![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm pretty dang feminist if I say so myself. But I see feminism as an equality-based philosophy; I am not really fond of the hard-core Dianic "I am terrifically amazing because I have a womb" faction- possibly because I don't have one, but even still.
The Statesman has an article about the choices women make, and the results of those choices. It's a nice look at that whole frustrating shades of grey thing; women make less money than men, but it's not just because of the horrible inequality and sexism that's an inevitable part of society ("come and see the violence inherent in the system!") blah blah blah. It looks like some of it boils down to the fact that women take time out of their careers to have kids, and slow down in their career advancement while they're raising them.
Now, maybe there are a lot of women who wish they didn't have to be the primary caregivers of their children, but most of the women I know embrace that role willingly. I know there is a faction that believes they should get paid for it, or have some kind of affirmative action that levels the playing field between them and childless women, and I have my own opinions about that. But it's good to think that a lot of the remaining disparity in wages is due to choices we willingly make. I don't want to take a job where I might get shot at or have burning buildings fall on me or whatever. I don't begrudge the higher pay for that kind of work. I have taken a pretty big hit in the paycheck because I value my free time more than the money I'd be making. And I am very happy with that.
Eisner: Women have fought for, and won, the right to choose
Jane Eisner, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
Saturday, July 09, 2005
The story sounds familiar: Women compose half the students in the nation's law schools, nearly half of the lawyers who work in private firms during the summer, 42 percent of associates working year-round in those firms, but as for pay and promotion . . .
Pay. For full-time women lawyers, only 76 cents on the dollar that men earn.
Promotion. Of those who make partner, only 16.3 percent are women.
These figures are from the Commission on Women in the Profession.
Time was, I'd read those numbers, draw from a deep well of righteous indignation and personal experience to spew forth about the inherent discriminatory practices that drive women away from law and other important careers.
Now I don't know how to react. Are we witnessing a kinder, gentler version of the prejudice that has relegated so many women to second-class careers? Or can this begin some sober reassessment of gender roles and advancement in the workplace that acknowledges the trade-offs many women choose to make?
That first question is easier to answer because it's more familiar. "Woman as victim" is a well-worn pose, stoked by scads of research proving what many professional women learned in the past: Despite our qualifications, we were not taken seriously, paid equally, or treated fairly.
Genuine discrimination still does exist, especially for poorer, single mothers, for whom the juggling act requires the strength of a Sumo wrestler and the dexterity of a concert pianist.
But let's be honest and acknowledge that the gender gap is often a result of choice. Men earn more because they choose (or are socialized to accept) jobs that are riskier, less stable, less pleasant and demand longer hours than the positions held by most women. As Warren Farrell shows in his new book "Why Men Earn More," the most hazardous occupations — firefighters, construction workers — tend to be almost exclusively male, while the safest occupations, such as secretary, are 98 percent female.
Whether women are running their own businesses, or working for others, they are more likely to choose jobs that are flexible, part-time and closer to home for the obvious reason: They still have primary responsibility for the family. (We rarely describe Mr. CEO as a "working dad.")
But, as Farrell notes, women willing to enter those tougher male preserves can often match or even beat their male colleagues in pay and pace of promotion. Thirty-nine large fields have more than a 5 percent pay advantage for women.
And 21 percent of top women executives at major corporations are under 40, while only 1.4 percent of the male execs are that young.
There is an imbalance in the workplace: Women's career tracks are hampered by parenthood, while men's careers largely are not. This is why Marina Angel, author of the bar association's survey, believes women are so slow to advance in law firms.
The time and commitment needed to make partner coincide with prime childbearing years.
The sheer unfairness of that equation bothered me for years, and it still rankles when I feel forced to compete with male colleagues, or childless female ones, who seem to work 30 hours a day.
But the goal never was to turn career women into men with panty hose.
The goal was that oft-maligned but still powerful concept of choice. We can choose to become secretary of state, or governor, or firefighter or law partner, or we might pick teacher or secretary or homemaker, and that's OK, just as it's OK if men pick nursing assistant or stay-at-home dad.
Many of us who believed we could have it all at once, are making our peace with having most of it over a lifetime. Choice is worth something, too.
