This morning I felt like I had taken a time machine back to the 1960’s as I read that an article that stated “On average, full-time working women earn just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns.” (Whitehouse.gov 2014).
Except this isn’t the 1960’s, this wasn’t the writing of an extremist feminist group weekly circular that my hippy mother would have read. This is happening today, and our own government is telling us about it!
I got to thinking, why is this STILL? Perusing through my week’s reading assignment from my leadership class I learn that 57% of bachelor’s degrees are earned by women, and 60% of the master’s degrees in the United States (Northouse 2014). If this is the case then women are currently out-performing men academically, and I would expect the opposite situation to exist for pay, and if it were, at least it could be said to be a fairer situation than the one we currently face.
The parallel between lower pay and lesser representation in leadership roles is not lost on me. Currently women make up only 25% of reported CEO positions, and only 3% of Fortune 500 company CEO roles (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). Why does our society believe that women not only do lesser work, and are incapable of strong leadership and should also be paid less?
According to some, the reason for both restriction from leadership, and lower pay is due to women taking ‘career breaks’ to raise a family. It’s been noted that nearly 40% of women work part time or leave the work-force to take care of the kids, and when they re-enter the job market they are left with lower-level and lower paid positions as they are less qualified (Weiner, 2013). Women are expected to take more maternal roles, and less ‘masculine’ roles, such as strong and aggressive leadership which is typically looked at as negative behavior for a woman (Northouse 2014). This break then means women are exposed less to management positions, perhaps stepping off the career ladder right as they should be building their own teams so they can instead start their own families? I am not convinced, and I feel like the use of kids is being used an excuse to deflect away from the ‘glass ceiling’ of corporate America. A term coined by execs to explain this phenomena of lack of female presence at the senior management level; a glass ceiling indicates that it appears all can reach the top but women cannot get through the last hurdles of leadership, and in turn, earn the top salaries.
Personally, as a woman, this data scares me, especially as I try to work my way through and navigate a career path that will endow me with leadership opportunities and what should be an equal potential for pay with my male counterparts; based on performance, not preference. With the increase female workforce, especially at a higher level of education, we should all start to cast our ‘stones of knowledge’ and work together to break through the ‘glass’.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2013) Leadership Theory and Practice. 6th Ed. Sage Publications.
Weiner, J. (2013, August 13), Why women still earn less than men: It’s the kids’ fault. Washington Post. Online. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/08/13/why-women-still-earn-less-than-men-its-the-kids-fault/
Whitehouse. Gov (2014), Online. Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/career
Great post. I think you did an excellent job explaining the issues women currently face in the workplace. You stated that you found an article that women earn only 77 cent on the dollar compared to men. Though I thought you did a good job explaining your point, I think this statistic is often skewed, and when analyzing all factors, I think women earn more than 77 cents on the dollar. When women’s earnings are compared with men in a more specific manner other than just full-time workers, the distance between pay is not as vast. For instance, when women are compared with men in the same working field, the same age group, or the same degree level, 50% of the women earn 87% as much as men (Hecker, 1998). Though this statistic is still not equal with men and shows pay discrimination between genders, this number is still higher than 77%.
I agree with you that the glass ceiling is a major problem, but I do think that women are required to participate in intergenerational care more than men, and this puts them at a disadvantage in the workplace. Women also perform housework more than men, so women are faced with many more tasks. Though I agree with you that all the focus should not be put on this issue, and the glass ceiling should be addressed, I do think these factors come into play when examining gender diversity in the workplace.
References
Hecker, D. E. Office of Employment Projections, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1998). Earnings of college graduates: Women compared with men. Retrieved from website: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1998/03/art5full.pdf
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on women in the workplace and leadership. I enjoyed reading them and I think your facts are right on. I did wan to to tell you that as begin to navigate the world of leadership, you should not be scared. The pendulum is beginning to move in your favor.
As you stated in your post, women are already putting more investment into their “capital” education by outpacing males both in undergraduate and graduate degrees. This allows them to enter the workforce in a stronger position than less educated peers. As women travel along their career path most of them will eventually face the decision of whether or not to start a family, and if so how to care for the children.
One movement that has gained support and momentum over the last ten years is that of stay at home dads. While only three and one half percent of the stay at home parents are dads, and that number has doubled in the last decade (LUDDEN). For some this is an economic decision as currently 28% of women out earn their husbands (LUDDEN).
The impact of this trend on women in the workplace will not be measurable for several more years, but as more men acknowledge that the assigned roles of the past no longer work in todays world, the more positive the impact will be. Not just because there may be fewer men in the workplace but because by replacing the gender difference with equality women will be more empowered to reach their full potentials.
Ludden, Jennifer. “Stay-At-Home Dads, Breadwinner Moms And Making It All Work.” NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. .
Hello there!
First of all, this was very well written and thought out! I enjoyed your in-text citations as well as outside information.
I also think it is odd that women make $.77 less than men for every dollar worked. If I had the identical education path and career as a man – should I get paid less because I am female? No way! It is quite disheartening to say the least.
Little girls grow up looking at Barbie as a significant female figure. Barbie was a pilot, veterinarian, doctor and any other job title Mattel saw fit. If only it was reality. Instead, little girls get to see their mother struggle as a nurses aide for not much more than $10 per hour or trying to make ends meet working as a secretary. Sadly, the media makes career women out to be something glamorous when in reality its nothing but a struggle to climb the ladder.
Hi Laura,
Your post’s title caught my eye, and I could not help but be intrigued by your analogy. It is indeed disparaging to learn the current statistics with regard to woman’s earning, as compared to those of men, especially since we know that the gender gap is narrowing (ever so slowly) (Northouse, 2013, p.365). Even though the majority of people earning university degrees are women, people still insist that women are failing to inject a sufficient amount of “capital” into their education and career progression. If men would just take a little more responsibility for the workings of the household, lightening the burden, women might be more likely to rise up the leadership ranks, and break down the glass ceilings that are ever so impenetrable.
My sister, who is in her mid-thirties and works for a large accountancy firm (which will remain nameless), faces issues similar to those discussed in your blog, and in our readings this week. She has been told for the past three years that she will make partner “this year”, and the goalpost appears is being pushed further, and further away. She is a well-educated, and otherwise successful go-getter, and would make a remarkable leader. What stands in her way, apparently, is that she is a woman, and one at childbearing age nonetheless; married, but still yet to have her first child. The firm cannot, legally, ask her if she intends to have children, but since her wedding two years ago, it has become increasingly obvious that her being a woman, is a barrier proving difficult to break.
Unfortunately, even for women who are lucky enough to get the opportunity to prove their worth as leaders in organizations, the roadblocks do not stop there. Women who are perceived as being too masculine (contrary to gender norms), are devalued, yet women who come across as being too feminine are no better off (Northouse, 2013, p.351). It seems like women are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t; as the perfect balance of masculine and feminine, also needs to be coupled with a role that is not masculinized, and subordinates or supervisors who are not proportionately male (Northouse, 2013, p.351).
According to Acker, “The image of the successful organization and the image of the successful leader share many of the same characteristics, such as strength, aggressiveness and competitiveness” and that women can have equality and equal opportunity, so long as they “function like men” (Acker, 2006, p.445). Women, who are less likely to engage in self-promotion, for fear of being perceived as masculine, and who are disadvantaged if they step outside the realms of gender stereotypes, are clearly beginning the race behind the starting block.
References
Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership Theory and Practice. 6th Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality Regimes Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender in Society, 20(4), 441-464. Retrieved from http://ww.jstor.org/stable/27640904