|
longwayhome -> RE: There Is No Gender Wage Gap (3/13/2017 10:43:06 PM)
|
There is plenty of evidence that there are biological differences between the performance of a group of men and a group of women when performing certain tasks.
What is clear however is that the variation within each of the groups is far greater than the variation between the groups. In practice this means that whether you are good with words, spacial perception, abstract reasoning or a range of other areas where men and women on average perform slightly differently, is far more a matter of your individual characteristics than your gender.
The problem is how you take results like this and apply them to a theory of nature/nurture or "biological determinism".
If you go for the biological determinist argument you claim that the well documented differences in women's pay are partly explained by factors which are to do with genes, hormones and choices women make because they are different to men. If however you focus on the fact that the majority of the variation is between individuals and not genders, you will tend to argue that any difference based on the different abilities of men and women explains little and the weight of social norms is a more powerful determinant of economic behaviour and gaps in pay.
Here's the rub. There is no sure-fire method to crunch the figures so both arguments can be made and where you stand as a individual depends on your belief system more than irrefutable "evidence".
For my part I start from the premise that there are indeed differences in male and female economic and social behaviour, but that social conditioning is a better explanation than true biological differences. Male and female abilities overlap so much that the marginal "biological" differences between men and women do not fully explain the very different life chances of men and women, especially when those "biological" differences are partly due to social norms in the first place.
It isn't necessary to argue that there are or aren't biological differences or differences based on social norms. Both exist and influence economic outcomes.
The central issue then becomes whether you believe that equal pay is a social good or not. As a card carrying "lefty" (not a feminazi or a misogynist) I believe that equality of opportunity is a good thing, and that whilst equality of outcome is impossible, we are long way from giving all people that equality of opportunity.
For my part, pursuing social and economic policies which encourage equality of opportunity is therefore a social and economic good. The main downside is that equality of opportunity means downward mobility as well as upward mobility in society so that, for example a male born to a wealthy family might not expect to be as well off as his parents. As a white male of comfortable economic means I feel no need to take sides based on that fact and I do not feel threatened by the possibility that the most powerful group in global society might lose some of it's economic, political and social influence, especially when that influence is to the detriment of others.
That gets all of my "prejudices" on this subject onto the table.
As for arguing around the topic of biological predisposition, it certainly exists. It just doesn't trump every other explanation of social and economic difference. Just as it doesn't make men naturally Dom and women naturally submissive as some argue.
Finally, although feminism has been a factor in the advancement of women, the world is still largely ruled by economically and politically powerful white men. That is to the detriment of many groups, including women and the vast majority of white men. The biggest single determinant of economic well-being is overwhelmingly your parents wealth and income, even in the US where social mobility remains limited despite the "land of opportunity" rhetoric. The "class system" which some believe is more a UK or European phenomenon, appears in practical terms to be just as much in evidence in the US as it is in Europe, sometimes more.
If you are a woman your hope of economic advancement is even less.
|
|
|
|