The Statesman has an article about the choices women make, and the results of those choices. It's a nice look at that whole frustrating shades of grey thing; women make less money than men, but it's not just because of the horrible inequality and sexism that's an inevitable part of society ("come and see the violence inherent in the system!") blah blah blah. It looks like some of it boils down to the fact that women take time out of their careers to have kids, and slow down in their career advancement while they're raising them.
Now, maybe there are a lot of women who wish they didn't have to be the primary caregivers of their children, but most of the women I know embrace that role willingly. I know there is a faction that believes they should get paid for it, or have some kind of affirmative action that levels the playing field between them and childless women, and I have my own opinions about that. But it's good to think that a lot of the remaining disparity in wages is due to choices we willingly make. I don't want to take a job where I might get shot at or have burning buildings fall on me or whatever. I don't begrudge the higher pay for that kind of work. I have taken a pretty big hit in the paycheck because I value my free time more than the money I'd be making. And I am very happy with that.
Eisner: Women have fought for, and won, the right to choose
Jane Eisner, PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
Saturday, July 09, 2005
The story sounds familiar: Women compose half the students in the nation's law schools, nearly half of the lawyers who work in private firms during the summer, 42 percent of associates working year-round in those firms, but as for pay and promotion . . .
Pay. For full-time women lawyers, only 76 cents on the dollar that men earn.
Promotion. Of those who make partner, only 16.3 percent are women.
These figures are from the Commission on Women in the Profession.
Time was, I'd read those numbers, draw from a deep well of righteous indignation and personal experience to spew forth about the inherent discriminatory practices that drive women away from law and other important careers.
Now I don't know how to react. Are we witnessing a kinder, gentler version of the prejudice that has relegated so many women to second-class careers? Or can this begin some sober reassessment of gender roles and advancement in the workplace that acknowledges the trade-offs many women choose to make?
That first question is easier to answer because it's more familiar. "Woman as victim" is a well-worn pose, stoked by scads of research proving what many professional women learned in the past: Despite our qualifications, we were not taken seriously, paid equally, or treated fairly.
Genuine discrimination still does exist, especially for poorer, single mothers, for whom the juggling act requires the strength of a Sumo wrestler and the dexterity of a concert pianist.
But let's be honest and acknowledge that the gender gap is often a result of choice. Men earn more because they choose (or are socialized to accept) jobs that are riskier, less stable, less pleasant and demand longer hours than the positions held by most women. As Warren Farrell shows in his new book "Why Men Earn More," the most hazardous occupations — firefighters, construction workers — tend to be almost exclusively male, while the safest occupations, such as secretary, are 98 percent female.
Whether women are running their own businesses, or working for others, they are more likely to choose jobs that are flexible, part-time and closer to home for the obvious reason: They still have primary responsibility for the family. (We rarely describe Mr. CEO as a "working dad.")
But, as Farrell notes, women willing to enter those tougher male preserves can often match or even beat their male colleagues in pay and pace of promotion. Thirty-nine large fields have more than a 5 percent pay advantage for women.
And 21 percent of top women executives at major corporations are under 40, while only 1.4 percent of the male execs are that young.
There is an imbalance in the workplace: Women's career tracks are hampered by parenthood, while men's careers largely are not. This is why Marina Angel, author of the bar association's survey, believes women are so slow to advance in law firms.
The time and commitment needed to make partner coincide with prime childbearing years.
The sheer unfairness of that equation bothered me for years, and it still rankles when I feel forced to compete with male colleagues, or childless female ones, who seem to work 30 hours a day.
But the goal never was to turn career women into men with panty hose.
The goal was that oft-maligned but still powerful concept of choice. We can choose to become secretary of state, or governor, or firefighter or law partner, or we might pick teacher or secretary or homemaker, and that's OK, just as it's OK if men pick nursing assistant or stay-at-home dad.
Many of us who believed we could have it all at once, are making our peace with having most of it over a lifetime. Choice is worth something, too.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Jul. 9th, 2005 07:21 pm (UTC)From:"and that's OK, just as it's OK if men pick nursing assistant or stay-at-home dad."
I don't want to be a nursing assistant or a stay at home dad. I don't want to be a driven career oriented guy either though. I value free time much more than I value success or power. I like the thought that someone should think it's ok for men to have a choice to opt for more flexible and less, so-called, prestigious occupations. I wish everyone thought that actually.
no subject
Date: Jul. 9th, 2005 07:37 pm (UTC)From: