Guest Blogger: Ashley Hunkin, Womyn's Centre Programming Coordinator
CUSA creates a lot of posters each week, so might even say too many posters each week. We plaster the campus with brightly coloured posters in a mad dash to catch the eye of the average student, and gain their interest in our events or causes. The Service Centre’s are actively involved in this process, and the Womyn’s Centre is no exception.
Recently the Womyn’s Centre launched our “Is This Equality” poster campaign. The idea was simple… most people think that gender equality has been realised, but statistically the fight is far from over, therefore the Womyn’s Centre should share these statistics.
We started with one of the most important, and startling facts. As found by StatsCan in 2003, Canadian Women earn 63cents for every $1 Canadian Men earn. In less then a week someone had replied… literally… by writing their opinion on the poster. In response to the statistic the person had written that this was misleading because female doctors earn more then male tradespeople, and that its people in the trades who earn less money, not women.
Interesting… and frankly that’s kinda the point of this statistic. The statistic does not say that all female doctors earn almost 40 cents less then male doctors, it says that the average wage of Canadian women is 63% of the average wage of Canadian men. So if we have equal pay for equal work why is this so? Firstly its because of the type of careers women end up in. Women are predominantly found in the lower paying service sector of the economy. They are far less likely to hold executive positions then men, and are more likely to live below the poverty line.
So here’s my question. If we know that the average wage of Canadian women is 37% lower then that of men, why do you think this is? Why is it that in a society which values gender equality women as a group are earning such dramatically lower wages then men?
Also, what do you think would fix the problem?
posted by CUSA @ 11:28 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
The stats fail to take into account social factors like child rearing. Women often step out of the workplace to raise children. This choice hampers progress in ones career. Upon re-enteringt the workplace women often choose jobs with greater flexibility allowing them to focus on the family. There are children everywhere who are greatful for the sacrifice mothers make.
I'm not suggesting that a gender gap doesn't exist, however I believe that posting stats like this can be misleading. The larger debate can't be understood as cleanly as your posters would seem to indicate.
Here's a link to backup my initial comments. I think you'll find it enlightening.
http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_print.asp?ArticleID=121
I agree that child rearing have an important role in the wage gap, but why is it that women are more likely to take time off. Its all about the burden of care, it is easier for women to take time off then men. It is extremely difficult for men to be able to take time off work to care for their families, which is one clear example of how gender discrimination effects all of us.
It is a sacrifice, but an unnecessary one. Women who are mothers hopefully love their kids, by why is it that women must sacrifice their economic opportunities, and economic equality so that they can preform that crucially important task of raising this nations next generation. As a country what are we doing to ensure that they are valued financially, culturally, emotionally, and institutionally for doing so?
Posting this stat is not 'misleading' it is a reality in Canada that women earn less then men.
I could have presented this statistic with all the background of someone who has studied this issue for over 4 years, but I thought it would be more fun, and interesting to have a dialogue about those issues, and have a dialogue about how as Canadians we can re-structure our society so that women and men receive equal pay for equal work.
:)
It is not difficult at all to take time off work as a man - I know several who have done it with no difficulty whatsoever. The reality of the situation is that woment tend to be the parents who WANT to spend time with their children. That isn't a societal problem - that is human(and animal) nature. Mothers are nurturers moreso than men. If the wage gap didn't exist it would mean that men were earning less. You're fighting a battle that doesn't exist. You want women to be different, all the while being the same. Doesn't work that way, you're either different or the same - not both.
If women REALLY make two-thirds of what men make for performing the exact same job, presumably it would make sense for profit-seeking employers to cut their labour costs by a third and hire only women. However, I don't see that happening, ergo, I'd suggest that either
a) these employers are stupid, or
b) the statistic is bogus.
Much more likely the latter rather than the former.
One explanation given for this wage gap that I've heard is that women tend to make better life-balance choices than men. This means that they are more likely to choose more accomodating positions that pay less.
Don't forget, there's a lot of negative pressure on men in society to make more money and "climb the corporate ladder". To simply look at this statistic and conclude that there is a gender gap may be miseleading for these two reasons. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
The gender gap is valid.
1. The idea that because women more often choose flexible jobs and thus the wage gap is artificially widened is bullshit. Sorry, I get so fed up with this argument. In today’s society, especially with the high cost of childcare, many families are faced with the reality that one parent must take care of the children. And unfortunately in our society it’s almost always the mother who is expected to take on the burden. The idea that women are natural nurturers is so discriminatory. It’s discriminatory because it puts social pressure on women to take lesser paying jobs and focus on family. It influences hiring decisions causing married women to be passed over for important positions, and for men, it keeps social pressure on them to stay in a career. How many fathers miss out on their family’s entire childhood because they have a career? This sucks.
