Women today - by the numbers. And some bitching about Clinton-era pay inequality bullshit.

I read this article in Time magazine, and I thought it was pretty cool. I've provided the survey questions/statistics that I found most interesting below:

It is possible for a woman to have a fulfilling life if she remains single:

54% women strongly agree

38% men strongly agree

Being married is very important to you:

53% women agree

58% men agree

There are no longer any barriers to women's advancement in the workplace:

50% women agree

60% men agree

Female bosses are harder to work for than male bosses:

45% women agree

29% men agree

In 1972, women made 58 cents on a man's dollar.

Today, women make 77 cents on a man's dollar.

Women between 45 and 54 who had never been married in 1970: 5%

Women between 45 and 54 who had never been married in 2008: 10%

Most of these statistics were both interesting and encouraging to me. Of course, this is just a tiny sample of what was included in the very extensive article {magazine version, not digital}.

The statistic that bothered me, out of the ones I shared with you, is the classic "women make 77 cents on a man's dollar" one. This article didn't have it worded as poorly as some other surveys...some have the audacity to say "women make X cents per dollar for the exact same work." I've argued this with some of my friends before, but this is deeply flawed.

Based on this question, one would think that the following would be true:

Sally works at Company X. She has been there 15 years, and has always been reviewed favorably by supervisors. She is a civil engineer. She works a 40 hour week.

Bob works at Company X. He has been there 15 years, and has always been reviewed favorably by supervisors. He is a civil engineer. He works a 40 hour week, and makes 25% more than Sally.

But this is flat wrong. What these surveys mean by "the exact same work" is that all women pooled together, and all men pooled together, inevitably includes men and women in equal positions. So all women pooled together make 77% of what all men pooled together make. But why is that?

Lots of reasons. Women may take time off to rear children (is that a bad thing? regardless...it results in fewer hours worked, and thus less pay). Women enter industries that pay less. A woman and man may both work at an engineering company, but the woman may be a secretary and the man may be the CEO.

The real issue is that we may not be encouraging women to move to the top of the corporate ladder. We also may be encouraging them to have careers that allow more time for them to raise children. We also may not be pushing them hard enough in math and science. It may be that women simply don't take as much of an interest in math and science oriented industries, which tend to pay more.

If a woman and a man (like in my Sally and Bob example) were truly paid unequally when they have the exact same qualifications, experience, and job performance, then no one would hire men, especially if they wanted their companies to be profitable. To assert otherwise is to say that bosses hire men for the sheer joy of hiring men, and are willing to pay them more for their penis.

Buncha bullshit!

Let's work on encouraging women to be as ambitious in their careers as men. That's how you'll fix the alleged 'pay inequality.'

Wow, this blog turned into a rant fast...