Splicetoday

Politics & Media
May 12, 2016, 12:02PM

Actually, Women Do Make Less Than Men

And demonizing feminists doesn't bolster your argument.

Equal pay e1365523553451.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Feminists are the devil. They're lying dangerous Nazis, and also somehow cowardly wimps who should be sneered at for their weakness. They’re impervious to logic or reason, and you can tell sexism is dead because accusing women of being impervious to logic and reason has nothing at all to do with discriminatory stereotypes of women. How do you like that swaggering male rational reason now, huh, feminazi trash?

Semi-deranged anti-feminism has become a hallmark of online discourse, and Chris Beck does his part to fuel the silliness with his foam-flecked rant from earlier this week here at Splice Today. It's a shame, too, because Beck's central point is worth talking about, sans partisan flailing.

Many Democratic politicians, including Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, have claimed that women make 77 cents for every dollar that men make. This is used to argue that women are paid less for the same work as men—but, as Beck says, this is extremely misleading. The 77- (or 78- or 79-) cent figure is obtained by looking at the difference between the median woman's earnings and the median man's earnings.

This differential is affected by a number of factors other than straightforward discrimination. The first of these is that men and women tend to be concentrated in different occupations. Beck argues that there are more male CEOs, which is true. But then he says that men are more represented in lower wage jobs… and that's false. In fact, women are disproportionately represented in the lowest wage jobs, such as home health care, childcare, fast food, maids, and cashiers. Women overall make up two-thirds of those in low wage jobs, and this doesn’t seem to be related to education, marital, or parental status. Qualified women get lower paying jobs than qualified men—which suggests that sexism is a factor in which jobs women get, and perhaps in the pay accorded to jobs in sectors dominated by women.

Women also make less because they're more likely than men to take time out of the workforce to raise children. To some degree, this is a choice; sometimes women prefer to raise kids rather than pursue a career. But it can also be a forced decision. As Jessica Grose points out, having a child is physically exhausting and requires a period of recovery. When jobs don't provide maternity leave, women have to go on leave without pay, which means they're the primary caretaker at the beginning, and so there's a powerful incentive to just stay out of the workforce. This is especially the case in the United States, where there's little affordable childcare, and where many woman may not be able to make enough to afford having someone else watch their child.

Finally, there’s evidence that there’s some direct wage discrimination against women—totaling perhaps eight cents on the dollar. That's not 20 cents, but it's significant, and suggests that sexism does lower women's pay when they take the same jobs as men, despite Beck's claims to the contrary.

Beck argues that women's focus on pay disparities obscures that the real discrimination is against men; he cites high male suicide rates, high incarceration rates, and men's concentration in dangerous jobs. But putting men and women in opposition like this doesn't help anybody. How does it benefit men with depression to live in a society where by default they’re supposed to work and work and work, while women get booted out of the workforce with less opportunity to make a living? Men are shunted into dangerous but higher paying jobs where no one cares if they get injured; women are shunted into lower paying jobs where they can't make a living. These are complementary oppressions, which need to be addressed through better workplace safety regulations, broader family leave policies, better childcare options, and vigorous prosecution of gender discrimination.

Beck claims that the "77-cent" figure is "a distortion of reality designed to support an ideology." But his own argument, dripping with snarling accusations of bad faith and half-digested talking points, is thoroughly ideological, and is probably more misleading than the claim he insists he's refuting. Women continue to face discrimination in the workforce. Coercive, restrictive gender roles continue to harm both men and women, on and off the job. It's true that misleading statistics won't help solve these problems. But neither will demonizing feminists.

—Follow Noah Berlatsky on Twitter: @nberlat

Discussion
  • Uh, foam-flecked? Did you copy-paste that one from your "hard-hitting journalistic insults" file ? You can do much better than recycling tired clichés like that one, Noah. If you want to get literally foam-flecked, all you have to do is mention the patriarchy to an intersectional feminist. I'm not sure what would be worse though - the spraying or the sheer inanity of the utterly predictable rant.

    Responses to this comment
  • "foam-flecked" is a good insult! Tried and true; everything old doesn't need to be tossed out.//You know, I'm an intersectional feminist. If you want to imagine what talking to an intersectional feminist would be like, you could engage with what I'm saying here, rather than constructing fantasy interlocutors who you think would be easier to argue with.

    Responses to this comment
  • Well,now I know better than to stand in front of you and mention the patriarchy. Anyway, I'm tied up at the moment, busy constructing fantasy interlocuters for another project. Maybe later...

    Responses to this comment
  • Fair enough! Don't want to interfere with the construction of fantasy interlocutors...

    Responses to this comment
  • This comment thread is just like an Ouroboros.

    Responses to this comment
  • So clever, and yet so pithy. More pearls of wisdom, Texan, I pray you.

    Responses to this comment
  • In short, this is a response to something someone else wrote. I'd like my name removed this, so the intersectional and third-wave feminists reading it don't try to ruin me in every way.

    Responses to this comment
  • Correction: removed "from" this.

    Responses to this comment
  • Your rhetoric is very overheated and inaccurate. "Devils," "Nazis," cowardly wimps," "impervious to logic," "feminazi" are all your words, aimed at creating a straw man that you can then attack. You tipped your hand right out of the gate.This is what Fox News does all day long, but it's also very common on the left, which values feelings over facts.It's odd that the one name I did call them, "fainting couch feminists," you chose not to even mention once. Too "on the money" I suspect," so you went for the cheap lie "FemiNazi trash." Like I said, you wrote a response to something I didn't even write, as you continue to demonstrate with the rest of the column, which is a steaming junk heap of deflection and misinformation. It kind of looks like some boilerplate material you dusted off and decided to use again. People who read this and don't read what I wrote will rightly assume I call feminists "Nazis, impervious to logic, etc" when I obviously didn't. Looks like reading what I wrote gave you the vapors, Noah. You got all emotional and took this personally and wrote the most ridiculous opening to an article I've seen in some time. A pure piece of ripe propaganda. Anyway, hope it plays well with your fellow intersectionalist travellers who you wrote this for to show what a stand -up guy you are. Maybe it will even get you a mention in Everyday Feminism which, btw, people should go to immediately to see how absurd modern feminism has become. It reads like pure parody, but is actually deadly earnest, and what's sadder than that? What you can't seem to understand is that many modern feminists (I was not writing about ALL feminists) rub people the wrong way. Although you all think you're wonderful people, not all agree, so yes we mock them, which they deserve. That's what a severe obsession with the patriarchy and always playing the victim rightly gets you.Plus not one of you has a fucking sense of humor, which is probably the worst thing of all.

    Responses to this comment
  • Good grief, Beck. This is silliness. You wrote a whole other article in the comments! Which was easy I guess since you don't actually engage anything I wrote. It's the same army of straw feminists arranged against your own utterly imaginary rationalism.// Do you actually care about income inequality? About violence against men? Against anything but combating the demonic forces you've summoned from the hinterlands of what I suppose we must call your consciousness?// Like, I pointed out errors in your argument. You said things that weren't true. Your analysis is confused and flawed, which I demonstrated by citing statistics, arguments, and links. And all you have in return is whining and culture war boilerplate. I'd hoped for better...but that's the way it goes I guess.//I do appreciate the humor of you accusing someone of lack of humor, though. That's quite funny. Cheers.

    Responses to this comment
  • Your God wants more popcorn! Funniest comment thread ever on this site. I can't wait until the shattering pelvises fly.

    Responses to this comment
  • "Hinterlands of what I suppose we must call your consciousness," you say? Do you know how ridiculously pretentious that makes you sound? That's some real purple prose right there. Why do you absurdly ask if I care about violence against men? That has some connection to a gender wage gap? Why don't you ask if I care about universal peace or saving the children too?   Anyway, use my own words and argument if you actually want to rebut me. That's the way rebuttals work, in case you hadn't heard. You set up a strawman argument  - "delusional-antifeminism," "dangerous nazis" etc. - to make me look scary, and then you went on to make a case for something I didn't address even slightly. I wrote about the power of a myth, a "big lie" that became truth in people's minds - I did not say there was no wage gap - and then you made a case for there actually being a wage gap. Well good for you, but that wasn't the topic at hand. Your headline shows you didn't even understand the point I was making. The actual topic is the widely disseminated myth, or maybe lie,  that women are paid 30% less than men for the exact same job. I notice you didn't even address the motives behind the 77 cents myth being spread for so long or what effect it has had on the debate or how bad it makes feminists look. I wonder why. That would have at least been germane, and interesting too.

    Responses to this comment
  • Beck, I'm glad you finally see the light. This has been my problem with NockBitch all along. Frustrating to be misinterpreted and straw manned to death, doesn't it? Just wait until your dead relatives are brought into the thread. I'm shocked it hasn't yet occurred.

