“…the reason top-tier female MBAs make less then the men is because of the choice they make, not because of any gender bias”. This is not the only reason why male and female workers do not achieve equal pay and even if it was, women should not be penalized for having children, and should not be forced to have to make a choice between having children and a career.
Whilst Trunk quotes the Economist and the Washington Post’s legitimate critique of the 77 cents in a dollar stat, she fails to take this into account. Or this. Or this. Or this. And I could just keep going!As much as I would love to declare the pay gap is closed, it’s just not socially responsible or factually correct to do so.
Her case rests on the assumption that this pay gap is a choice, caused by parenting and that “the workforce is not good for parenting just is not a gender issue” completely fails to take into account that the workforce was designed by men who didn’t need to look after their kids as much because their wife was. The expectations that come with management roles were designed by men, for men and that now the men are trying to get more women into because they’re aware of the diversity benefits of doing this, they need to wake up and make the workforce for accommodating for parents. When you add that to women being ready, willing and keen to take on executive roles, the fact that workplaces need to seriously reassess the required lifestyle that comes with top jobs is a no-brainer.
Is it a gender issue? Not necessarily, but there is no doubt from the stats from organisations like the Australian Work Life Index centre that women feel the pressure of being a mum and an employee more then men do, and that we’re discriminated against just in case the kids do cause us concern over how much time we can give to work.
Sure, I agree with her that it helps to “stop being paranoid” and that most women in top jobs are very thankful to the men along the way who have helped them [link to good guys page]. I blogged about exactly this topic. But I know that women sell themselves short by not negotiating, and I also know that women can be penalized financially and socially for negotiating, something that rarely if ever happens to men.
Check it out here. I’m confident that smart working women who read this article can recognize it for its commentary, but be smart enough to steer well clear of her “show some cleavage” and “feminism is alive and well with bitter, outdated ranters” thoughts. If you’ve got thoughts or responses, and especially experiences that contradict her opinions (I’m looking at you, women experiencing the pay gap without children) share them here in the comments section.
Thankyou to Kim Seeling-Smith for passing this one on.
Comments (3) | Trackbacks (0) | Permalink
Helen commented on 01-Sep-2010 11:25 AM
Penelope Trunk commented on 06-Sep-2010 09:37 PM
Jen Dalitz commented on 07-Sep-2010 01:54 PM
Helen commented on 01-Sep-2010 11:25 AM
Outrage! Not a gender issue? So the women and their MBA's are just dying to give it all up for motherhood and the work culture has nothing to do with it, no systematic bias whatsoever!
Humbug!
Humbug!
Penelope Trunk commented on 06-Sep-2010 09:37 PM
Well, here's another way to think about it: There is a direct correlation between how effective you are as a parent and how much time you give to your children and family life. And there is a direct correlation between how effective you are at work and how much time you give to you company. So the two lives are competitive. There is no balance. There are only tough choices. Most women chose parenting, most men chose work. So the parenting world is structured by women and the work world is structured by men. This seems okay. When men choose to parent instead of work outside the home, they restructure things to meet thier needs. And the same is true of women who give up significant parenting time to work. I did that myself, and I can attest that I was able to restructure work to be more female-oriented because that was my focus. That intitutions are shaped by the people who devote the most time and energy to them seems perfectly fine - not discriminatory or unfair at all.
Penelope
Penelope
Jen Dalitz commented on 07-Sep-2010 01:54 PM
Penelope... yes and no. The work choices women and men cannot be separated from the culture of workplaces which includes a bias towards men for most job designs in traditional corporate structures. That's one of the reasons so many women are leaving corporates and starting their own businesses. Is this a good thing for society as a whole? Yes and no. It's good that their skills, education and experience continue to be utilised and they gain the satisfaction from careers. It's good that they are filling a market need. It's bad for women who don't have the inclination to run a small business or who wish to succeed in a big company, where a 1-dimensional view of success still dominates and precludes them from the getting senior roles. It's bad for our society as a whole that traditional paradigms that result in inefficient outcomes continue to be seen as the norm. Take accounting and law firms: promotions and partnerships will continue to be appointed to those who put in the most hours because time billing benefits the owners of the firm and it's easy... but it doesn't encourage the most efficient use of time and it certainly isn't in the client's best interest. And it doesn't encourage people who are able to work more efficiently to achieve equal recognition as those who put in more hours. All organisations need to become more focused on outcomes over hours - it's the way of the future and it requires change. The old way of doing things isn't necessarily the best and it isn't necessarily the most equitable.
Comments
{tag_commentlist}