I used to work in the financial industry, specifically in a program geared toward women (trying to make financial services more approachable and inclusive). Much of their published “educational” material is about the harsh financial realities of being a woman, and the writers keep repeating this falsehood … as if the phrase “controlled pay gap” is profanity.
Don’t get me wrong, we should still be mindful of bias. We should acknowledge the pressure on women to take career breaks as caretakers (and, on the flip side, the pressure on men to be primary wage earners). And it’s perfectly valid to question whether pink collar work is undervalued and underpaid because these are traditionally female occupations.
But the women I worked with (most of them VPs in finance) simply preferred to believe that they were underpaid because of their gender. No matter what dollar figure you offered, no matter the industry/company/job role/etc., they would firmly believe that having a penis = 20% pay bump.
Well, Susan there is qualified in accounting, not in refilling dispenser. Companies got to hire someone able to do that, or put “occasionally refilling water dispenser” in the accounting job description.
And yet Larry in accounting can be tasked with refilling the water bottle once in a while, or being asked to clear the jammed copier because, you know, that’s guys stuff, or grabbing that stack of paper from the top shelf and it’s perfectly fine.
The idea that men make more than women for similar jobs with similar experience is a myth that needs to die.
The idea was based on flawed data from the get-go, but it has persisted because it is an easy way to rile up the troops.
Whoo boy.
I used to work in the financial industry, specifically in a program geared toward women (trying to make financial services more approachable and inclusive). Much of their published “educational” material is about the harsh financial realities of being a woman, and the writers keep repeating this falsehood … as if the phrase “controlled pay gap” is profanity.
Don’t get me wrong, we should still be mindful of bias. We should acknowledge the pressure on women to take career breaks as caretakers (and, on the flip side, the pressure on men to be primary wage earners). And it’s perfectly valid to question whether pink collar work is undervalued and underpaid because these are traditionally female occupations.
But the women I worked with (most of them VPs in finance) simply preferred to believe that they were underpaid because of their gender. No matter what dollar figure you offered, no matter the industry/company/job role/etc., they would firmly believe that having a penis = 20% pay bump.
Like … that’s not how averages work ??
Yeah if companies need to pay men more than women for the same job then why hire men at all?
That’s a damn good point. But then again, good luck getting Susan in accounting to refill the water dispenser.
Well, Susan there is qualified in accounting, not in refilling dispenser. Companies got to hire someone able to do that, or put “occasionally refilling water dispenser” in the accounting job description.
And yet Larry in accounting can be tasked with refilling the water bottle once in a while, or being asked to clear the jammed copier because, you know, that’s guys stuff, or grabbing that stack of paper from the top shelf and it’s perfectly fine.