Largely, I've moved in my little personal journey from what I think of as egalitarian concepts to more feminist concepts. For me, the end goal is egalitarianism, but to get there we can't assume a path of just trying to make things naturally equal will work. That's a horrendously broad-brush summary, but is just there for context.
When looking at wages, and in particular hearing figures about wage differences, I still tend to think of it in much more egalitarian terms. Same pay for same job, basically. Happy to discuss why, and indeed, that discussion is the very reason for me putting a thread forward.
A few days back, @Meow Mix put up a short abstract from some research, as follows;
Later in the same thread, @Shadow Wolf said the following;
(I'm linking those folks as I am interested in their thoughts on this topic)
I thought perhaps I could put forward an interesting perspective on a pink collar job I worked (primary school teacher) and on the industry I'm now in (software consultancy) as a comparative. I also regularly used to build budgeting models for various organisations, which gives me unusually broad experience in how people are paid in different industries. This is still all anecdotal though. I have a few thoughts jumbled together, so hopefully this is coherent.
First of all, let me state that I believe there is a gender wage gap in real terms. I've worked at a large company where there was clearly a high level of toxic masculinity, and where you needed to be supportive and involved in certain behaviors if you really wanted to get ahead in the company. The men at the tops of the organisation thought of themselves as Alpha males, and they spent a lot of time swinging appendages in meetings to reinforce this view. For a guy like me, it somewhat capped career progression (unless I acted like them...not gonna happen). For women in particular, and some other racial groups, it was even more impactful.
So I'm certainly not arguing that women always get fair opportunity to excel based on their skill and dedication. It's more the concept of job segregation I found interesting/challenging.
I get well paid at this point of my career. I'm better paid that I ever would have been as a primary school teacher, and better paid than my wife who works in a fairly senior mental health position. In a holistic sense, my job when I was a primary school teacher was more important, and my wife's certainly is. No-one is going to the grave remembering just how inspiring a software consultant is. But...and this is probably my first key concept I want to discuss (finally!) people aren't paid based on how important their jobs are in a social sense. That seems to me to be a much more capitalist-driven truth than a gender driven one. I get paid now because I make someone else money. That's it. My skills are hard to replace, and I can individually bargain my value. If no-one thinks I am worth that money, or that my skills are easy to replace, then I simply don't have a job.
When I was a teacher, with some minor exceptions, once I got a position I was pretty set. Each year I'd have a review, and get an incremental pay rise based on the banding I was on. If I wanted to, I could apply for more senior/management positions, at a point in time, but it was a very controlled and stepped progression. I knew what other teachers were paid (basically) based on their level.
In my job now it's the complete opposite. If the company struggles, restructures, or offshores, then I'm out of a job, regardless of performance. If I want a pay rise, I have to convince my boss I deserve one. I get paid much better than I was as a teacher, but I can easily point to the gap between what I get paid, and the amount of money I have made the company.
So...are librarians paid less than me? Yes. Is it because they're often females? I mean...there could be an element of truth to that, but the simpler truth is that librarians don't make anyone money. I remain unconvinced that women are drawn to certain types of roles because they seek employment emphasizing 'caring, negotiating, empathizing, smoothing troubled relationships, and working behind the scenes to enable cooperation' in simple terms, but regardless, the roles which are paid are ones which generate revenue, either directly or indirectly, not the ones which are costs.
Now, within those roles, there are definitely discussions to be had around gender, and it's impacts. As stated, I've seen women (and some men) reaching a glass ceiling because of the predominant company culture. I've also taken advantage of some of the things women more commonly desire from a job than men do to hire some talented women, so clearly it's not all down to talent within an industry.
I'm speaking more to the idea that 'pink-collar jobs' (not that I like that term at ALL) are paid less because they are seen as feminine.
Happy to take thoughts, or links to information. My intent here is to at least better understand contrary views.
When looking at wages, and in particular hearing figures about wage differences, I still tend to think of it in much more egalitarian terms. Same pay for same job, basically. Happy to discuss why, and indeed, that discussion is the very reason for me putting a thread forward.
