Wage Discrepency in Psychology

[Ollie123]

---

Members don't see this ad.

*MOD NOTE: I thought this would be a good discussion to split out to its own thread. -t*

APA has published preliminary results from their salary survey, which also includes means by area, gender and location. One thing that really struck me is that in almost every single category women earn less than men. I would think at least in psychology we would have done away with that disparity.

http://research.apa.org/07salaryextract.html

Its often presented as though this is simply a matter of a university chair deciding he's going to set equal wages across the board, but the reality is its a great deal more complicated than that.

I'm going to say some things that are not terribly PC. I don't necessarily believe all or even any of them, but I think its important to get them out there for discussion. What I'm saying is, don't shoot the messenger😉

A great deal of the wage discrepancy COULD be a downstream effect. Women might feel more pressure to serve on committees and other such things that might take time away from activities more directly related to salary. That pressure might be societal and not a function of the department. If that's the case, should departments be increasing the value placed on serving on those committees for purposes of tenure/promotion, doing more to stop social pressures on these women, or just leaving it up to individuals to make the connection? Some of the above? All of the above? None of the above?

For raises, are women less likely to ask for a raise than men? Is this due to personality differences in men/women, women being less likely to seek employment elsewhere for an increased salary, or some other factor? If women are less likely to ask for more money, is it the university's fault, society's fault, or the woman's fault?

I keep my mouth shut on these issues most of the time, but this is one that really irritates me. Not because I'm under ANY illusion that everything is fair, because its not. What bothers me is that it seems like ANY research done on the matter is designed to show "Wages aren't equal", at which point people make it a political issue (i.e. completely shut off their brains), and then nothing gets resolved. I HIGHLY doubt the issue is a nation-wide conspiracy by department chairs to give women less money. I have no doubts that this happens, but I do doubt that its the only factor involved. Yet because its such a sensitive issue, people are unwilling to look beyond salary surveys and figure out what other problems might be involved because this might be perceived as "Blaming the victim" or other such crap.

In my eyes, if we're going to address this problem, we need more information to figure out a plan of attack. All faculty are not created equal, so creating a set promotion scale to make sure everyone is earning the same regardless of quality of work does not make sense. It may mean doing some research that is unpleasant and not PC, but we need to figure out if its societal pressure, departmental culture, individual sexism, or some combination of all of the above. We need to figure out if its going on just within departments, or if the issue is with publications and grant reviewers as well. If the issue is women not asking for pay raises, or not asking for as much, we need to incorporate more information on this into education, because the reality is that we are not going to be getting rid of a free labor market anytime soon, nor should we. We need to solve this problem as scientists and not as politicians, because, frankly, I want to see it done well instead of just done.

Thus ends my rant on the matter. Hopefully no one is offended, but it really bugs me since I think one of the biggest reasons there IS still such a blatant wage discrepancy is no one is willing to ask the "why" for fear of offending someone. It might be unpleasant, but I think we need to know in order to solve the problem.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

For raises, are women less likely to ask for a raise than men?

I've heard this to be the case, they are less likely to get into negotiations about salary and less likely to ask for more money, etc. I can't remember where I read it, but I think there was a blurb in Forbes in the last year or so about it. Anyone else hear about this?

 

[Thrak]

Is this the thread where we hang Lawrence Summers in effigy? 😀

Show me the data controlled for location (NYC vs Wyoming?) and cumulative hours of work (as in, how many hours a person worked over the past 10 years, so things like time off for family care/part-time work are factored in. Then we can legitimately evaluate where discrimination is taking place.

I have no doubt that there is discrimination. But I also think that looking at means masks the true meaning within the data set.

 

[Ollie123]

I didn't notice the new thread at first, so I thought you had deleted it. I was thinking "Geez, I thought I did a pretty good job of keeping it on-topic and not something that would turn into a flamewar. I guess not!".

I'm glad to see it made it into its own thread though. I think its a really important topic, and one that unfortunately gets alot of misguided and bad attention, rather than the attention it actually needs.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm glad to see it made it into its own thread though. I think its a really important topic, and one that unfortunately gets alot of misguided and bad attention, rather than the attention it actually needs.

Agreed.

When I have more time, I'll come and give my 2 cents.

 

[psy86]

All faculty are not created equal, so creating a set promotion scale to make sure everyone is earning the same regardless of quality of work does not make sense... It may mean doing some research that is unpleasant and not PC, but we need to figure out if its societal pressure, departmental culture, individual sexism, or some combination of all of the above... We need to figure out if its going on just within departments, or if the issue is with publications and grant reviewers as well.

