The gender gap will never go away — thanks to the mommy track
So why do women work fewer hours, choose less demanding jobs, and then earn less than men do? The answer is obvious: kids. A number of researchers have found that if you consider only childless women, the wage gap disappears. June O’Neill, an economist who has probably studied wage gaps as much as anyone alive, has found that single, childless women make about 8 percent more than single, childless men do (though the advantage vanishes when you factor in education). Using Census Bureau data of pay levels in 147 of the nation’s 150 largest cities, the research firm Reach Advisors recently showed that single, childless working women under 30 earned 8 percent more than their male counterparts did…
Here’s what the authors found: right after graduation, men and women had nearly identical earnings and working hours. Over the next ten years, however, women fell way behind. Survey questions revealed three reasons for this. First and least important, men had taken more finance courses and received better grades in those courses, while women had taken more marketing classes. Second, women had more career interruptions. Third and most important, mothers worked fewer hours. “The careers of MBA mothers slow down substantially within a few years of first birth,” the authors wrote. Though 90 percent of women were employed full-time and year-round immediately following graduation, that was the case with only 80 percent five years out, 70 percent nine years out, and 62 percent ten or more years out—and only about half of women with children were working full-time ten years after graduation. By contrast, almost all the male grads were working full-time and year-round. Furthermore, MBA mothers, especially those with higher-earning spouses, “actively chose” family-friendly workplaces that would allow them to avoid long hours, even if it meant lowering their chances to climb the greasy pole…
So it makes no sense to think of either the mommy track or the resulting wage differential as an injustice to women. Less time at work, whether in the form of part-time jobs or fewer full-time hours, is what many women want and what those who can afford it tend to choose. Feminists can object till the Singularity arrives that women are “socialized” to think that they have to be the primary parent. But after decades of feminism and Nordic engineering, the continuing female tropism toward shorter work hours suggests that that view is either false or irrelevant. Even the determined Swedes haven’t been able to get women to stick around the office.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Even the determined Swedes haven’t been able to get women to stick around the office.
….
Let’s not give the authoritarians any new ideas.
artist on August 4, 2011 at 10:41 PM
Oh, the glass ceiling is actually a convertible top down!
cartooner on August 4, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Instinct trumps social engineering.
Connie on August 4, 2011 at 11:02 PM
Women and men were created to be complimentary. Feminists despise this, and try to diminish men while “elevating” women by denying their nature. This results in pain and frustration for both sexes, yet feminists demand ceaseless pursuit of that which has no supporting evidence. What a damning “philosophy” for mankind.
DrMagnolias on August 4, 2011 at 11:11 PM
Men suffer from %93 of fatal work injuries. You don’t think that differential might help to explain a %25 pay difference, but you never hear that statistic.
DFCtomm on August 5, 2011 at 12:00 AM
Men are supposed to get out there, work and feed their families. It is that simple. Biologically woman have children and are better equipped to raise them in the early years. All that said today nearly 50% of all doctors graduating from Medical School in this country are now women. I can only pray that they are able to have children and serve as full time physicians, caring for those that need their services.
SC.Charlie on August 5, 2011 at 6:28 AM
There is increasing evidence that female physicians are simply not up to the demands of the job, though it violates the tenets of feminism and liberalism to say so.This is an interesting piece written by a female anesthesiologist that says there is no “balancing” the demands of being a doctor or a mother–one must choose.
DrMagnolias on August 5, 2011 at 7:52 AM
My internist is a 37 year-old married woman who apparently does not want to have children, which I find sad. She is very intelligent and pretty. She was Phi Beta Kappa in college. I have no complaints about her abilities. I have been told by some of her office staff she demands a lot from those around her, which is good. I did not choose her. My other Internist, whom I did choose, sold his practice to the local hospital. He was my age and was Phi Beta Kappa …………… and, he had a better sense of humor or what is called a bedside manner than my current doctor. However, it would be hard for any doctor to have a better bedside manner than him.
SC.Charlie on August 5, 2011 at 8:12 AM
Gender gap?……………..Why do women dominate the K-12 education profession?
SC.Charlie on August 5, 2011 at 8:19 AM
This is just nonsense. Men are perfectly capable of raising children in their early years. It just depends on what each individual prefers to do. Don’t blame “feminists”. We all have choices and free will. I do not want to stay home with my kids, I would rather my husband do it, and so would he. I am thankful I live in a society that allows us to arrange our lives like that instead of being forced into gender roles that don’t always fit.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2011 at 8:20 AM
More nonsense. Whether some (or even a majority of) women would rather not work full time has no bearing on whether they are capable of doing so.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2011 at 8:22 AM
Because historically it was one of only a few professions available to them. There are far more male teachers now than there used to be.
alwaysfiredup on August 5, 2011 at 8:25 AM
It is not nonsense. The roles SC Charlie spoke of may not always fit, but they are the norm. You must recognize that your situation is the exception, and while exceptions may be interesting, they are just that–we still have to be able to speak of the norm, and should be able to without constantly acknowledging the exceptions, which is cumbersome.
DrMagnolias on August 5, 2011 at 8:26 AM
I’m on the mommy track entirely by choice. I have way too much going on with my kids to take stress home from work, so I opt for the less stressful, lower-paying job. For me it’s a no-brainer to do that, but I can see where it might be a more difficult decision if a woman already has an established professional career before having kids (and greater financial obligations to go with it).
Missy on August 5, 2011 at 8:27 AM
I’m afraid your assertions are nonsense. Why women feel so threatened by the idea that some jobs are too physically demanding or too stressful for them is beyond me. Virtually every profession in which physical standards are a part of the job has had to lower their standards for women.
And the notion that women dominate certain jobs because of what was historically available to them conveniently ignores that for the past number of decades, they have had many other options. Science and math still attract vastly greater numbers of men than women, and there is plenty of research to back up the assertion that those fields are better suited to men (ask Larry Summers, who learned that female emotionalism trumps evidence every time).
DrMagnolias on August 5, 2011 at 8:35 AM
Some so-called feminists argue that the patriarchy is oppressive and so husbands should be replaced by the State. For the freedom, or something.
Thanks, I’ll get my own babysitter. And if you want to invoke state manipulation of society, I’ll take making marriage a nearly unbreakable contract, with protection for the wife and other dependents.
SarahW on August 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM
One thing never mentioned is the platform on which this entire debate rests: MATERIALISM. It is the concept that you are what you make. This notion is so pervasive in the U.S. that 90% of us are not even aware that we are completely materialistic. Figuring out what everyone else makes is our national pass-time. It wasn’t always like this.
PhillyUnion on August 5, 2011 at 9:37 AM