Are Women Worth Less?
An Analysis of the Devaluing of “Women’s Work”
It should come as no surprise to anyone reading this that there is a wage gap in the United States. Common knowledge states that (white) women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Societal norms would argue that the discrepancy in these numbers has more to do with the types of careers women are choosing to pursue than with a systemic devaluing of their work. Of course women would statistically earn less, because they are choosing to be teachers or nurses or secretaries. Others would argue that women earn less money because they are the primary caregivers to their children, making them unreliable in the workforce. Their argument is that if someone keeps having babies, then a company must provide them with maternity leave, and they will never return to the same efficiency as before, as they are now splitting their time between home and work. Both of these rationales seem like legitimate reasons for women to be statistically paid less, but this problem has much deeper roots. Women make so much less money than men do because their work is seen as less valuable than that of a man’s.
One of the major issues causing this is gender bias, or the unconscious valuing of a person’s skills based on their gender. This bias affects the hiring, promoting, and valuing of workers. According to Paula England and Asaf Levanon, who have conducted an in-depth study of this phenomenon, when women begin to dominate a workplace, those occupations begin to pay less. Their argument is that when a woman is doing a job, we automatically believe that it takes less skill. Rather than the theory that women are choosing to pursue lower-paying jobs that take less skill, they have determined that employers are choosing to pay female-dominate professions less. This phenomenon is not unique to the United States, as Carol Schmidt, a geriatric nurse practitioner, has found. When in Moscow, she found that doctors are one of the lowest-paid professional workers in Russia. In the United States, doctors, which are a male-dominated group, are highly valued and paid incredibly well. However, in Russia, there are substantially more women working as doctors, and the profession is seen as a “caring vocation ‘naturally suited’ to women.” Another field that used to be dominated by women was computer programming, which until the 1960’s was seen as a natural career choice for women. Even computer scientist, Rear Admiral Dr. Grace Hopper (1906–1992) described programming as “just like planning a dinner. You have to plan ahead and schedule everything so that it’s ready when you need it… Women are ‘naturals’ at computer programming.” This field changed into a male dominated field because male computer programmers were tired of their work being devalued as “women’s work,” and found ways of discouraging women from pursuing the field.
The disgruntlement of men in fields typically ascribed as “feminine” is not unique to computer programming. Generally speaking, men avoid “women’s work” like the plague, as they are often ridiculed for pursuing it. Another field where this discrepancy is very evident is that of teaching. The article, “In a Complex Voice: The Contradictions of Male Elementary Teachers’ Career Choice and Professional Identity,” depicts the discrepancy of the gender bias in education. Since the 1900’s, women have dominated the lower levels of education, and vice-versa there is an underrepresentation of women in higher education. Men, specifically with monetarily determined career goals, are completely opposed to choosing female dominated fields. Additionally, they argue that teaching is a profession that places men in positions of authority over women who are in the nurturing role of interacting with children. In “Why Men Don’t Want Jobs Done Mostly By Women,” it is stated, “Much of men’s resistance to pink-collar jobs is tied up in the culture of masculinity, say people who study the issue. Women are assumed to be empathetic and caring; men are supposed to be strong, tough and able to support a family.” There is an incredible stigma against work traditionally done by women, and that is made more evident by the lack of value ascribed to their skill-set.
The proclivity to promote and hire men over women is another systemic issue that affects women in a majority of professions. Especially in female dominated industries, men who enter the field are privy to a phenomenon known as the “glass elevator.” This term is a direct counterpart to the “glass ceiling” that women face in male dominated industries, which prevents them from being considered for raises or promotions. A profession where this issue has permeated for years is that of musicians. In a study on the effects of blind auditions on orchestra hires, researchers found there was a 30%-55% increase in the proportion of women among new hires and a between 25%-46% increase in the percentage of women in the orchestras since 1970. Surprisingly, this increase only really skyrocketed after there were carpets added to muffle the sound of high heels, because even that influenced the audition jury. Women who do get promoted into positions of power are often viewed as “bossy” or “unlikable” which affects their ability to receive further promotions. Kim Scott, author of Radical Candor, discussed her experience with this very issue in an article entitled, “The Price All Women Pay For Gender Bias.” In a job she had, she was offered a demotion from her boss in order to gain herself more likability and to prevent her male coworker from experiencing jealousy of her. This choice, between competency and likability, is one that women are forced to face constantly in their careers.
The fact that gender bias against women has continued for so long can in part be explained by French philosopher Michel Foucault’s theory on the creation of docile bodies. His argument is based upon four major characteristics: cellular, which is the determination of the space in which humans inhabit; organic, the assurance that the activities are ‘natural’ for those performing them; genetic, the control over the evolution of activities over time; and combinatory, the combination of many bodies to create a unified force. This theory, though explained in context of the military, can be applied to the systemic power dynamic in the workforce. Primarily, the cellular is the determination that women should only occupy certain spaces. While we have societally moved away from the notion that women belong in the kitchen, there is still the belief that women should remain in fields that are dominated by women. With regards to the organic, there is a clear definition of what occupations are “natural” for those who are feminine, and those are nurturing, child-rearing, and communicative. This is evident in the aforementioned article “Why Men Don’t Want Jobs Done Mostly By Women,” as men are often unwilling to pursue fields that are perceived as feminine. The genetic control of the evolution of “women’s work” is evident, especially in the calcuated shift of the computer programming industry. Finally, the combinatory force is the unified bodies of those who have never known any different, do not see the effect of this gender bias, do not believe there is an issue, and do not see a reason for change. The only way we can step out of the antiquated and restrictive systemic biases that control our workforce and denigrate the value of the work that women do, is to make ourselves aware of the discrepancies and their causes. Once we have done this, we will be more able to target the problems and change them for the better.
