The CEO of the Employers & Manufacturers Association, an association that promotes New Zealand businesses, Alasdair Thompson sparked a heated debate last week when, during a discussion on equal pay, he publicly claimed that women’s productivity was impacted by their periods. He claimed that women “take the most sick leave” and explained “ you know, once a month they have sick problems. Not all women, but some do.” He later went on to say “Men and women are fortunately different. Women have babies. Women take leave when they have their babies.” In a subsequent interview he claimed: “Some women have immense problems with their menstruation – immense problems. You know they can pop a lot of paracetemol and drag themselves into work, but it’s hard for them.” Thompson seemed to only make matters worse when he later rationalized his comments by referencing one of his receptionists who he says told him that when some women call in sick they cite their periods as the reason.
Is it possible in 2011 that a top CEO could honestly believe that the main reason for pay disparity between men and women is menstruation? Really? This story is so frustrating that it is difficult to know where to start. Logically there are three main assumptions that Thompson is making that warrant examination: first, that women take more sick days than men; second, that menstruation is a major factor in women’s sick days; third, that these period-induced sick days help explain the gender pay gap.
The first assumption- that women do indeed take more sick days– is true, but not significant. In New Zealand men typically take 6.8 sick days a year, with women taking 8.4. While there are no clear statistics available for the US, studies in the UK also show, on average, men take 140 days off sick during their career, with women taking 189 sick days. A Finnish study also found that while women were 46 percent more likely than men to call in sick from work for a few days, there was no statistically significant difference between men and women in terms of their long-term leave from work.
The second assumption- that menstruation is a major factor in women’s sick days- is much more difficult to substantiate. The New Zealand study indicated that menstruation was not a significant factor in women’s sick days. The Finnish study noted that working conditions for women were consistently poorer for women and could be a primary factor in fatigue, and sickness rates. The UK study indicated that single mothers had the highest rate of sickness absence, indicating that family pressures could be a factor in sick days. The UK study also found that women were more apt to “try their hardest to make it to their desk” and “feel guilty” if they fell sick.
The third assumption- that period-induced sick days help explain the gender pay gap- is the weakest link in Thompson’s unfortunate logic. Decades of activism and research surrounding equal pay legislation and policies have shown that the biggest factor in the wage gap is attitudes.
Thompson’s comments reveal embedded misconceptions and stereotypes surrounding women’s ability to contribute to the global workforce. Thompson is right on one account- women are different from men. Women are (at least for now) the only sex that can carry children and give birth. Further, most women are the primary caregivers to children- regardless of their work duties. Recognizing these two differences in more rational and supportive ways should result in changes to workforce policies rather than accusations of female liability.
The story might be “so frustrating”, but guess what? It seems to be correct.
https://www2.dse.unibo.it/ichino/AEJapp_2007_0091_manuscript.pdf
Potter: great link. Curious to see what Megan replies because this study directly contradicts most of her points…
Thanks for the report Potter. I don’t dispute that women’s absenteeism is higher than men’s. Although this report does find a link between periods and days off, there are certainly other findings disputing this (see the large report done in Finland and the UK linked above). In fact, whether this link is true or not still does not justify the existing wage gap.
The reality is that women are different than men. Women have a monthly cycle that men don’t- if it does consistently impact’s women’s work life perhaps workplaces should adjust/accomodate for this since women can’t simply choose not to get their periods (allowing women and men to work from home 1-2 days a week for example). Also, women are the only sex that can give birth and breast feed. The fact
that the WHO recommends breastfeeding for over a year alone puts a huge
burden on working women who need to get back to work after short leaves
(if they get one at all). My goal was to raise some of the deeper issues associated with the discussion. Ignoring biological differences, or using this differences to rationalize sexism are both equally disruptive.
Thanks for your reply Megan.
Few considerations about it.
1) You write that “Although this report does find a link between periods and days off, there are certainly other findings disputing this “.
Sure, but this is very different from saying that the claim is “so frustrating that it is difficult to know where to start” – as your initially said. So, I am glad to see that you have already taken a softer position.