There is some evidence of a publication bias in other scientific disciplines:
Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors

 

[psychanon]

There is a lot of research looking at why women make less pay, and there is a pretty clear primary culprit: babies. Women are, for a variety of reasons (biological, societal, etc.), the primary care giver for children in the vast majority of marriages. Careers-- and academia is particularly notorious for this-- are poor at making allowances for this. I remember reading an article about female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies once. Almost all of them were childless. In contrast, when male CEOs have children, it has little impact on their careers. This is a problem that I and many of my female colleagues are at a loss for-- when the hell can you have kids in academia--and it's something that, frankly, men don't have to worry as much around. And that's the part that's discriminatory.

Here's an interesting article about women in academia:
http://chronicle.com/jobs/2000/10/2000102703c.htm

 

[LM02]

In complete agreement with psychanon.

Also, you have to remember that wages are built from the ground up. So if women (for whatever reason) are more likely to start lower, then they will continue that trend moving forward. As a mentor once told me, always negotiate for as much as you can when you're getting hired, because all future COL adjustments and promotions will build off of that initial number.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

There is a lot of research looking at why women make less pay, and there is a pretty clear primary culprit: babies. Women are, for a variety of reasons (biological, societal, etc.), the primary care giver for children in the vast majority of marriages. Careers-- and academia is particularly notorious for this-- are poor at making allowances for this. I remember reading an article about female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies once. Almost all of them were childless. In contrast, when male CEOs have children, it has little impact on their careers. This is a problem that I and many of my female colleagues are at a loss for-- when the hell can you have kids in academia--and it's something that, frankly, men don't have to worry as much around. And that's the part that's discriminatory.

Here's an interesting article about women in academia:
http://chronicle.com/jobs/2000/10/2000102703c.htm

**Politically Incorrect Warning Here**

Either that, or it's adaptive and a good thing that women are usually the primary caregiver. If you leave your career for 5 years to have babie(s) than should you expect to just come right back in as if you had not missed those 5 years?

I am 36 and made the choice to change careers at about 29 years old. Now, most of the people I am going on internship with next year are about 10 years younger than me. We will all be 0-3's (Captains) when we start our active duty time. That means we will allmake the same amount of money. By the time THEY are 36, they will be 0-5's (Lieutenant Colonels) and making $50,000 more a year than I am at the same age. Am I upset about it, no. I chose the career move that cost me 10 years of advancement.

IMO, the society would benefit from a more serious consideration that mothering is serious, honorable work, and mothers do it better than anyone else.

 

[Ollie123]

There is a lot of research looking at why women make less pay, and there is a pretty clear primary culprit: babies.
Here's an interesting article about women in academia:
http://chronicle.com/jobs/2000/10/2000102703c.htm

This is also a great point and one I can't believe I forgot to mention. Being able to "stop the tenure clock" is a decent start, but definitely not enough given that even a relatively short maternity leave can mean missing the next funding cycle, missing a resubmission deadline, or all kinds of other things that might have downstream effects. Not to mention the question of whether the tenure clock is actually stopping at many places.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say "a lot" of research though - or at least, if it IS out there, it isn't nearly as publicized as wage discrepancies themselves. I've seen some work looking at this, but not nearly enough (and much of what I have seen is either poorly done, or presented poorly). Of course, like you said, even if babies are the "primary culprit" they aren't the only one. Do you know of any stats within academia comparing salaries of childless women vs. women with children? I've seen those numbers in the corporate world and there's still a substantial discrepancy (albeit a smaller one), but haven't seen those numbers within academia.

Edit: Forgot to say - if the problem were entirely due to babies - what do we do about it? I don't expect a perfect answer obviously, but I'd love to hear your perspectives on it🙂 If its a matter of who is primary caregiver, is it even academia's problem or does the fault lie with partners of those women? The article mentioned part-time-tenure-track. Its an interesting idea, and one with promise, though there are some major logistical issues to work out Namely, what to do when the part-timers want to go full-time (e.g. 2 people hired part-time tenure, if one wants to go full does the other get fired? Is the first simply not allowed? Does she have to go through a second tenuring? That might introduce a whole new debate. Plus there's the issue of increasing need for workspace since you'd theoretically need more faculty and there's only so many labs. Not unworkable by any means in my eyes, but food for thought.

 

[clearcolor]

This link covers a lot of articles about women and the workplace (and other issues related to women). Short, well-written articles by a woman in business who actually references psychology studies quite a bit.

http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/category/women/

Some articles that seem pertinent to issues already brought up:
Business schools shift to accommodate the biological clock
Try this: Don’t ask for what you want when you negotiate
The difficult convergence: Work and family by age 30
Slowing down a career to have kids

 

[Thrak]

Here, there be dragons!