The reason this continues is that companies are still able to operate on the assumption that the single income family is the norm. They expect their employees to give 110% of their life to the company and all other facets of life must take a back seat- like having a family. The most competitive, those most driven and most willing to sacrifice their personal life are the ones who make it to the top. As long as companies ignore their responsibility to make allowances for the fact that we are human beings and have other interests in life than their company’s agenda, we will have this form of discrimination.
The idea that women choosing family- for whatever reason negates the wage gap is so much crap, because the fact that they have to make that choice rather than the father is simply the source of discrimination and one of the causes of the wage gap.
2. While the single statistic that was on the poster is problematic because it ignores so many variables, when you look at the numbers and view similar occupations and similar education level’s earnings broken down by gender, you see that the 60% holds fairly true. Unfortunately I suck at stats Canada, for some reason it’s hard for me to get numbers there, and while I hate to use the US statistics to generalize, our two economies are relatively similar and so I think an analogous comparison is warranted. Below are some better statistics. The first is actually the best, as it compares similar job classifications. The second compares earnings by income levels and the numbers are just atrocious.
Income earnings by sex for categorized occupations:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S2402&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-redoLog=false&-CONTEXT=st (Sorry I didn’t put this in table form to post, but do take a minute to look at the data. It’s pretty conclusive in my opinion)
And check this out: Breakdown of average earnings by gender and by educational attainment- women make about 60% of what their male counterparts make with similar degree levels.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_S1501&-ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_
MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2005 INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS)
Population 25 years and over with earnings
Total 31,788
Men 38,514
Women 25,736
Less than high school graduate
Total 18,435
Men 22,138
Women 13,076
High school graduate (includes equivalency)
Total 25,829
Men 31,683
Women 20,179
Some college or associate's degree
Total 31,566
Men 39,601
Women 25,736
Bachelor's degree
Total 43,954
Men 53,693
Women 36,250
Graduate or professional degree
Total 57,585
Men 71,918
Women 47,319
Admittedly these numbers do not take into account all the various strata, i.e. race, class, age, etc. But the consistent trend of these numbers is compelling.
Sorry the links didnt translate well.
Wages by occupation 2005
Wages by Education 2005
ken-
I would appreciate you being more respectful of my opinion.
For the record, it's not a "bullshit" opinion but has been researched by an academic. I also made it clear that the reasons I gave were partial explanations.
If you disagree, fine, but don't call what I say "bullshit".
Did it occur to anyone that the feminazis who work for Womyns Centre-like places skew the salary down and distort the equity that REAL professional women have?
I find it interesting that the Womyn's Centre says that women are only paid 63 cents on the dollar, while Joanne Hussey and her www.thewomenareangry.org claim we women only earn 71 cents on the dollar. Mix up or fix up of facts anyone?
Hi Scott,
I apologize if I offended you by my comments. I meant no disrespect to you as a person.
I didn’t actually dispute your statement that women who intend to have a family choose careers that are not as demanding and take jobs that are more flexible. Your statement that men are pressured climb the corporate ladder is also valid. What I disagree with, is the use of these facts to imply that because women and men make these choices it somehow negates the validity of the wage gap.
Quite the opposite is true. What appear to be “choices” that women make is actually a form of discrimination because by and large women are the ones who have to make them. Two people get married. They decide to have kids. A huge majority of the time it falls upon the woman to take the burden of raising those children, and she must give up her career or choose a career which will accommodate. The fact that she is the one who has to make this choice and not the man is sexist. It’s built into our social expectations and is discriminatory, in exactly the same way as the employer paying a woman a fraction of what he would pay a man. So rather than her choice negating the wage gap, it actually verifies it and shows where one element of the discrimination originates.
The reason I expressed annoyance and called the theory bullshit is because it is in fact, hogwash (better word?). My language was strong because I come across this argument again and again and I am constantly surprised that people never examine why women must make these choices, and how unfair it is for that them to be forced into the situations where they have to choose between children and a career. In my opinion neither the man, nor the woman should have to sacrifice in this manner. It’s harmful to both of them, and especially harmful to children who essentially grow up with only one parent.
Hello Jet, Hello L
I believe that the $.063/$1 figure is from Stats Canada. I’m personally not sure what breadth of occupations and social conditions that it covers, perhaps Ashley could comment on it. It is likely that Joanne Hussey simply looked at slightly different areas of concentration or perhaps her figures come form an earlier or a later study. Either way both 63 and 71 cents are unacceptable.
If you think the 63 cent figure is too general look at my previous post. Broken down by education the numbers vary anywhere from what, 40-70%, with the majority being in the 50-60% range. The link I posted just before the chart breaks it down by occupation and this is the most telling breakdown. If you do decide to go to that page, you will notice that the roughly 60% statistic holds up across the board.
So, I’m curious as to where you think feminazis like me are distorting the figures. I have been forthcoming about what factors contribute to the statistics I am submitting and my numbers firmly support the womyn’s center’s. If you actually care whether its 63 cents or 71 cents, I will be happy to engage with you stat for stat. I need practice using Stats Canada anyway.
Cheers.
Post a Comment
<< Home