News Flash #2: A Critical Eye on Statistical Responses

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg/data-on-women

http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3

On the first day of Women’s History Month (this March) the White House released a comprehensive report on the social and economic well-being of American women. It is the first report of its kind in almost fifty years, and it collects valuable data that allows evaluation of income, education, employment, health, and crime. The White House’s Office of the Press Secretary chose to summarize the report with a few bullet points. These facts were among them:

• Women have surpassed men in college attendance and nearly matched men in the labor force
• The above facts do not generate income equity: women make 75% of what their male counterparts make and are more likely to be in poverty (particularly women of color)

Throughout March the media has reacted to these figures, noting progress and pointing out pitfalls in women’s struggle for equality over the last half of a century. A lot can be learned by combing through the facts and figures in this report, but I think we can discover more about our society by keeping a critical eye on some of the ways this information has been received by the American public over the last month.

One article by Steve Tobak has been published by BNET (a CBS company) and Business Insider. Posted only one week after the White House released its report, the article has earned tens of thousands of views and a fair number of facebook “likes.” The article’s reception is reflected by its notable position among google search results for “gender pay gap,” which will likely garner more views. Tobak uses the title “The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth” and lists “eight reasons why.” He proudly cites “highly acclaimed career expert and best-selling author Marty Nemko,” whom he repeatedly praises for using authentic, unbiased data like the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, Tobak does not relay the fact that Nemko is the Co-President of The National Organization for Men and probably has a biased agenda considering he spends a good amount of time publishing titles like “The New Double Standard,” “Sexism Against Men,” and “Saving Our Young Men” all in the name of “fair treatment of men and women in education, the workplace, public policy, health care, family law, and the media.”

Quite literally, the bottom line of Tobak’s article is to “celebrate International Women’s Day 2011 by empowering women with the truth instead of treating them like victims … which they’re not.” The basis for this message is that, according to Tobak and Nemko, women earn the same amount as men when they make the same career choices. This is where the article makes a noticeable turn. It does not try to debunk the idea that men make more money than women; it shows why men make more money than women and essentially argues that women would make more money if they simply acted in the ways that men do.

The first three points on the list argue that men “are more likely to” choose work that is more dangerous, is in less desirable locales, or is simply higher paying. There is no arguing that this is how the numbers fall. There are definitely more female professionals in education and health care while males dominate engineering, computers, and dangerous manual labor. But by putting these things on a list of reasons “why the gender pay gap is a complete myth,” Tobak is essentially arguing that these jobs and opportunities are just as available to women as they are to men. He is blaming the financial imbalance on the choices of women rather than considering whether or not our male dominated society may be creating and reinforcing obstacles that prevent women from gaining access to these options.

The next two points attempt to show that men are simply willing to work more hours, evenings, and weekends than women are. It does not take into account that social pressures make women much less likely to be capable of taking on more hours because of obligations at home or to children that men are less liable to be responsible for. Really, this statistic itself is very indicative of why women are less likely to take on more hours: if a heterosexual two parent household has obligations at home and the male is more likely to “choose” more hours, late nights, and weekends, it doesn’t appear that the female counterpart to this hard-working husband has much of a choice to do the same. It is a self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating statistic.

The sixth point uses the common example of medical professions stating that men “gravitate” towards the specializations that pay more because of higher stress (like surgery instead of pediatrics). We always have to be critical of why the numbers are skewed this way and can’t assume that it is because women are inherently drawn to these positions. Furthermore, we cannot assume that these occupational tendencies explain away the wage gap. A study released last month by Health Affairs in New York compares salaries of male and female doctors in the same field of practice and accounts for hours clocked (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/03/133466384/women-docs-fall-further-behind-on-pay). Even with all of this considered female physicians earned an average of $17,000 less than men in their starting salaries. More troubling: this number has grown over the past ten years by $13,000, and the wage gap increases as the comparable men and women move farther into their careers. This data conflicts with Tobak’s assumption that “apples to apples” comparisons would find men and women equal.

Which leads to the point he tries to make in point number seven: “unmarried women who’ve never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men.” This is his idea of an “apples to apples” comparison. Basically, to make men and women equal he has to limit the female population to a fraction of itself and eliminate the social pressures of marriage and children, which are at the heart of the wage gap as Crittenden’s “Mommy Tax” shows. Furthermore, the source he cites claiming that women earn more than men clearly states that this “phenomenon” is limited to the nation’s biggest cities and is largely because the comparison is made across age-group, not accounting for the fact that urban women are much more likely to have a higher level of education. He attempts to use the same logic of “apples to apples” by comparing male and female business owners. This point is just as easily turned up-side-down by the same arguments used against the others. The business world has been constructed under such a strong patriarchal society that female success is, across the board, rendered more difficult.

What is most frightening about this article is the reception it has gotten. Business insider shows it having 24,100 views and countless supportive comments. To make matters worse, the response article that the website published arguing for the legitimacy of the wage gap has less than 250 views (http://www.businessinsider.com/face-the-facts-gender-pay-gap-is-real-2011-3) and only two people posted in disagreement. Additionally, there is not a single link to the retort page amongst the 57 advertisements and links that flood Tobak’s article. I see it as shining evidence for the truth to Susan Douglas’ Enlightened Sexism. Tobak has the audacity to publish this article and say that the “truth” he has laid out will help empower women, when it really gives men and women in this society a false sense of comfort and accomplishment.

It is arguments like this that build our feelings of indifference and downplay the necessity to address these issues. The biggest threat they pose is their repeated conviction that they provide “proof” and “truth.” By distorting statistics and citing “legitimate” sources in ways they were not intended for, arguments like these garner support from the masses of people who want to believe what it says. In reality, this article makes its argument backwards: it assumes that women and men have equal opportunity and uses the numbers to show that women have less of a drive for financial success. It should assume that men and women share an equal drive and capacity for success and use the numbers to show that women are being held back from achieving it. By keeping an eye on public responses like these, we keep an ear to the pulse of feminism. These negative interpretations of data collected with good, informative intentions cannot become distractions from the truth of inequality. When considering the gender wage gap we must always ask questions. Do women really have an equal chance at the jobs men dominate? And are men really just more inclined to pursue more money and power or does our society dole out money and power to the arenas that men inhabit? Staying critical of articles that claim to be fact like this one will lead us to a more honest understanding of women’s well-being America.