 

[psychanon]

**Politically Incorrect Warning Here**

Either that, or it's adaptive and a good thing that women are usually the primary caregiver. If you leave your career for 5 years to have babie(s) than should you expect to just come right back in as if you had not missed those 5 years?

I am 36 and made the choice to change careers at about 29 years old. Now, most of the people I am going on internship with next year are about 10 years younger than me. We will all be 0-3's (Captains) when we start our active duty time. That means we will allmake the same amount of money. By the time THEY are 36, they will be 0-5's (Lieutenant Colonels) and making $50,000 more a year than I am at the same age. Am I upset about it, no. I chose the career move that cost me 10 years of advancement.

IMO, the society would benefit from a more serious consideration that mothering is serious, honorable work, and mothers do it better than anyone else.

Your example isn't really analogous. You're implying that women who chose to have children should be penalized for making that choice, and should be OK with it because no one forced them to have children. There are two major problems I see with this. First, being able to make the choice to have children is a fundamental right. Not everybody wants to have children, but the substantial majority does, and see them as an integral part of their life plans. Second, it's discriminatory because men don't have to make that choice (see my CEO example above) and in our current system women generally do. To all the men out there: If you had to choose between having a fulfilling career or having a family, which would you choose? Could you choose? Maybe some of you don't want children, but for those of you who are sure that you do, man, that's a hard one. And that's what millions of women are forced to do everyday.

I like your sentiment about mothers being important, but I don't agree that they're the only ones who can do the job (except for the obviously biological aspects of motherhood, of course). Fathers can be just as nurturing and contribute just as much. Of course, that's not the way our culture is set up-- men are taught to value careers first. How many of you men would take 6 months off to raise an infant? And even if you wanted to, your boss would probably laugh at the idea.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say "a lot" of research though - or at least, if it IS out there, it isn't nearly as publicized as wage discrepancies themselves. I've seen some work looking at this, but not nearly enough (and much of what I have seen is either poorly done, or presented poorly). Of course, like you said, even if babies are the "primary culprit" they aren't the only one. Do you know of any stats within academia comparing salaries of childless women vs. women with children? I've seen those numbers in the corporate world and there's still a substantial discrepancy (albeit a smaller one), but haven't seen those numbers within academia.

I have read some of the research, but it was ages ago and I can't cite anything specific or give your citations. Most of it is in other disciplines, though, like economics (most of what I've read), sociology, and women's studies.

Edit: Forgot to say - if the problem were entirely due to babies - what do we do about it?

I dunno. Your suggestions are interesting. I think the most important thing is a change in the culture of academia. It's so cutthroat, and about being as productive as humanly possible, and anyone straying from that is viewed disdainfully. I think there needs to be more recognition that many people balance different priorities.

But I am interested in hearing others' ideas. I think sometimes about my planned career path, and I then I wonder where on earth kids are going to fit in. I don't want to wait until I have tenure at age 40 and then end up needing IVF or something.

 

[Thrak]

Your example isn't really analogous. You're implying that women who chose to have children should be penalized for making that choice, and should be OK with it because no one forced them to have children. There are two major problems I see with this. First, being able to make the choice to have children is a fundamental right. Not everybody wants to have children, but the substantial majority does, and see them as an integral part of their life plans. Second, it's discriminatory because men don't have to make that choice (see my CEO example above) and in our current system women generally do. To all the men out there: If you had to choose between having a fulfilling career or having a family, which would you choose? Could you choose? Maybe some of you don't want children, but for those of you who are sure that you do, man, that's a hard one. And that's what millions of women are forced to do everyday.

First, I'd just like to make one small, but relevant distinction: I have a family. I have a wife, I have a mother, I have cousins, aunts, uncles, and a host of in-laws. I have a family. I don't have children.

Second, you're presenting a false dichotomy. There are many people who have children (which, I assume is your definition of "family") and have fulfilling careers. The devil is in the details: why must there be a choice? There are clearly people who have fulfilling careers and have children. I know quite a few of them. The answer must be that there is something that is specific to certain careers that make raising children difficult, combined with something that drives those individuals to those careers. (A career is only "fulfilling" relative to the person. My in-laws are very "fulfilled" elementary and middle school teachers, whereas I'd be unhappy in that profession.) Moreover, only some professions tend to be poor fits combining work with primary child caregiving.

