Explaining The Gender Gap In Pay

EXPLAINING THE GENDER GAP IN PAY

Biases beyond sex may be important factors for why female
professors earn less, new study suggests.

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/04/13/gender

 

I think its important to note that this study essentially proves that there is a bias against women simply because of their sex.

 

Wow....This kind of topic is kinda like when you keep a dog in your yard. Landmines everywere...


The aritlce touched on time spent teaching. I have to imagine that fields like physics and bioliogy, the hard core research stuff, falls into those people who teach less, and those field tend to be male dominated, IMHO of course. Anyway does this boil down to one really really uncomfortable fact? Is it a simple matter of subject matter, and how difficult that subject matter is to teach or even learn? Can we compare "disciplines" legitimatly in that respect? Is it harder to get a PhD in one field over another? Does it get down to what is harder Sociology or Physics? I know in my field, IT, that as Computer Science degree requires alot of higher math like calc and linear equations, but a Technology degree does not. It is, in my opinion, a harder path to take, and should be rewarded accordingly. I think the 6.8% number could represent that tendency in male academic to persue higher science and research. I dont think this would be because women are incapabile of it, just choices people "tend" to make. Guys are problem solves, therefor may gravate toward science more, women well..Im not a women so Ill keep that opinion to myself...

Here is a though, and since i dont work in the university business I could be wrong, but here goes. At the academic level social science has no prospect of creating any money for the school except maybe through grants, but science at least has the potential to generate a little cash and prestige for the school.

 

Sorry for the brutalized english in the last paragraph...cant edit now...

 

I think more research can be done...and I agree that there is still probably some bias - much like the dearth of women in the top corporate ranks...but I also think Lou is right in pointing out that the bulk of research money goes to science research and not liberal arts teaching - which have their own gender differences.

Interesting cultural divide here between the liberal arts crowd (who have to moonlight at 7-11 if they want extra cash) and the Science crowd (who can fairly easily consult or get a 2nd job)

 

I think this topic should be moved to the more appropriate off-topic discussion forum.

 

My wife stomps her feet when people talk of bias against women, at least in academia, and says she never saw the slightest tinge of it.

She got her bachelor's in math with a minor in physics. She later got an MS in math from a major research university, did a couple years of PhD studies in Math and one year of them in Ed Psych, and taught as a 3/4 time adjunct in the math department for the same major uni. She has also taugh math at a smaller college.

She lived inside the ivory towers of the hard science academy for years, she has some experience. She says she never had anything but help and encouragement from all in the faculty and administration, whether they were wire-rimmed glasses feminists with ugly hairdoos or paunchy old school men with bald pates.

She also worked as a computer programmer/analyst for a top 10 insurance company. Her boss was a woman. Her boss's boss was a woman. She had more trouble with the women in this organization than the men. The former were sometimes vicious and petty (they wanted--so it seemed to her--to hold other women back) the latter were almost to a person helpful and professional.

Her experience is purely anecdotal, I know, but nonetheless she poo poos the very hint that there's any significant bias against women, particularly in academia. And one perhaps unexplored subject is that of bias by women against women. Could that be a factor?

Having bounced around the academies and the business world for over a decade, both as a student, an educator and a salesman/sales manager, I can say that among the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of offices I've entered and gotten some impression of, I can count on one hand the number that fit the description of "ol' boys network". Occasionally as a sales manager, I'd have a young, attractive rep come in from a day of cold-calling and tell me about the feller at the main desk who made a rather direct comment about her feminine assets, at least in his eyes. These comments came almost invariably from blue collar environments, and they were rare indeed (and rude indeed). But they are largely a remnant of the past, and thankfully so.

There are any number of reasons for a wage disparity:

1). Career interruptions to bear offspring;

2). Inherent differences between women and men, the latter being, as a gender, more naturally aggressive than the former (and please let us not engage in the nonsensical prattle about women and men being born the same, blank slates upon which we imprint our biases--anyone who has ever raised a boy and a girl knows that's pure bunkum. It makes no biological sense, either), and of course,

3). Biases and old boy networks.

