Women: Equal or Special?
This past week, the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation released their report on data they analyzed from the U.S. Department of Education. Their conclusion: men still earn more than women, even when comparing people with the same jobs and experience levels. And men are out-earning women even one year out of college. That, of course, is an inequity which our society should address. Equal pay for equal work is the only way a civilized society should function.
However, that is not what got my dander up. The goal of equal pay for equal work has not yet been met, but we’re doing a helluva lot better than we were only a few years ago. Remember Rosie the Riveter, who was unceremoniously dumped back in the kitchen after the war? Remember when women were routinely denied jobs or raises because a man “needed” such things more? Those days are largely gone, and they were handed off to the scrap heap of history fairly quickly, as far as that goes. We can keep our eyes on the long-term goal, but that’s no reason not to recognize that fantastic strides have been made in less than sixty years.
No, my ire was caused by something else. Every one of the articles I read on the subject — every one — mentioned, at some point, that women will never be equal to men in the workplace until the government steps in to mandate more paid leave for mothers, and employers cough up job sharing and flexible scheduling for mothers, and provide, as our own local editors put it, “other accommodations.” For, well, you know who.
Stop. Right. There.
Why should government and corporations do this? Because, in the words of our wise editors, “leaving the work force lowers women’s earnings potential, as does working part-time.” However, would not leaving the work force also lower a man’s earnings potential? Wouldn’t working part-time mean a man earned less money than his full-time counterparts? Wouldn’t it?
You know it would. And yet we’re supposed to be in a righteous tizzy that SAHMs have voluntarily lowered their earnings potential. But choices come with consequences, and leaving the work force for years is a choice that has definite consequences. If you leave your occupation, you will not come back to it years later to find yourself magically promoted to the place you would have had if you had never left. You will not suddenly have the corner office and a six-figure salary like the guy in the next cube who’s been putting in his time at the office, and possibly doing your job on top of his own, while you’ve been gone.
This is not discrimination. This is actually fair treatment. You put the time in at the job, you get the raise, the corner office, the nice title. You spend half of your career shuttling children to dance lessons and recitals, and you will not have those things. Similarly, if you spend half your career sitting on a beach sipping drinks, or digging wells in Third World countries, or painting murals, or taking care of elderly parents, or learning to play the violin, then you will also not have those things. Because the employer is in the business to make money, and pursuing those personal goals does not add to your employer’s bottom line.
Everyone could use flexible scheduling, job sharing, and some accommodations from their employer at some point in their lives. Mothers are not the only ones who have duties or dreams or goals or hobbies outside of the office. Nor is it the government’s nor the employer’s job to gauge the relative worthiness of each employee’s goals and to pick and choose which to support and which to deny. Personal goals like parenthood or travel or volunteer work are just that — personal.
Mandating special treatment for mothers is not equality. And it’s not right. If you think you need to be treated differently than everyone else at your company because you’ve had a child, then wake up and smell the dirty diaper, sister, because you’re nothing special. Nor are you doing anything more or less worthy than anyone else. And neither am I, and neither is the guy in the next cube. We’re all people, and we’re all equal. Or we should be.
Copyright . Published 4 May 2007 in Editorials.
Reader comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Even better, why not mandate equal time off for men on the birth of their children. It removes the prospect of childfree women not getting jobs because bosses assume they’ll breed.
So, rather than emphasising women/motherhood, emphasise parenthood, and allow men to have equality in the home.
For those men that irresponsibly populate the planet, finding their career held back by a mandatory month’s leave on the birth/discovery of the birth of their children would put a dent in their lives.
permalink — 1 May 2007, 04:34
I definitely agree and it’s very nice to have others who agree as well because, unfortunately, there are those who think that women who take time off for their children should still be treated the same as someone (whether a man or a woman) who doesn’t. My professor used an example of who would we (the students) give a promotion: the person who took six months off for 10 years or the person who worked for the straight ten. Assuming they are both good at their jobs, I’d give it to the person who worked the ten, because it shows they are dedicated. The people in my class assumed that the person working the straight ten years was a man. I said it was a woman (obviously there is a stereotype here with the assumption of it being a man). I read a statistic that said that women would be okay with earning a lower salary if they could work more flexible hours (to balance work/family). Maybe that could be a problem as well?
permalink — 1 May 2007, 10:16
In my experience companies often give new mothers time off—and I think that is a good thing. However, it often comes at the expense of those of us who are either single or don’t have children. Our society should figure out a better way for women to have both careers and family. I am childless by choice but I also knew I couldn’t excel in my career and have children.
permalink — 12 May 2007, 09:07
I believe that one reason why men are consistently paid more than men is due to negotiating skills rather than discrimination. Men are more willing to negotiate salary than women. Talking to my female friends, most say they are just thrilled at having been offered the job so they take the first salary offer. Some women I spoke to did not even realize that salaries — like a new car prices — are negotiable. It might only be a small part of the bigger problem, but nonetheless it’s affecting the national average of women’s salaries.
permalink — 25 May 2007, 04:26