Rather than academia, let's use BigLaw. Some people are very fulfilled in BigLaw... they work insane hours, make insane money. Some of them have kids. They're not faced with the choice. Why? Because they have spouses who are the primary caregivers for the kids. It's mostly men who do this.

So let's return to the question of family vs fulfilling career. I've already posited that of all careers, only some make it difficult to combined primary childcare responsibilities with professional obligations. I've also suggested that only a subset of people are drawn to (or qualified to take on) those professions. And, I've stated it's possible to be a parent and be employed in these positions if someone else is primarily responsible for child care.

So, what you're actually suggesting is that certain people (a subset of women) are driven toward demanding careers (like law or academia), want to have children, but cannot/will not/aren't finding spouses who are willing to primarily take care of the kids.

Choosing the specific career. Choosing to have kids. Choosing to partner with spouses who are unwilling to shoulder the childcare responsibilities, as has been the reverse situation for years when men were (and still are) choosing demanding careers and having kids.

I don't see the choice that you present. I do see other choices.

1) You can have that career and the kids, but you have to have a spouse who will do the child care
2) You can have that career and the non-primary childcaretaker spouse, but then you probably shouldn't have the kid
3) You can have the kid and the non-primary childcaretaker spouse, but not that career

Which, in some form, are the choices men have been making for years.

The big difference is career men have generally married non-career-driven women. Career-driven women don't seem to do that. I spend my days surrounded by men and women destined for high-powered law careers. They'll be spending 50-90 hours a week busting their asses in the office. The men who want kids are marrying housewives. The men who don't are marrying career-driven women. The women, both the ones who want kids and the ones who don't, are going after career-driven men and PhD candidates. Some of them are not thinking their cunning plans all the way through.

While I'm alienating the board, I may as well offer a counter-opinion to a couple of other things. While it is a right for whoever wants kids to have them, that right does not mean the rest of society has to move heaven and earth to accommodate that choice. If it's reasonable, then sure. But employers do not employ people as a charity; they have responsibilities to clients, students, shareholders, other workers. And believe me, that last one, especially other career-driven women, will be the biggest opposition if things aren't balanced.

Also, the Fortune 500 CEO reference is probably connected to Sylvia Ann Hewlett. Her methodology leaves a lot to be desired, and she entirely discounts the possibility that some women <*GASP!*> don't want to become mothers. We won't even get into issues of what personality traits and sacrifices it takes anyone to become a Fortune 500 CEO, and how that could play for women rising through the ranks. There are gaps in her reasoning that Superman couldn't leap in a single bound. And, personally, I've been on a panel with her, and she's quite condescending.

Are there changes that could be made to the process to make things easier in academia for women who want to have and take care of kids? Probably. Is there a way to do it that doesn't screw with budgets, discriminate against other academics who *aren't* taking off time to take care of kids, or generally mess up the process? Again, probably, but things will go awry very quickly if one doesn't keep an eye towards that.

Everything requires sacrifice, in all things. If I spend Saturday at the beach, I can't spend it skiing. If I spend 8 hours reading, 8 hours watching tv, and 8 hours running errands, I sacrifice sleep. If I'm driving across four states and I stop for lunch, it'll take longer for me to get there than if I drove straight through. If I go well over the speed limit and get a ticket because I'm trying to make up lost time, I've got no right to blame the cop who pulled me over.

 

[psy86]

So, what you're actually suggesting is that certain people (a subset of women) are driven toward demanding careers (like law or academia), want to have children, but cannot/will not/aren't finding spouses who are willing to primarily take care of the kids...Choosing the specific career. Choosing to have kids. Choosing to partner with spouses who are unwilling to shoulder the childcare responsibilities, as has been the reverse situation for years when men were (and still are) choosing demanding careers and having kids...The big difference is career men have generally married non-career-driven women. Career-driven women don't seem to do that...The women, both the ones who want kids and the ones who don't, are going after career-driven men and PhD candidates. Some of them are not thinking their cunning plans all the way through.

Thrak, you don't seem to consider the possibility that it may be more difficult for women to find an appropriate partner who is willing to stay home. Is it possible that there is a more abundant supply of "non-career-driven women" for your male colleagues to partner with than there is a supply of men who want to stay home with kids for your female colleagues to partner with? Is it possible that your female colleagues choices are not restricted by their stupidity (lack of "cunning") but by the actual options available to them?

 

[Thrak]

Thrak, you don't seem to consider the possibility that it may be more difficult for women to find an appropriate partner who is willing to stay home. Is it possible that there is a more abundant supply of "non-career-driven women" for your male colleagues to partner with than there is a supply of men who want to stay home with kids for your female colleagues to partner with? Is it possible that your female colleagues choices are not restricted by their stupidity (lack of "cunning") but by the actual options available to them?

It's not stupidity, it's lack of foresight, and it's by no means limited to women. I'm sure the men they're marrying have the reciprocal idea that the wife will eventually want to give up her career to raise the kids. It's just that the wives are more likely to give in, and it seems are more likely to hold the system accountable than hold their husbands accountable.

And as for supply-and-demand, on the whole it may be harder to find men willing to stay home. But you have to couple that with the tendency for women to look for "equals" or "betters" when it comes to the financial/career prospects of potential mates, and men who are career-driven aren't going to be any more likely to want to give up their careers than driven women.

Picture this scenario: A man gets a law degree from Yale. He's going to be working at a top firm, starting salary around 200k, expecting to work 80 hours a week for the next 10 years. He wants kids. He marries a woman, an elementary school teacher. What's the general reaction from this guy's friends, assuming the woman's otherwise a good person? "Good catch, buddy, I hope you have a happy life together!"

Now reverse the genders. I can almost guarantee you that women's friends would be saying "A school teacher? You're a top lawyer! You can do better!"

The big secret is that not all men *want* to dedicate their lives to careers. Some *want* to be stay at home dads, raise the kids, and take care of the home, while the wife keeps her nose to the grindstone. In general, though, marrying a man like that would be considered "beneath" a professional woman.

The other thing is that just because you want something doesn't mean you're going to get it. This board is full of people who have the drive and ability to be top psychologists. Not all of them will. Why? Too few spots for too many qualified people. It sucks, but it's reality. After a few rounds of trying, some of us will have to make the decision to either give up and move on, or keep rolling the boulder up the hill in the hopes that it will magically balance at the top. If there aren't men that fit the exact prototype of what you're looking for, change your prerequisites.

 

[psychanon]

Thrak, you don't seem to consider the possibility that it may be more difficult for women to find an appropriate partner who is willing to stay home. Is it possible that there is a more abundant supply of "non-career-driven women" for your male colleagues to partner with than there is a supply of men who want to stay home with kids for your female colleagues to partner with? Is it possible that your female colleagues choices are not restricted by their stupidity (lack of "cunning") but by the actual options available to them?

Exactly the point I was about to make. Most men aren't willing to be stay at home dads, and indeed they'd probably get teased by their peers if they did (that's a cultural norm that needs to change). Even men who are willing to take a break from their careers to raise children usually do not have the options with their jobs. Furthermore, as many women will attest, men don't want to date powerful women, unless they're powerful themselves. Men who don't make that much money don't tend to go for Big Law lawyers. Did you ever see the episode of Sex and the City where Miranda goes speed dating and, after getting the cold shoulder from men she told about her career as a partnered corporate lawyer, she started telling men she was a stewardess to much greater results? Exactly my point.

You're right, Thrak, that I am being overly dichotomous, and that plenty of women can have fulfilling careers and families. Some careers are more amenable than others. But we're talking specifically about academia here, which is a highly demanding, competitive career. For those of us who want to be professors rather than schoolteachers or librarians, we are stuck in a conundrum. Plenty of women in academia do have children, but rarely without blows to their career-- fewer publications, longer time to get tenure (or not at all), less geographic mobility, waiting until your 40's to have kids, and double shifts of work (70 hours a week at the university, and then home to make dinner and drive Buster from Point A to Point B). The thing with your list of three options is that #1 is rarely on the table for women, but it's almost always on the table for men (because even if their wives have jobs, they're still apt to do the lion's share of the housework, freeing up time for the men to pursue their careers). So it comes down to choice 2 or 3, or somewhere in between the two. I understand that you need to be accountable for your decisions and balance your priorities. But my problem is that the balance is not equitable across genders. Men generally aren't forced to make those sacrifices-- they are able to have their cake and eat it too.

I don't know if the article I read was by that woman -- I read it about 7 or 8 years ago in an economics class, so I don't remember who it was. Nobody denies that some women don't want children. But most women do-- actually, most people do, I should say, male or female. And it sucks that women get penalized for making that very common choice and men don't.

 

[psychanon]

It's not stupidity, it's lack of foresight, and it's by no means limited to women. I'm sure the men they're marrying have the reciprocal idea that the wife will eventually want to give up her career to raise the kids. It's just that the wives are more likely to give in, and it seems are more likely to hold the system accountable than hold their husbands accountable.

And as for supply-and-demand, on the whole it may be harder to find men willing to stay home. But you have to couple that with the tendency for women to look for "equals" or "betters" when it comes to the financial/career prospects of potential mates, and men who are career-driven aren't going to be any more likely to want to give up their careers than driven women.