A few days back, @Meow Mix put up a short abstract from some research, as follows;
Abstract
Job segregation—the tendency for men and women to work in different occupations—is often cited as the reason that women's wages lag men's. But this begs the question: What is it about women's jobs that causes them to pay less? We argue that emotional labor offers the missing link in the explanation. Tasks that require the emotive work thought natural for women, such as caring, negotiating, empathizing, smoothing troubled relationships, and working behind the scenes to enable cooperation, are required components of many women's jobs. Excluded from job descriptions and performance evaluations, the work is invisible and uncompensated. Public service relies heavily on such skills, yet civil service systems, which are designed on the assumptions of a bygone era, fail to acknowledge and compensate emotional labor.
Later in the same thread, @Shadow Wolf said the following;
Or, put in a nutshell, just about anything working with kids, a huge chunk of medical workers (physical and mental), and some other "pink collar" jobs like being a librarian (and what they do is very invisible and unrecognized).
(I'm linking those folks as I am interested in their thoughts on this topic)
I thought perhaps I could put forward an interesting perspective on a pink collar job I worked (primary school teacher) and on the industry I'm now in (software consultancy) as a comparative. I also regularly used to build budgeting models for various organisations, which gives me unusually broad experience in how people are paid in different industries. This is still all anecdotal though. I have a few thoughts jumbled together, so hopefully this is coherent.
First of all, let me state that I believe there is a gender wage gap in real terms. I've worked at a large company where there was clearly a high level of toxic masculinity, and where you needed to be supportive and involved in certain behaviors if you really wanted to get ahead in the company. The men at the tops of the organisation thought of themselves as Alpha males, and they spent a lot of time swinging appendages in meetings to reinforce this view. For a guy like me, it somewhat capped career progression (unless I acted like them...not gonna happen). For women in particular, and some other racial groups, it was even more impactful.
So I'm certainly not arguing that women always get fair opportunity to excel based on their skill and dedication. It's more the concept of job segregation I found interesting/challenging.
I get well paid at this point of my career. I'm better paid that I ever would have been as a primary school teacher, and better paid than my wife who works in a fairly senior mental health position. In a holistic sense, my job when I was a primary school teacher was more important, and my wife's certainly is. No-one is going to the grave remembering just how inspiring a software consultant is. But...and this is probably my first key concept I want to discuss (finally!) people aren't paid based on how important their jobs are in a social sense. That seems to me to be a much more capitalist-driven truth than a gender driven one. I get paid now because I make someone else money. That's it. My skills are hard to replace, and I can individually bargain my value. If no-one thinks I am worth that money, or that my skills are easy to replace, then I simply don't have a job.
When I was a teacher, with some minor exceptions, once I got a position I was pretty set. Each year I'd have a review, and get an incremental pay rise based on the banding I was on. If I wanted to, I could apply for more senior/management positions, at a point in time, but it was a very controlled and stepped progression. I knew what other teachers were paid (basically) based on their level.
In my job now it's the complete opposite. If the company struggles, restructures, or offshores, then I'm out of a job, regardless of performance. If I want a pay rise, I have to convince my boss I deserve one. I get paid much better than I was as a teacher, but I can easily point to the gap between what I get paid, and the amount of money I have made the company.
So...are librarians paid less than me? Yes. Is it because they're often females? I mean...there could be an element of truth to that, but the simpler truth is that librarians don't make anyone money. I remain unconvinced that women are drawn to certain types of roles because they seek employment emphasizing 'caring, negotiating, empathizing, smoothing troubled relationships, and working behind the scenes to enable cooperation' in simple terms, but regardless, the roles which are paid are ones which generate revenue, either directly or indirectly, not the ones which are costs.
Now, within those roles, there are definitely discussions to be had around gender, and it's impacts. As stated, I've seen women (and some men) reaching a glass ceiling because of the predominant company culture. I've also taken advantage of some of the things women more commonly desire from a job than men do to hire some talented women, so clearly it's not all down to talent within an industry.
I'm speaking more to the idea that 'pink-collar jobs' (not that I like that term at ALL) are paid less because they are seen as feminine.
Happy to take thoughts, or links to information. My intent here is to at least better understand contrary views.