Even when presented with this information, though, my classmates could think of no other reason for this disparity. They repeated the discrimination line, well, repeatedly. The prof would ask what other reasons there could be and a student would say, "Institutionalized discrimination!" "There are other reasons," the prof would rejoin and another student would say, "It's harder for women to finish college, so they don't have as much education." The bottom line in all of their reasons was discrimination.
We were getting nowhere very quickly. I tentatively raised my hand and said, "Because women choose to work less hours?" That was the answer the prof was looking for, and it was one my classmates had never considered. They were impressed... I even got a high-five from one of the loudest "it's discrimination!" students.
Thinking about it later, I am really frustrated... and not by my classmates. They spend their school lives being given all the answers and not being challenged to seek out different ones. They don't know how to consider other possibilities, and that should be one of the main things we "learn" in education.
(Kate O'Beirne has a good discussion about this income disparity issue in the book Women Who Make the World Worse : and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports
. I have not finished reading this book yet so don't know if I would whole heartedly recommend it, but it was nice to have the chapter on income inequality backing me up in class yesterday).---
Tomorrow (or Friday), our classroom discussion on poverty...
And something else that seems to be overlooked is that during the "age of wage discrimination," what was happening quite often was that men with families to support were given what was called a "living wage." Women were paid less simply because they generally needed less, since most of them either lived alone, or had a head (father or husband) who was the family's breadwinner.
ReplyDeleteOf course, it's different now that we have so many divorced women with children to take care of, but 40 years ago, that just wasn't the case.
"It's harder for women to finish college, so they don't have as much education."
ReplyDeleteWhy, are they stupid or something? What sexists.
jdavidb said :"Why, are they stupid or something? What sexists."
ReplyDeleteI had to laugh at that. Sometimes (usually?) the so-called womens' rights people are more sexist than the male chauvanists they're fighting against. ;)
Isn't it funny how the real answer is far less sexist than the answer given by people who are trying to eliminate "discrimination"? That women *choose* to earn less puts income inequality in a completely different light.
Of course, feminists will still say that it wasn't the woman's choice -- society has convinced her that she's worth less, or some other such nonsense. How about how God convinced me that I would be much more effective doing something more valuable than full-time work?
You reject the argument in favor of discrimination. Is this because you believe that employers make their decisions solely based on merit? A recent NY Times article offers evidence to the contrary: "New Jersey Medical School Gives Blatant Lesson in Spoils System", NYTimes Apr 5th.
ReplyDeleteIt was not clear to me whether you felt discrimination was no factor at all, or whether you felt other factors were more important in determining income inequality.
Well, I'm pretty sure the professor was encouraging his students to look at all possible reasons, rather than pick a single one and throw all of their weight behind it. As an example, my particular income stream isn't that high because my husband is the one who ended up with a career (and "ended up" is the correct term), and we've moved to pursue his promotions. So I've ended up with several short-circuited jobs.
ReplyDeleteOf course, he gets to pursue his career because there's a distinct possibility of his being able to support us both when we have children.*
At any rate, I expect that your professor will drop the "bombshell" tomorrow of short-term poverty, and the fact that many of the residents of the lowest fifth are young, and will climb out with dispatch. I *love* passing that info along, particularly like I did earlier this year to a college student who was looking at our purchase of a desk (long story) with the hope that someday he coud afford such things, and the fear that he never could. I got to tell him that when we were his age, around five years ago, we were broke and mostly fed by parents. That made his day. (And yes, I did mention that application was a necessary component, don't worry.)
*The reason it's a possibility rather than a reaility has to do with the location of said career in California. We'd be rich anywhere else.