Picture this scenario: A man gets a law degree from Yale. He's going to be working at a top firm, starting salary around 200k, expecting to work 80 hours a week for the next 10 years. He wants kids. He marries a woman, an elementary school teacher. What's the general reaction from this guy's friends, assuming the woman's otherwise a good person? "Good catch, buddy, I hope you have a happy life together!"

Now reverse the genders. I can almost guarantee you that women's friends would be saying "A school teacher? You're a top lawyer! You can do better!"

The big secret is that not all men *want* to dedicate their lives to careers. Some *want* to be stay at home dads, raise the kids, and take care of the home, while the wife keeps her nose to the grindstone. In general, though, marrying a man like that would be considered "beneath" a professional woman.

The other thing is that just because you want something doesn't mean you're going to get it. This board is full of people who have the drive and ability to be top psychologists. Not all of them will. Why? Too few spots for too many qualified people. It sucks, but it's reality. After a few rounds of trying, some of us will have to make the decision to either give up and move on, or keep rolling the boulder up the hill in the hopes that it will magically balance at the top. If there aren't men that fit the exact prototype of what you're looking for, change your prerequisites.

Hey, we were probably posting at the same time (I'm slow). See my thoughts above-- clearly it's not only women or only men who follow traditional patterns of marriage expectations, with the more powerful careers going to the husbands. It cuts both ways, and that's one of the things that needs to change (although I do think that your view of women encouraging their friends to gold dig a little deeper is, um, a little condescending and distorted?)

Obviously not everyone gets what they want. I know that I'm probably never going to be a movie star or win the lottery, despite my best efforts. Doing those things, or for that matter, getting into a doctoral program, is not a basic human right. But being able to have children is a fundamental right. It's not like buying a Lamborghini. It's something that most people feel the fundamental need to do. And it's not fair that some people have different consequences than others for making this choice.

 

[Orchid]

Hi guys,
I’m not answering to anyone in particular, but would like to share my thoughts with you.
Thrak’s post from 2/6/08 says:

Rather than academia, let's use BigLaw. Some people are very fulfilled in BigLaw... they work insane hours, make insane money. Some of them have kids. They're not faced with the choice. Why? Because they have spouses who are the primary caregivers for the kids. It's mostly men who do this.

That may be a description of the way things are, not necessarily how things should ideally be. True, it’s mostly men who can invest in their careers, but I don’t personally think that fewer women than men are interested in that. They don’t always have the choice. We can’t ignore our culture, values, things we were told and taught and things we saw for ourselves.

It’s true that some people choose to be house makers. It’s also true that not everyone wants to have children. But, eventually, the majority of people do end up having kids and the majority of people have to work (even if “only” 40 hours a week) for a living.
Another fact of life is that even the most supporting and feminist father-to-be can’t share with his spouse the following: being late to work due to morning sickness, missing days of work due to visits to the OB, taking at least 2 weeks off for the labor and healing afterwards, and breastfeeding.
So, should women be penalized for the role nature gave us?
Quoted from the same post:

While I'm alienating the board, I may as well offer a counter-opinion to a couple of other things. While it is a right for whoever wants kids to have them, that right does not mean the rest of society has to move heaven and earth to accommodate that choice. If it's reasonable, then sure. But employers do not employ people as a charity; they have responsibilities to clients, students, shareholders, other workers. And believe me, that last one, especially other career-driven women, will be the biggest opposition if things aren't balanced.

The strength of a society is in its people. If society wants women to continue to have children in the future, it shouldn’t penalize us for doing that. It shouldn’t encourage us, too. But a reasonable support and fairness is, in my opinion, the least that should be done. What is reasonable? That’s open for many interpretations.

Many studies were done on this topic. Even though I can’t cite any of them right now, I’m sure (or hope) that no one will argue when I say that there is prejudice and there discrimination. The world is not perfect. One study I read found that women tend to ask for raises less frequently than men. That’s a good explanation for the wage discrepancy. However, the same study also found that when they do ask for a raise, women often don’t get it.

Like I wrote above, it’s not just about choices people make; it’s also about the choices that are available to them. In a society where young kids are told that the genders are so different from their first day alive and see for themselves the different roles that people around them play, the change of mindset is slow.