And that last one does exist in some places, but I'd say it runs a distant third save in the imaginings of certain feminists who wish for it to be so, perhaps to explain away their own failings (caused primarily, in my not-so-humble opinion, by their deep-seated woundedness and anger that surrounds them like a dark cloud--you wanna promote someone like that? Fat chance) or to score public policy points.

There now, let the firestorm of angry responses begin.

 

I think you summed it up in the first sentence though. She is a math and physics gal!! There is no denying or working around someone who is good with numbers. It is the true intellectual battlefield with an undeniable winner. Thats probably why she hasnt seen it, science is results oriented. Either you do it or you dont, there is no fluffyness to it. Im glad to hear that she has had a good experience and has been successful!

IMHO the last thing you said is also HUGH. When you give people, any people, an outlet to blame something on they will. Im sure in some cases it is true, but i dont know how many time i have hear someone say "its because Im ___________"..Noooo, its because your incompetant, you just happen to be _______. As for the dark cloud, anyone remember schelprock on the Flintstones? Difficult people are difficult regardless of their feeling on any issue. Can you imagin promoting a guy who open says that a womens place is in the home and that where she should be? Wouldnt do it, so why would you do it if a gal had the same close minded attitude, just from a different persepective?

Said it once, will say it again. Its about performance. And keep one thing in mind, and this will probably upset some. But alot of people who fall on their face did it to themselves and want to blame someone else to make themselves feel better.

 

Wow, I think most of you guys are out in left field! From what I gathered from the article, the authors/researchers were doing their best to eliminate all other factors that contribute to unequal wages and when they were all done, women were still paid 7% less than their male counterparts! If you can believe the research and you don't want to believe the numbers, then you've become part of the system which propigates these inequities by trying to explain them away without justification.

The one thing I agree with is that in the hard sciences the differences of pay between women and men is much smaller; however, by all accounts the differences still exist. Being that I'm a Computer Science geek, this debate doesn't really affect me that much; however, to say that unreasonable bias doesn't exist is simply ostrich-like.

 

JoAnn,

Are you saying that you are not experiencing this gap yourself? I hate to go by studies where were unclear on what the sample was, and perfer to actually talk to people and ask for their direct experience. I dont know a single female coworker who is paid less then there male counterpart. I have worked in hospitals, banks, and insurance companies and never have i seen this seperation in pay. A job is paid usually by title, not by employee sex and it has a range for pay over 5-10 grand. The descrepency may be in the range area(6.8% is fairly small) but this is where is gets touchy because it deals in performance or qualifications and that is a case to case issue. I have seen the opposite more often than not.

If i may be so bold Jo, are you compensated as well as your male counterparts? I personally think that I would rage if someone told me i wasnt getting paid as much cause i was a guy, or white or catholic or any of the BS reasons.

Its funny to me that the difference is so small in the field that actually do something or make something, as opposed to the fields that dont produce anything tangible(well they cause problems but that a different forum...) Could it be that men who work in "Social Science" fields are doing non traditional things in that field such as technical suport. I just have a hard time with this cause I really have never seen it happen...but then again I am not a gal, and have ZERO first hand experience.

 

Well, JoAnn, the article didn't say a blooming thing about many other factors, including some that I mentioned (such as time off for bearing offspring, inherent differences in agressiveness between men and women, etc).

In fact, the article that I read--and I'm inclined to believe we read an entirely different one, or is it just that little bugaboo that I recently lectured on called "perception bias"?--was quite equivocal on whether the markedly samaller difference of 6.8% was truly a sign of bias against women. In fact, the article fairly slammed the reader over the head with the notion that perhaps there is no bias after all, as a number of other possible factors explaining the minor differences haven't even been explored.

Did we read the same article? And by the way, I'm over here in right field, but I seem to hear JoAnn's voice coming from...oh yeah, over there in left. Way out there, right up against the wall standing on the warning track.

Love,

LF

 

Hmmm, I guess we didn't read the same article. Of course, I got the quote from the article pointed to by the poster's link. So, I'm pretty sure I was reading the correct article.