2) You write that “In fact, whether this link is true or not still does not justify the existing wage gap.”
Well, wait a second. If the claim is false, of course the link between periods and days does not justify the wage gap.
But if the claim is not false, you are just saying that employers should bear the costs of half of their workforce. And it is all but clear to me why this should be the case.
I wonder whether you pay your cleaning person also when she does not come and whether you give money to the dry cleaner also when you don’t bring any cloth there – just to know whether you talk the talk and walk the walk…
2) You write that “if [the montly cycle] does consistently impact’s women’s work life perhaps workplaces should adjust/accomodate for this since women can’t simply choose not to get their periods ”
I am sympathetic to the fact that women do have to face more burdens than men, and I would be happy to make everything possible to alleviate such burdens. But I am sure that you will recognize the problems with your claim.
a) what do you do with jobs that cannot be performed at home (policewomen, doctors, nurses, teachers, bus drivers)?
b) what if this accommodation results in additional costs for the employer? who should bear these costs: the employer, or the employee (lower wage)?
3) You write: “Ignoring biological differences, or using this differences to rationalize sexism are both equally disruptive.”
Well, wait again a second. We can speak of sexism if the pay of a woman is smaller than that of a man just because the employer believes that she is worse than a man and there is no reason why this should be the case.
But if everything else is not equal, the issue is not sexism. Unless you label sexist the possibility of regulating pay to some differences between man and women.
These are two very different things. While I am sure that – unfortunately – there are many instances in which women are in fact paid less because of sexist attitudes, I am very hesitant in labeling anything short of equal pay “sexist” behavior.
For those cases in which men and women are paid different rates, and this is not due to attitudes, we can raise a problem: is it fair that women are paid less because of the biological differences that distinguish them form men?
This is a philosophically important question, which has no clear answer, as it is a matter of opinion.
If your answer is no, it is not fair, now we have a bigger question: what about all the other discriminated groups, especially the invisible and voiceless group? I refer, for example, to people with mental disabilities.
Is it fair that curricula in college are organized for students without ADHD, and then we ask students with ADHD to strive to do something they cannot do (pay attention to lecture, for example)? Is it fair that we ask night owls to wake up early in the morning just because everybody else does? Is it fair that we put people with depression in conditions that are disruptive for them, just because we assume that they do not have depression (differently from gender, depression has no sign that can be immediately perceived. Possibly worse, some signs of depression such as difficulty to work or irritability are generally treated as laziness and lack of social skills. Which is to say: people with these disabilities are often fired/paid less/etc. for the very symptoms of their disabilities).
Before concluding, let me say, again, that I do not reject the claim that in some instances difference in salaries between men and women might be due to sexist attitudes. But if we want to generalize, the evidence – as you admitted – is far from univocal, at best.
For those cases in which the biological difference might explain at least part of the wage gap, we don’t have an answer as of who should bear the cost. The experience of other groups (people with mental disabilities) reminds us that society is not that willing to bear them.
Ok I think your approach to what can and can’t be considered ‘sexism’ is completely oversimplistic. If pay brackets are structured on the basis that one does not get periods and thereby everyone who does get periods and takes sickdays gets penalized (in theory half the work force) then the system is structured based on the assumption that all people share men’s biological functions which of course, is sexist. Perhaps not easily identifiable and quantifiable sexism the likes of which you acknowledge, but structural sexism. That’s textbook social science 101 stuff. Your associations of the ‘otherness’ of women’s experiences with the ‘otherness’ of the experiences of people with mental illness is a case in point. If women make up 50% of the population, your treatment of their needs as abnormal and to which mainstream institutions can choose whether to accommodate or not is based on assumption that men are the ‘norm’ upon which society should be based. I’m sure you would never acknowledge this outright, but maybe you should pay more close attention to the hidden assumptions you make within your writing.
If you wanted to show that you have an advanced degree by writing in a difficult and impermeable style, spare the effort: you are not the only one around here.