 

[Thrak]

Exactly the point I was about to make. Most men aren't willing to be stay at home dads, and indeed they'd probably get teased by their peers if they did (that's a cultural norm that needs to change). Even men who are willing to take a break from their careers to raise children usually do not have the options with their jobs. Furthermore, as many women will attest, men don't want to date powerful women, unless they're powerful themselves. Men who don't make that much money don't tend to go for Big Law lawyers. Did you ever see the episode of Sex and the City where Miranda goes speed dating and, after getting the cold shoulder from men she told about her career as a partnered corporate lawyer, she started telling men she was a stewardess to much greater results? Exactly my point.

While there are many men who wouldn't go for powerful women, many of them are also the type of men that powerful women wouldn't want to marry. And while I see what you're getting at with the Sex and the City episode (and yes, I have seen it) I can't speak to how generalizable that is to real life. As a New Yorker, I can tell you that not too many people are spending their days lunching at Tao and throwing down lots of cash for new pairs of Manolos. Plus, even taking it as is, you may find different qualities in people who are using speed dating to find a match, as compared to going through friends/family/coworkers/etc.

Men generally aren't forced to make those sacrifices-- they are able to have their cake and eat it too.

Ok, but why is that? At the end of the day, the man is holding fast to his career, while the woman is giving up hers. What's being suggested here is that since the husbands won't budge, society has to. [/quote]

But most women do-- actually, most people do, I should say, male or female. And it sucks that women get penalized for making that very common choice and men don't.

Perhaps most people do, perhaps they don't. In all sincerity, I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. Most people have kids, but I don't think they always want to. The rates of unintended pregnancy is quite high. And if many men were told going into it that they'd have to be the ones giving up their careers, they'd back out of it. Once men have more birth control options, especially more foolproof ones like the removable plugs for the vas deferens, I predict a significant decrease in the birth rate, at least initially.

At the end of the day, I feel this all stems from one source: a lack of conversation between men and women prior to getting married and having kids. The choice of who will stay home to take care of the kids may be a dealbreaker. If so, it sucks, but that's how it goes. I've known quite a few people in which they were otherwise great matches, but one wanted kids and the other didn't. If careers are equally highly important to both people that neither wants to take the time off, it's a bad match.

See my thoughts above-- clearly it's not only women or only men who follow traditional patterns of marriage expectations, with the more powerful careers going to the husbands. It cuts both ways, and that's one of the things that needs to change (although I do think that your view of women encouraging their friends to gold dig a little deeper is, um, a little condescending and distorted?)

It's not encouragement to be a golddigger... it's societally-normed hypergamy.

I honestly feel bad for women who are looking to have a career and kids and a husband who originally says he'll give up his career to raise them, and then backs out. But my sympathy doesn't extend as far to women who want a career and kids and whose husband makes it clear that he won't give his up. I can't tell her that Mr. Right is out there, but I can say for sure that that guy ain't it. Maybe making a baby with him isn't the best idea.

 

[Orchid]

I honestly feel bad for women who are looking to have a career and kids and a husband who originally says he'll give up his career to raise them, and then backs out. But my sympathy doesn't extend as far to women who want a career and kids and whose husband makes it clear that he won't give his up. I can't tell her that Mr. Right is out there, but I can say for sure that that guy ain't it. Maybe making a baby with him isn't the best idea.

Isn't it a way of saying that when both spouses want to have a career and children, the woman is the one who has to give up her career?

 

[Thrak]

Isn't it a way of saying that when both spouses want to have a career and children, the woman is the one who has to give up her career?

Nope, it's a way of saying if both spouses want a career and children, they're incompatible because it's a mutually exclusive situation.

 

[kyril]

first off, this is an awesome discussion, and really, i agree with so many of the posters. so much of what everyone has sead, even if it seems in opposition, can also be seen as two sides of the same coin.

i'm somewhat in this position right now - and by this i mean thinking of how to combine family with career, not the position of having a wage disparity in academia. I am now applying for PhD, and as an older student, the biological clock is tick tick ticking.


cognitively, while i have my plan (more details in a sec) i am also preparing myself for the possibility that things may not work, that despite everything, i may not be able to successfully combine having the kind of career i and my partner want with having a child. and that would stink. but we don't get everything we want. will the reason i don't get everything i want be the result of discrimination? the question(s) is, why do i want what i want? is it realistic? are my demands themselves skewed by a sexist society? in short, should i even want what "sucessful" career men have had?