 

Interesting comments, deep subject to examine, and I'm glad Jim posted it. However, I'll second Blue's suggestion to move the thread to "off topic" - this really doesn't have anything to do with distance learning.

Dave

 

"I know I'm paranoid" said the King, "but am I paranoid ENOUGH?"

 

This is why this subject, and almost any subject dealing with race, sex, or culture are hard to talk about. People immediatly take an defensive, although aggresive stance.

Does anyone think that discrimnation doesnt happen? Duh!

Does anyone think someone should be paid based on their sex, race, or faith? Another Duh...that ship has sailed.

Does anyone think there are women out there who are totally incompentant in there positions? Duh, same percentage as men. I beleive about 65% of all people are total idiots, i imagine half of them are women.

But there are differences, and it amazes me that people want to ignore their differences instead of taking advantage of them.

And the funniest thing about most of these discussion is the complete dismissal of possible alternative reason outside of good ole evil discrimination. Not only in this type of discussion, but in almost any that relates to social issues. I have worked in offices that men unload the supply truck and the women didnt. Should they be paid more? They do more dont they? When i brough it up you would have though I barfed on someones birthday cake. The answer they gave was the guys were physically stronger, and i said well we should be paid more for that extra strength, it was an UGLY scene. Guess what..They started to help with the truck.

 

And of course, the report says little of the "other factors" that were taken into account. Which other factors were taken into account? Were all of them? Were the ones that I mentioned taken into account? Betcha three of my five children that both of them weren't.

Let me put it this way, my wife studied quantitative methodologies at the highest levels, and I'll tell you right here, based upon her research and studies, that in the context of the report on the study, given no more than we know and the relative paltry difference, given the fact that nothing is said of these other factors that might be at play, that to say: "Viola, gender bias proven" a la JoAnn in this circustance, places one not merely in left field, but somewhere up among the nosebleed seats above left field.

And for that matter, I don't think I ever said that bias did not exist, just that it was well down on the list of factors. A "distant third", I said.

Actually, let me amend, it may well be a distant thirty-third.

 

When one tries as hard as the author to prove bias away and still can't, you'd think that the truth would finally sink in. But I suppose that's my eternal optimism showing its ugly head. Because I have had to deal with bias against women in a male dominated field from time to time, I know that such bias still exists. If you feel compelled to explain it away so that society doesn't have to to respond, then go for it. However, just be warned that there are many who recognize your protests as the cries of the tadpole who doesn't believe the frog.

 

Obviously my education has a gaping hole...can you provide a link to this story?

 

I missed that one. Do you think perhaps you're reading a bit more into this than is there? To use your analogy, methinks you've spotted a tiny, squiggling tadpole, and have imagined it as full grown croaking frog. Nay, scores of them, a great leaping mass, such as would make the second plague of ancient Egypt seem a light infestation.

Tell us of the bias you've faced; tell us of the blockades to career advancement they have caused you. Give us specific examples. You've been suspiciously vague to this point.

And again, I never said that such barriers and such bias didn't exist, just that for a woman to pin one's career fate to them, in this day and age, with the 1964 Civil Rights Act including gender discrimination, with the hyper sensitive, politically-correct sentiment in academia that was all too apparent with the ridiculous public flogging of a Harvard president for daring to tell the truth--why how dare he, the beast!--that the cries of bias ring rather tinny.

Rather than challenging my points: that there may be effects from career interruptions to bear offspring, that men may well by nature have more aggressive tendencies that drive them to pursue noble things such as positions of greater authority (just as they also drive them to ignoble things such as physical violence and wars), you've chosen to veer around them and say "Aha! Discrimination proven!" Address my points, why are they wrong? And what about the many other possible variables? None of us posting here with such authority know if they were explored. And any one of them or combination thereof could account for a mere 6.8% difference or may even swing it round the other way and prove a bias against men! There certainly was one against Larry Summers. I doubt he'd be persona non grata now in the academies were he a woman. There is a double standard, but it may not cut the way you think.