Having said this, with regards to your points:”That’s textbook social science 101 stuff.”Social science is about data. If you start talking about structural sexism we are clearly no more in the real of data and data analysis, but in the realm of something different (call it philosophy, call it whatever you want). As my comment above made sufficiently clear: there are many other groups other than women that face a systematic (or call it structural, if you like) disadvantage. So, we can debate days and nights about this discrimination, or we can debate about how to alleviate it, and how society should share the cost in order to alleviate it. The latter is clearly more difficult, but also more useful.PS: Next time you write a syllabus, ask yourself how fair it is to give points for participation in section, given that students with ADHD cannot easily participate… And remind yourself the word “structural sexism”, hopefully it will rings some bells.”If women make up 50% of the population, your treatment of their needs as abnormal and to which mainstream institutions can choose whether to accommodate or not is based on assumption that men are the ‘norm’ upon which society should be based. “My example of people with mental illnesses was intended to illustrate that many groups of people are expected to work/behave/relate in a way that it is naturally difficult for them.*What you attribute to me as an assumption was actually my central claim – in your attempt to make your comment more sophisticated you missed that. Many people face a naturally disadvantage because we have expectation based on the average person (take again the case of a student who cannot pay attention to lecture, and therefore will get a lower grade because he or she did not participate!).Additionally, I raised some questions: namely, who is going to bear the costs needed to accommodate women’s needs? This is not a rhetorical question, is a practical one. The answer is not obviously clear. It is much more useful to speak about the latter, than about structural sexism – unless, of course, one is interested in pleasing its own ego. * here the stats: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1ANYDIS_ADULT.shtm )
Thank you for a very interesting post on what is a very contentious topic at the moment in New Zealand.
I’ve read through the report posted by Potter, and find that although it is thorough, it takes as causal something that can only be considered correlative. Really, most workplaces do not record why an employee (male or female) is absent from work, merely the absence is noted. Any speculation on what causes employees to call in sick is purely that, speculation.
I can also understand why people equate amount of time worked to poductivity, but note that less actual time worked does not necessarily mean less productivity. On a slightly different aspect of work and productivity – one very successful New Zealand web design company dedicates Fridays to employee’s personal projects. The company director, when questioned about whether this stole from valuable company time, replied that since the change, they had recorded far greater productivity on company-related projects despite having about 8 less hours per employee, per week. I think it would be fair to say that generally, efficient and energetic use of less time is far more productive than sluggish and ineffeicient use of more time. Therefore, that women seem to take more sick days does not necessarily equate to less productivity overall. (In saying this, though, Potter – you raise an interesting point on occupations that require physical presence – police officers etc).
What I see as the important overarching point of Megan’s post though, and the issue Alasdair Thompson’s remarks have brought to the fore, is that the way society is organised distinguishes between work and non-work in a way that privileges not only traditionally masculine values and characteristics, but non-reproductive labour. We want women to be treated equally in the workplace, and we expect them to reproduce whilst continuing to perform to standard in a masculine-dominated workplace. But if you look at society as a whole, we need/want babies, and so must organise society in a way (society including workplaces) that supports and values reproductive labour, rather than disciminating against those who reproduce by paying them 12% less because they ‘didn’t work’ for x amount of years, or because they might ‘leave the workforce’ to have babies. Last time I checked, having babies was a huge amount of work.
Your write: “I’ve read through the report posted by Potter, and find that although it is thorough, it takes as causal something that can only be considered correlative. Really, most workplaces do not record why an employee (male or female) is absent from work, merely the absence is noted. Any speculation on what causes employees to call in sick is purely that, speculation.”
Sure, but the same can be said for the wage gap as we are not in the mind of employers. But interestingly, you seem to be much less hesitant on that.
You write: “I can also understand why people equate amount of time worked to poductivity, but note that less actual time worked does not necessarily mean less productivity.”
Sure again, but absent a better measure, this is the only we have and for many jobs (those mentioned above plus many many more), it is the only one we have given that the productivity cannot be measured.