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan, your contributions glimmer with brilliance and insight as always. It is an honor and a privilege to have you here. More, sir. More!

    Responses to this comment
  • Beck, man, I thought you wanted humor! Then I make a joke and you get all bent out of shape. Ah well.//So, using the "big lie" equates feminists with Nazis. I think that's nuts. .// You're presenting the 77 cent statistic as if it's a rabid misrepresentation of reality. It isn't. Women really are discriminated against in pay... a fact you tried to pooh pooh away, without doing any research or really citing much in the way of evidence.// How and why that works is complicated, and the 77 cent claim is inaccurate, as I said. But it seems pretty obvious why it's used; it's an effort to get people interested in a complex issue in a simple way. Does it do more harm than good? I'd say on balance yes, since it simplifies the issue in a way that I think is unhelpful. But you make it sound like it's an effort by nefarious forces to impose totalitarian rule on us all. It makes you sound unhinged.

    Responses to this comment
  • Maybe you don't know...but the "big lie" refers to a lie so big and terrible and horrendous that people can't believe you'd lie about it, so it must be true. Like, "Germany is not killing any Jews," or "there is a massive plot by Communists against the German state," or, "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." The 77 cent myth is a regular old political exaggeration, made for the usual reasons. It's worth pointing out its wrong; it's not worth launching into hysterical bromides about anything in particular.

    Responses to this comment
  • Maybe you don't know, but I was referring to Goebells, who said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." He was making a general point about propaganda that holds true in many situations, and it would not have to apply to something as horrible as the Holocaust. A sound bite that says women make 30% less for the same work is, by any standard, a big lie, and it got repeated so much so that people would eventually accept it. It worked. To say I equate feminism with the Nazis because I cite this example is, once again, very cheap. Pretty cheap. Anyway, intersectional feminists more resemble Stalinists, if we are to discuss historical precedent. Your meetings must be a blast! Do they allow you to talk, with your obscene level of privilege, or do you just learn?

    Responses to this comment
  • It's not a big lie "by any standard". Come on. It's a political fib, like many others, and you're using it to compare people to Nazis, or Stalinists, or whatever.// Like, comparing people to HItler or Stalin, and repeating it over and over, is a lot more aggressive, and potentially a lot more dangerous, than saying there's a 21 cent difference instead of an 8 cent one.//Do you even know what intersectional or third wave feminism is? Like, it's not Hillary. Talking about wage disparities is pretty dead center second wave.// Feminists believe lots of different things, and intersectional feminists are actually not super taken either with Hillary or with the kind of emphasis on wage disparities that you're criticizing. // I mean, if you really thought intersectional feminists were like Stalin, I presume you'd be more circumspect, because Stalin actually, you know, murdered people. But maybe you're writing from a bunker somewhere, knees trembling, as you hesitantly pat yourself on the back for your courage in fighting back against the conventional wisdom just like all the other mainstream sites that have pointed out that the 77 cent statistic isn't reliable. Fight the brave lonely fight! You're the spitting image of George Orwell, truly.

    Responses to this comment
  • Amusingly since you mentioned Everyday Feminism, they have a lengthy article about the gender wage gap which explains how it's calculated and points out that a good bit of the gap probably comes not from women being paid less for the same job, but from women working in fields where the pay is less. It's not a perfect discussion, but it's substantially more nuanced than the straw woman you're constructing, and it does not in fact that I can see engage in any lies at all, big or small—though you can certainly argue with how it interprets the data. http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/what-78-cents-wage-gap-means/

    Responses to this comment
  • So, even the place you have pointed to as

    Responses to this comment
  • dagnabit. Even the place you pointed to as the heart of feminist evil isn't engaging in the propaganda you say they are. Could it be that feminists are not the deadly Stalinist evill you claim? Might it be safe for you to crawl from that bunker? Maybe we can coax you out with a battered copy of Homage to Catalonia....

    Responses to this comment
  • You two can sort this out, but Noah wins round for using word "dagnabbit," even if he got spelling wrong.

  • Premature Russ. Sure, I too enjoy the occasional dagnabbit or "skulduggery" but this discussion really needs extra innings to decide who is going to get off whose lawn.

    Responses to this comment
  • I think Chris has moved on, so there will be no more rounds, for better or worse...

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment