Until recently, I’ve struggled with the idea of a gender pay gap. The term itself insinuates that there is a difference in pay between what a woman and a man might be paid in the same field - a gap in what different genders are paid.
This is problematic it seems as though the accusation is that men and women are paid differently for the same job. This is not the claim - but it is understandable why people come to this conclusion. Will Kymlicka, in his book 'Contemporary Political Philosophy' defines two major debates about sexual discrimination, difference and domination, in his chapter concerning feminism as a social movement. When the aforementioned conclusion is drawn, it’s because they’re subscribing to a gender-neutral difference argument.
“All of this is ‘gender neutral’, in the sense that women are not arbitrarily excluded from pursuing the things society defines as valuable.” (Kymlicka, 2002)
Of course, women aren't arbitrarily excluded from professions or pay. That's illegal, as many are quick to point out. I also always thought about the gender pay gap in difference terms, and there lies the source of my frustration with the argument, and unfortunately it’s also the consensus of most politicians and public figures I’ve seen speak out against the gender pay gap.
When this happens, I believe it’s in part a result of media portrayal. Most advocates for eliminating pay discrimination do not clarify what they mean sufficiently for an audience who defines the issue differently. Particularly, using average graphs to try to depict the problem is awkward because the knee-jerk objection is one based on differing definition - perhaps women gravitate or are encouraged to perform lesser paid roles, but is the suggestion to pay women more for the same job as men to elevate the average? How is that just? The way it is presented is not defined well enough. In this way, the debate is insurmountable because the opposing side is arguing a completely different argument.
The gender pay gap objection is about the difference between what typically female-dominated and male-dominated fields are paid.
Even if the argument gets this far there’s usually still protest about this being easily explained, ie. it’s not a matter of discrimination, it’s a matter of the difficulty of the job, or the pre-requisites of the job, or the family-based duties that women tend to pick up at some point in life. This is where we can distinguish the real issue; the difference in how we value ‘male’ or ‘female’ traits, seen in the dominance argument.
“[…] it is sexist, because the things being pursued in a gender-neutral way are based on men’s interests and values. Women are disadvantaged, not because chauvinists arbitrarily favour men […] but because the entire society systematically favours men in the defining of jobs, merit, etc.” (Kymlicka, 2002)
The values of a society are reflected in how much it pays for which jobs. While acknowledging that we don’t really have the means of determining a distinction between inherently gendered traits and culturally instilled ones, it is still fair to say that no matter where the line falls, our societies place more value on typically male, or masculine, professions.
“The principles which were developed with men’s experience and interests in mind are incapable of adequately recognising women’s needs, or incorporating women’s experiences.” (Kymlicka, 2002)
When people say that we want to eliminate the gender pay gap, they’re not saying ‘pay women more’. It’s not a debate about treating women like we treat men - at its core it’s a claim that we need to value women and the roles they occupy as much as we value men.
Many people dismiss the gender pay gap as a myth simply because they don’t quite see the point, and honestly I see why. It isn’t articulated well enough in the media that advocates for its elimination. A woman advocating for the elimination of the gender pay gap on Sunrise said: “The solution? Simple. Pay women more” (Sunrise, 2018). That’s not the solution, nor does it isolate the problem. It’s too broad, too general, and reinforces the misconception.
We also have a desperate need for informed advocation. In the same feature they spoke about how graduate boiler makers are paid double what graduate childcare workers are paid - this was their first mistake. Statistically, this isn't true. The difference is closer to $7, with the actual rates being $21 vs $28. With an issue so important we can't really afford to make mistakes that jeopardise the integrity of the movement. The example was torn apart online, with tradesmen and women eager to point out that boilermakers have to be mentored and invest a lot of money to become adept at their trade. This should have been addressed in the Sunrise debate, and they did try, but as evidenced already it wasn't articulated very well. Childcare workers also have to invest money into levelling certificates and mentored work, as well as paying for their Blue Card so that they can work with children. Perhaps it doesn't develop the same physical attributes or skills, but this is natural, since it takes different attributes and skills to work with children. Most childcare workers will be rostered for an entire work day, looking after not one, but an entire class of children with perhaps one or two other staff members, while their parents pursue their careers. What is the value we as a society put on this? Why do we value boilermaking more than we value raising the next generation? Why do we value strength and dexterity more than we value care and patience? It's certainly not that strength and dexterity are harder to develop - I'd go so far to argue that everyone could be a good boilermaker if they wanted to be. But could everyone be a good child carer? Can care and patience be fostered in an indifferent and inpatient person?
The questioning can go on and on - why do we feel pressured to put children into childcare and get back to our careers as soon as possible instead of esteeming the role of a mother? Why is it that if a man and a woman are seeking a promotion and the woman has worked part-time to look after her children, she's seen as less worthy because her portfolio isn't as large, even though she's produced the same quality of work in half the time?
Most will answer that it's just how life is, but it's not good enough. We value hard work, leadership and career ambition. We should - but we should equally value raising children, conflict resolution and the ethics of care. It's a shame, because if women had been involved in developing society's rules and values from the start I'm sure that by now, thousands of years later, we'd have figured out how to set up society in a way that values what men and women offer equally. But history has been sexist, and we can't change what's already happened. We can, however, try to amend past mistakes.
The kind of change that the gender pay gap issue seeks to enact is not as simple as 'pay women more'; it's a matter of rewriting our justice system to incorporate and respect for what has been neglected thus far in history - women and what they represent in society. Women don't want to be treated like men. We want to be valued as women.
S O U R C E S R E F E R E N C E D
Kymlicka, W. (2001). Contemporary Political Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sunrise. (2018). Closing the Gender Pay Gap [Video]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/sunriseon7/status/1062072350315732992
Comments