I don’t think you are going to debate the productivity of your nanny if she does not go to pick up your children from school…
You write: “the way society is organised distinguishes between work and non-work in a way that privileges not only traditionally masculine values and characteristics, but non-reproductive labour.”
I do not know what the “traditionally masculine values” are. My example above of people with mental illnesses shows that women are not the only ones negatively affected by this. And – sorry to be redundant – I guess in many instances they are much more affected.
“We want women to be treated equally in the workplace, and we expect them to reproduce whilst continuing to perform to standard in a masculine-dominated workplace.”
I do not want anything. Having a baby is one’s choice – differently from having a mental illness. Your logic discriminates against people who will never have baby, as it forces the costs upon them given that they will never be able to take advantage of the benefits they contribute to.
Just as an example: any time one of my colleagues has a baby I have to work more in order to take care of her or his work (also dads take days off). Given that I will never have babies, I do not see this as a particularly appealing deal for me. Interestingly, few people seem to be concerned about the fact that the “way society is organized”, to paraphrase your passage, privileges family values and forces the cost of family on those who will never have a family…
@5156faab4bfca459b612eaa828f460a8:disqus . Thank you for your comments – you’re keeping me on my toes.On your first point – I think the whole point of this conversation is that Alasdair Thompson has reached conclusions that are not based in evidence. His own deep-rooted beliefs are speculation at its worst – they are blind speculation. As to why women are paid 12% less (in New Zealand), do not be so quick as to think that I believe I have the answers. It baffles me as to why women are paid 12% less. There are a lot of substantiated and very convincing ideas and theories out there, and one is that male bosses have certain pre-conceptions and deep-rooted beliefs about women, as Alasdair Thompson has so brazenly illustrated to us.
On your second point – there are many measures of productivity that do not include total time worked. Why are wage earners paid at different rates PER HOUR? Because their work over that hour is deemed to be at a different standard or level. What about output? If one worker puts out a report in one hour, and another worker puts out a comparable report in four hours, we have a pretty reasonable measure of productivity, right? As for your Nanny comment, any reasonable worker, if unable to work because of illness, would call in sick, they would arrange cover. Someone would be there to pick the kids up.
Third point – on masculine values. Have you ever employed someone? What do you look for in an employee? What are you told to project during a job interview? Certainly not anything you would traditionally associate with being feminine. Note – I am not saying that men or women are masculine or feminine. There are characteristics traditionally associated with each, and associated with traditional spheres of life – at home we have nurturing, emotion, gentleness, at work we have drive and competitiveness. You’re quite right that women are not the only ones affected by this. Many men are too.
Your last point – perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Yes, having a baby is an individual choice, or a choice between partners. However, society (as a whole) needs new generations to support ageing populations. There needs to be an active, tax-paying labour-force to provide for the upkeep of the society, and its elderly. For example, in Japan, Korea, and Germany, there has been a “negative-replacement birthrate” for some time, or worry that things are heading in that direction. What this means, is that the birthrate is not at the level it needs to be to sustain the current balance of tax-payer to non tax-payer. These countries have all put in place measures to encourage a higher birthrate, such measures as legislating for guaranteed parental leave for both parents, requiring of the workplace that they do not discriminate against parents, and legislating for flexible working hours. If someone doesn’t have children, for whatever reason, they still are dependent on a new generation at a societal level to sustain what they rely on – healthcare, infrastructure, pensions, to name but a few.
Wombler,
here we go again:
“Alasdair Thompson has reached conclusions that are not based in evidence. ”
Well, the paper I cited shows that the wage gap is not constant for women, but differ across age groups. More precisely, everything else being equal, menopausal women are not paid less than men, the authors conclude. While only a correlation, it suggests that menstruation might have an effect on pay.
So, even if we might not like it, Thompson’s claim has some empirical support.
second, as argued above, if you are unsatisfied with this evidence, you should recognize that the evidence behind Megan’s claims is nowhere more convincing, especially with regard to her point that “Decades of activism and research surrounding equal pay legislation and policies have shown that the biggest factor in the wage gap is attitudes.”
