The gender wage gap—myth?

Last month, Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed a repeal of that state’s 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which allowed victims of workplace pay discrimination to seek damages in state courts. The equal pay law protected against pay discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion and sexual orientation; however, it was enacted mainly in response to the fact that the gender wage gap in Wisconsin was worse than the national average.

In 2009, Wisconsin ranked 36th in terms of gendered pay disparity.

In the United States, the gender wage gap (alternately called the gender pay gap) is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round workers. In 2009, the national average of this ratio was 0.77. This means that, across the country, female FTYR workers earned 77 percent as much as male FTYR workers.

In defense of his actions, Walker (who, incidentally, is not a female FTYR worker) stated that “the gender wage gap is a myth.” Echoing that sentiment, Republican state Sen. Glenn Grothman, another non-female and major proponent of the repeal, insisted that whatever gap exists stems from women’s “decision” to prioritize child rearing over their careers.

“What you’ve got to look at,” he said, “and Ann Coulter has looked at this, is you have to break it down by married and unmarried. Once you break it down by married and unmarried, the differential disappears.”

Similarly, attempts are often made to explain away the gender wage gap by citing personal and workplace characteristics between women and men, such as educational attainment, hours worked, occupational segregation, etc. The reality, though, is that these differences only account for a portion of the gap. Study after study has found that, even when controlling for multiple variables like experience and hours worked, a significant, unexplained disparity still exists that can only be attributed to discriminatory practices. The gap also widens as careers progress.

For example, a 2007 American Association of University Women study found that college-educated women earn only 80 percent as much, on average, as similarly educated men a year after graduation. After accounting for college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours worked, workplace flexibility, experience, educational attainment, enrollment status, grade point average, institution selectivity, age, race/ethnicity, region, marital status and number of children, a 5 percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation was still unexplained. “After 10 years in the workforce, there’s an unexplained 12 percent gap,” it said.

When presented with this information, Grothman reportedly replied, “The American Association of University Women is a pretty liberal group.” Apparently the findings of scientific research are not to be trusted, but the words of an ultra-conservative political pundit who has been fired multiple times for being an extremist can be taken at face value.

Even the U.S. Census Bureau’s data supports the studies done by the AAUW and many others. According to the information collected on the median income of all FTYR workers aged 25 and older, men with some college but no degree earn about the same as women with bachelor’s degrees. A woman needs a doctorate to earn as much as a man with a bachelor’s degree in her lifetime. A man with a doctorate will earn $1 million more in his lifetime than a woman with similar education.

Many fundamentally sexist practices are thought to contribute to the adjusted, “unexplained” portion of the gap. Studies show that when it comes to subjective evaluations carried out by both employers and customers—which play a part in who gets a raise or promotion and who doesn’t—women are almost always judged more harshly than men; men are routinely assumed to be more capable, even when the opposite is true.

Parental status also affects men and women differently: fathers in the workplace are respected and encouraged, whereas mothers are devalued, either because they are perceived as not being dedicated enough or due to the belief that they “should be home with their kids.” Even the hiring process itself is skewed heavily in favor of men, with several studies showing that when identical applications are sent to employers, the ones with male names are much more likely to be called for interviews.

The most salient point, however, is that these prejudices have serious real-world consequences. When sociologists speak of the “feminization of poverty,” they refer to the fact that women are much more likely to be poor than men. In fact, of all households in the U.S., the majority in poverty are those headed by single women (as opposed to those headed by single men or couples).

In light of this gendered economic inequality, it’s no wonder that in a society where money is power, women have a marginal amount of power and status compared to men. Unless challenged, this relationship creates a cycle that essentially works to keep women in the second class: because we are valued less, we are given less opportunity for economic advancement, and, without economic power, we continue to be valued less.

After its equal pay law was passed, in just one year Wisconsin climbed to 24th among national rankings of gender pay disparity, with women making 78 percent as much as men. One wonders, then, why lawmakers such as Walker and Grothman would be so diametrically opposed to that kind of evidential progress.

It’s entirely possible that they truly believe women don’t belong in the workforce anyway and therefore wish to discourage it by allowing women to be paid less. Or perhaps it’s something more subtle. It is said that the biggest privilege of all—in this case, regarding male privilege—is the luxury of remaining wholly unaware of your privilege. Perhaps the masculine majority in the Wisconsin legislature simply could not handle the fact that their successes may have been due in part to pro-male discrimination, and their failures in spite of it.