously, and don’t put yourself in a position of unequal resources when you marry.
Suprisingly, Hirshman (herself a beneficiary) points her finger at liberal arts education . . .
The first pitfall is the liberal-arts curriculum, which women are good at, graduating in higher numbers than men. Although many really successful people start out studying liberal arts, the purpose of a liberal education is not, with the exception of a miniscule number of academic positions, job preparation. . . So the first rule is to use your college education with an eye to career goals.
The second rule suggests women should look for more lucrative careers. . .
So the second rule is that women must treat the first few years after college as an opportunity to lose their capitalism virginity and prepare for good work, which they will then treat seriously.
The best way to treat work seriously is to find the money.
The last and possibly most controversial rule is that women should avoid being on a less powerful position in their family life (here, money is equivalent to power). The refreshing part about this article is that it contains suggestions that actually make sense.
Taking the easier path first, marry down. Don’t think of this as brutally strategic. If you are devoted to your career goals and would like a man who will support that, you’re just doing what men throughout the ages have done: placing a safe bet.
For some reason, this mercenary approach to picking a career and a husband does not mesh well with my way of thinking. However, Hirshman has a point. In this world, where money is power, women are voluntarily "choosing" the short end of the stick, even Harvard educated MBAs. On the small scale, these are individual choices but globally this brings down the value of all educated women . . .
After working for a few years, it seems to me that women have to overcome significant gender handicaps at the work place in order to succeed. While their biological clocks are racing, women often times make decisions that make it difficult for them to compete equally in the job market (and therefore make the world a better place). However, the good news is that science is on our side (with women living longer and able to have kids at an older age) and other options are becoming more socially viable (adoption). Hopefully, a redefinition of feminism and a women-friendly instutional and societal changes will ensure that the future will not be as bleak . . .
6 Comments:
The statistics may not be as bad as they look. The ratio of a man's earning to a woman's earning has dropped from 175% to 125% within 50 years! Within another 50 years, err... :)
So what exactly are you people complaining about?!
littlecow -
Your fancy math skills are impressive and I agree that the wage gap picture can be graphed to look less bleak. However, I am complaigning about this . . .
I think one of the problems with the statistics is that it takes the median. This means it probably incorporates all different levels of that position. Thus if you have more men in higher level positions, it will skew the stats towards men, because they get paid more.
So really I think the problem is more likely not the pay gap, but rather the number of females in higher positions.
I agree with th article about marrying down. I consider marrying a man who makes less money (or someone who is does not want to work at all), is less assertive, and also who is shorter than the woman etc. as tests of her "feminism", if there is such a thing. Otherwise, I prefer to talk in terms of equal opportunity and justice, rather than militant or fundamentalist "feminism".
My guess is that many people, such as the author of the prospect.org article, do not understand the basics of "market" forces. Let me give an example. When there is a traffic jam on the highway during office rush hour, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of an individual driver, who could have used an alternative route instead of the highway, thus not contributing to the jam? Or is the the fault of the highway maker for making a highway that does not widen when the traffic increases? It is not one person's fault or responsiblity, and the situation or bottleneck arises out of aggregation of actions of those who drive, as well as the office bosses who set the timetables of those who drive to their offices. This is a simple illustration of what "market" forces can do. So, what is the solution to such a problem? Appealing to individual drivers to change their behavior is as ineffective as looking for flexible-width highway technology is ridiculous. Solutions lie in the fundamental change in policies that lead to skewed patterns of highway usage over various hours of the day. Examples would include staggering office hours, promoting work from home, and better/cheaper public transport. Socialistic thinking needs to be complemented and enhanced by the understanding of "market" forces.
Similarly, asking some women to opt for careers over family for the sake of other women would be as ineffective as demonstrating in front of a Wal-Mart for causing the close down of local stores. We require fundamental change in policies to facilitate women to continue their careers after events such as pregnancy and child birth. Public spending on programs such as day care would be another step in this direction.
To the question of how fundamental changes in social conditioning of men and women as equal bearers of responsibility can be brought, I still don't have any answers... I guess it will follow from more women making use of women-friendly policies.
@bdeshini-
check this out:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm
btw, the point i was making was this:
the ratio between a man's earnings to a womans is a much more coherent indicator of the disparity than looking at the difference between the wages. based on that, the situation has actually improved dramatically in the last 5 decades.
Post a Comment
<< Home