In fact, there is very little evidence here (activists do not do empirical research, otherwise we should take reports by the NRA as empirical evidence in support of their claims).
Third, you wrote: “If someone doesn’t have children, for whatever reason, they still are dependent on a new generation at a societal level to sustain what they rely on – healthcare, infrastructure, pensions, to name but a few.”
No. Societies that cannot sustain their pension systems are in such a situations because they have run a legalized ponzi scheme.
But even if we ignore this aspect, there is no reason why the benefits you attribute to younger generations cannot be provided by immigrants. And in fact, in most of Western Europe the increase in population is due to immigration. So, again, the argument that people without children should bear the costs of others’ children is flawed, because based on the assumption that immigration does not take place.
Potter – where do you stand? You’ve spent a lot of energy arguing, without telling us what you think. Do you think that women are paid less because of menstruating? Do you think they SHOULD be paid less because of menstruating? And, immigrants are children of someone too. Some women somewhere had to give birth to give Europe its growing population, if, as you argue, its growing population is due to immigration.
What kind of answer is that, sorry?
Potter has brought a serious piece of scholarship showing that menstruations can, at least in part, explain the wage gap – period.
This shows this whole post was based no nothing. Understanding that this post now only harms her reputation, Megan has in fact disappeared.
Now you are trying to turn an empirical argument in a normative position, in order to slam Potter. Well, just read his comments.
He never said this is the best of the possible worlds.
In fact, He said the wage gap (whether due to menstruations or not) is an issue, and we should be concerned about it (earlier comments).
However, since he has more grasp over both logic and empirics than both of you, he is just cautious in advancing solutions, because they may have unintended (read: negative) consequences. I hardly disagree.
Since both of you ignored the basic facts, I doubt your solutions can effectively address any problem at all. This is algebra: 2 + 2 = 4. ps: I totally agree with him, if this was not clear to you.
I have been watching the debate surrounding
Alasdair Thompson and his unfortunate and unhelpful comments with avid attention and I am
going to add my two cents in here.
First of all, unless you are working on
contract basis we are all entitled to sick days under law. Whatever the reason you take sick leave
it is no ones business but your own- whether it be because you have your period
or you have the flu. The amount of
sick leave a you take cannot be used as a justification that your productivity is reduced because if you are entitled to it under law then it cannot be used it as a factor to measure productivity.
Furthermore, while we are on the subject of
‘productivity’ perhaps we should question how this is being measured. I mean are we going to start taking
into account things like the fact that men think about sex on average every ten
seconds and how this affects their attention to the task at hand? (Yes I
googled it and no there are also not many statistics to back up this gendered
assumption either) or perhaps we should start looking into how much work time
men spend looking at Internet porn?
The question I am asking here is whether the fact that women get a
periods’ really a good way to measure ‘productivity?’
Finally I wanted to respond directly to the
comments from Potter. You say,
“Is
it fair that curricula in college are organized for students without ADHD, and then we ask students with ADHD to strive to do something they cannot do (pay
attention to lecture, for example)? Is it fair that we ask night owls to
wake up early in the morning just because everybody else does? Is it fair that
we put people with depression in conditions that are disruptive for them, just
because we assume that they do not have depression.”
I would say no of course it is not fair and that is why we continue to struggle against
these inequalities. For
example, in University, those with ADHD are now offered reader-writers, people
that go to lectures with students with disabilities and, taking into account their biological
differences, help them navigate the challenges that arise from this
difference. For those ‘night owls’
out there there are some workplaces are beginning to recognize that some people are more
‘productive’ at different hours of the day or night and thus are adopting
flexible working hours. I could give more examples of how our society continues to try and take into account the differences that we all have in order to work toward a more equal and just society, however I wanted to make that point that just because people are treated
unequally for biological reasons other than gender- this does not give us
justification to not pay attention to situations where women and men do face
inequalities in the workplace based on the their gender.
Now, next time I decide to take a day of work I am going to make sure I claim its because I ‘have my period’ rather than the fact that I probably just want to watch the All Blacks win in the final of the rugby world cup.
Potter, I appreciate your not at all personal comments. I am not entirely sure how you interpreted my explanation of structural sexism as ego tripping, as I was simply trying to point out what I perceived to be a flaw in your general argument. Perhaps I came across as confrontational, and I apologise for that. However, in my defence being in New Zealand and listening to the constant back and forth regarding women’s productivity and their periods has made me incredibly frustrated and touchy. That said, I will not defend my writing style however or what can and can’t be considered ‘data’, as to do so would seem ridiculous and beyond the point of this blog.
Being a student who suffers from depression myself and who constantly finds meeting deadlines and completing assignments to be an incredible battle at some points, I completely agree with your points on the fact that different sectors of society battle with ‘the system’ in different ways through no choice of their own. My current student job for example is not very sympathetic to the days when I feel I cannot get out of bed. Similarly, in New Zealand we have finally begun to acknowledge that our mainstream education system as one example, is constructed around particularly European values and beliefs which in some cases neglect and penalize the world views of our Maori students. There are of course endless examples of structural discrimination such as these. However, I am not entirely sure why these arguments should be considered paralyzing factors when considering differences based on biological sex.
But to depart from the supposed ‘philosophical’ musings of structural discrimination and to the point of ‘who should foot the bill’ – as a woman, I believe I should have the right to equal pay alongside men, and to have a pay system that is based on MY needs, social functions etc as a woman, just as much as it is based on those needs and functions of my male counterparts. Similarly, as someone with depression I believe I should have the right to a system that is flexible in regards to my illness. Whether you agree with these assertions or not, the existence of one form of discrimination should not negate the importance of the other. While I may be wrong on this, I cannot imagine any equal rights lobby group for people with mental illness in the workplace arguing that women should not be granted equal pay because people with mental illness are not treated equally. So again I am not entirely convinced that that argument should be a show stopper.
There is a pre-print version of the paper that links women’s absenteeism to menstruation, by Andrea Ichino and Enrico Moretti.
“Biological Gender Differences, Absenteeism and the Earnings Gap”
https://www2.dse.unibo.it/ichino/AEJapp_2007_0091_manuscript.pdf
Megan, thanks for posting this. It never ceases to surprise me how often people (especially those who stalk blog posts they disagree with for apparently endless amounts of time) overlook the history of pay disparity, despite mainstream films such as Made in Dagenham. Is it such a stretch to assume that as women have been paid less than men since they entered the (paid) workforce, contemporary pay inequity is largely a hangover from this era? The reluctance of many companies to release pay figures for men and women respectively has made it hard for us to target pay inequity wherever it rears its head, as
Maternity leave is of course one of the most obvious reasons for why women continue to be paid less. Nothing irks me more than the callous assumption that women alone must bear the weight of this. In most cases, the decision to have a baby is made by two parents. Yet we still accept that because women do the bearing, they must also accept the repercussions of taking time off for rearing? It’s so backward. Unless we’re happy for no women to have babies ever, on account of the potential pay and prestige loss, this simplistic thinking must must must be changed. We’re worried now about supporting retiring Boomers? Ha. Wait till women my age refuse to endure this kind of sexist bullshit. But beyond the policy curveballs, on a moral level it is still deeply unfair to punish women for their physical role in baby making.
Finally, Potter: on your weirdly repetitive note about measuring productivity;
Sure again, but absent (sic) a better measure, this is the only (sic) we have and for many jobs (those mentioned above plus many many more), it is the only one we have given that the productivity cannot be measured.
That we only have bad statistical measurements for productivity is no excuse for baldfaced claims about causation = correlation. The study by Ichino and Moretti finds that period related absenteeism may account for as much as 15% of the wage gap ie 15% of 12-14%. Not exactly knee knocking proof.
Your other link does not work so I cannot comment as to its veracity. The idea that you are discriminated against by not having a family is absurd. Firstly, you are financially so much better off. Anyway if no-one had children we would cease to have a functioning society in 30 years, let alone a functioning workplace.
All I’m getting from your trolling is a repetitive Libertarian-esque whine about decisions around reproduction being solely about personal choice and nothing at all to do with the broader implications for society.
The magnitude of the effects in the study are not impressive. Women are 15% more likely than men to have an absence consistent with the 28 day cycle. Their calculations indicate that, if their model is right, the pay gap drops to something like -11 from -13. To believe more of their story, we also have to accept that managers assume women are missing extra days because of menstruation, and therefore that they don’t have adequate information to assess productivity. But if women and men are being evaluated differently (the standard hypothesis) we can’t simply assign male absentee patterns to women. Finally, take a look at Figure 1: it shows a spike at 28 days but a lot of noise before and after, including negative effects of being female. Given that some large-n studies show something like a 29 day cycle with very large standard deviations (on the order of a week), and that the writers’ defense is that “there are no other peaks” (but we should have a slope upwards before and after, no?), I’m not sure this study is as definitive as some here assume. Perhaps some of our statistics-heads will take a look?
Dear Megan, very interesting post and discussion. I’m not an expert in the topic, and decades of research seem hard to catch up with. Would you mind pointing us to the single most important peer-reviewed paper which shows that the biggest factor in the wage gap is attitudes?
Thanks.
Dear Max,
Thanks for the question. There are many different studies I could suggest. It is up for debate as to the single most important peer-reviewed paper in this area (or most other areas). Here are a few studies worth taking a look at. I’ve highlighted the central arguments of all three.
1.Christine Alksnis, Serge Desmarais,
James Curtis: “Workforce Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap: Is “Women’s”
Work Valued as Highly as “Men’s”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00354.x/pdf
This
study “found
pay differentials between jobs defined as “male” and “female,”
which suggest that gender-based
discrimination, arising from occupational stereotyping
and the devaluation of the work
typically done by women, influences salary…”
Interestingly, these authors talk
about different forms of sexism and “A distinction has been made between
oldfashioned sexism, which entails endorsement of traditional gender roles accompanied
by a host of attitudes and behaviors that presuppose women’s inferiority, and
these newer forms of sexism, which are characterized by denial of ongoing
gender-based discrimination in society and its institutions, opposition to
women’s political and economic demands, and resentment of gains that women
obtain through special programs such as affirmative action (Swim et al., 1995;
Tougas et al., 1995). Modern or neosexism is somewhat correlated with
old-fashioned sexism, but tends to be more strongly related to individuals’
notions regarding women’s employment than are old-fashioned sexist attitudes.”
Later in the document the cite
the role of neo-sexism on gender pay: “The discrepancy between participants’
ratings of the jobs on compensatory factors and the actual compensation (i.e.,
value) they assigned fits with Biernat’s (1995, 2003) shifting standards model,
which posits that existing stereotypes are more likely to be revealed when
objective measures such as salary are used. The lack of consistency between the
two types of evaluations is also reminiscent of the contradictions inherent in
contemporary sexism, whereby people claim to believe in gender equality, but
simultaneously endorse policies and views that disadvantage women.
2.Nicole M. Fortin: Gender Role Attitudes and the
Labour-Market Outcomes of Women Across OECD Countries
https://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/3/416.full.pdf+html
“The role of gender differences in attitudes and
work values in accounting for the gender pay gap across countries” is assessed.
The author concludes: “Gender differences
in gender-role attitudes and work values play significant roles.”
3.Lisa T. Stickney & Alison
M. Konrad: “Gender-Role Attitudes
and Earnings: A Multinational Study of
Married Women and Men.”
https://www.springerlink.com/content/d074696841755280/fulltext.pdf
This paper examines the impact of gender-role attitudes
on earnings for married individuals. Overall, the results of this study extend
previous work and show an association between egalitarian gender-role attitudes
and higher individual earnings for women, but not for men.
Dear Megan,
thanks for your reply. No problem with the formatting.
I went through two of the three references you mentioned (I could not find “Gender-Role attitudes[…]” etc. on line). You reported these references in reply to my question on, let’s say, “landmark” studies that support your claim “Decades of […] research surrounding equal pay legislation and policies have shown that the biggest factor in the wage gap is attitudes”.
To be honest, I am a bit doubtful on whether the logic of your argument would actually disprove Thompson’s point (and let me be clear immediately that no, I don’t want to take a position either for or against those statements for now). But, even if we follow your logic (I’m referring in particular to your third point), I’m not sure in which sense what you pointed me to supports your claim.
The first study is a lab experiment, where 260 undergrad were tested to elicit their “stereotypes” and how these stereotypes impacted their behavior in terms of “gender-based discrimination”. I’d have some problems with the whole approach of the paper, and with their definitions. But let’s assume for the sake of the argument that the paper is correctly measuring what they want to measure; are you claiming that 260 undergrads (22 of which were excluded from the analysis exactly because they were “reluctant to assign a gender to the ‘typical’ jobholder), mostly taken from the introductory psychology pool, are representative of the, say, U.S. population of employers (or of the general population, for that matter)? If not, in which sense does this study support the claim that attitudes are playing a role in the measured, economy-wide gender wage gap? And even if you say “yes, this paper has external validity”, how is it supporting the statement “the biggest factor in the wage gap is attitudes”?
The second study is more general and based on an analysis of different waves of the World Value Survey. External validity is not a problem here. And yet, it only talks about correlation. Nothing wrong about that, don’t misunderstand me. The author herself warns against a causal interpretation of the results. But, could you explain in which sense this paper supports your statement “the biggest factor in the wage gap is attitudes”? Your statement is about causes. It is saying, if I understand it correctly, that if we could remove “(some) attitudes”, a large part of the gender wage gap would disappear. I don’t see anything in this paper to support it.
To summarize, your critique of the “weakest link in Thompson’s unfortunate logic” seems to me also extremely weak. It’s not obvious to me that you have disproven anything, even assuming your logic is right.
Let me be clear: I don’t mean to be contentious. I was interested in the empirical support of your claim, since you state it quite forcefully, and it seemed to be the cornerstone of your argument; but it doesn’t seem to be supported, using your own best shots. Now, I’m ready to read replies that argue that decades of research cannot be summarized in only a few papers, and that I could start from the references in the papers you provided, and so on. This is of course a fair point, I understand it (and yes, I agree with you that it’s difficult to single out one paper only: that’s why I tried to read them all). However, it is also the reason I asked the question. I wanted to see what is the most convincing evidence you are grouding your case on. Forgive me if I won’t pursue further these readings, for now, since they are not supporting your case at all.
This reply is already too long, and I apologize to you and the other readers; but thanks for hosting my comments.
Max sorry for the editing issues with my long post below. I hope the messages come through clearly.
Interesting discussion. There is obviously a divide between some of the opinions that may never be bridged. It is surprising to me how neoliberal language creeps into these debates: choices, responsibility, efficiency, productivity. Is it the case that women just need to be more like men to get paid like men? Will sick days for women inevitably be hypothesized as a sign of weakness or inefficiency? Will taking time off to give birth continue to be seen as a ‘lifestyle choice’ detrimental to one’s career? Where are the cyborgs who can incubate babies so that we have a choice- other than women- as to who will reproduce the human race?
Three articles worth checking out on this topic (since the formatting on my comment below went wild). All three show signs that women’s periods are likely the least of their concerns with regard to pay equity.
1. Christine Alksnis, Serge Desmarais, James Curtis: “Workforce Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap: Is “Women’s” Work Valued as Highly as “Men’s”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00354.x/pdf
2.Nicole M. Fortin: Gender Role Attitudes and the Labour-Market Outcomes of Women Across OECD Countries
https://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/3/416.full.pdf+html
3.Lisa T. Stickney & Alison M. Konrad: “Gender-Role Attitudes and Earnings: A Multinational Study of Married Women and Men.”
https://www.springerlink.com/content/d074696841755280/fulltext.pdf