Some careers are more amenable than others. But we're talking specifically about academia here, which is a highly demanding, competitive career. For those of us who want to be professors rather than schoolteachers or librarians, we are stuck in a conundrum. Plenty of women in academia do have children, but rarely without blows to their career-- fewer publications, longer time to get tenure (or not at all), less geographic mobility, waiting until your 40's to have kids, and double shifts of work (70 hours a week at the university, and then home to make dinner and drive Buster from Point A to Point B). The thing with your list of three options is that #1 is rarely on the table for women, but it's almost always on the table for men (because even if their wives have jobs, they're still apt to do the lion's share of the housework, freeing up time for the men to pursue their careers). So it comes down to choice 2 or 3, or somewhere in between the two. I understand that you need to be accountable for your decisions and balance your priorities. But my problem is that the balance is not equitable across genders. Men generally aren't forced to make those sacrifices-- they are able to have their cake and eat it too.

my father was an academic, my mom a SHAM, and i would not say that my dad "had his cake and ate it too". what i would say is that my father lost out big time, like so many men who decide to purse big all absorbing careers and leave the childrearing to others. he wanted a child, a family, spent so much money, worried so much, and really loved me so much, and yet never had any time to interact with me, because he was working, and that was the situation for most of the other faculty kids. perhaps it's because i am female, but i cannot imagine going though the life-changing commitment to have children and then working instead of getting to know them or being a part of their lives. on the other hand, my partner was raised by two working parents. their combined salaries were likely equal to my dad's, but they came home at 5 and had their evenings and weekends to spend with their families.

my partner and i talk about living a modified version of the two. my career will likely be more absorbing, time wise, and bring in more $ than his, though mine may also have more flexible hours. he is fine with staying home for the first year or so of the baby's life if that makes sense at the time. will other guys give him s%^t about it? sure, but he's a real man (and a real human being) and it's preposterous that peer pressure would so influence him that he would not become a real part of his child's life. (and as a woman who wants a career but also a family, i wouldn't have a kid with someone like that. i'd rather be single and childless, frankly.) in general, if we want to change the unreasonable rules the genders function under, we have to model that behavior, ask others to, and have integrity in the face of pressure.

there is also the liklihood that, yes, i won't make as much money as some of my peers, because if i have children i will want to be a part of their lives. my partner isn't for window dressing either, nor are my friends and other family members. perhaps this comes from being the caretaker of seriously and terminally ill family members (and maybe being a woman had something to do with my becoming the caretaker during those situations, and thus gaining new perspectives on life from them), but while i plan to make a serious contribution to psychology as a scientist and as a teacher of others, i don't know what kind of psychologist, what proponent of psychology i would be if i were to sacrifice the happiness of my family or myself to add a few more lines to my CV each year or gain tenure. that has never been an option for me, and i would not ask it of my partner. i am passionate about science, about mental health advocacy, and about teaching, and those lines on the CV will get there. slower, but steadier, is how i hope to win the race (and also not succumb to stress-related diseases in my 40's!)

frankly, i don't understand deciding to have children if you won't spend time with them. i verge on old school feminism, btw, and feel that sexism is a huge force in our society, so prevalent that it is almost invisible to many men. that's why conversations like this are so important. i just want to make my own choices, and for me, the most feminist thing i can do is let me, and my partner, make our own choices, based on our real needs, and not be swayed by how he would be seen as a man, or if others would see me as a bad feminist for going to my kids school play.

Re Motherhood: i do agree that motherhood and childrearing need to be seen with much more respect by everyone, men and women, but health care is often tied to jobs, at that poses a problem. the cost of adding your family onto your health care vs your partner getting a job and putting the baby in daycare, well, often the latter is cheaper. it's bizarre, it stinks, but until SAHM's and D's get affordable health care (and the babies too), the best interest of the child will often have to be compromised by lower and middle class families in favor of the best interests of the family as a whole.

 

[psychanon]

While there are many men who wouldn't go for powerful women, many of them are also the type of men that powerful women wouldn't want to marry. And while I see what you're getting at with the Sex and the City episode (and yes, I have seen it) I can't speak to how generalizable that is to real life. As a New Yorker, I can tell you that not too many people are spending their days lunching at Tao and throwing down lots of cash for new pairs of Manolos. Plus, even taking it as is, you may find different qualities in people who are using speed dating to find a match, as compared to going through friends/family/coworkers/etc


Perhaps most people do, perhaps they don't. In all sincerity, I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. Most people have kids, but I don't think they always want to. The rates of unintended pregnancy is quite high. And if many men were told going into it that they'd have to be the ones giving up their careers, they'd back out of it. Once men have more birth control options, especially more foolproof ones like the removable plugs for the vas deferens, I predict a significant decrease in the birth rate, at least initially.

At the end of the day, I feel this all stems from one source: a lack of conversation between men and women prior to getting married and having kids. The choice of who will stay home to take care of the kids may be a dealbreaker. If so, it sucks, but that's how it goes. I've known quite a few people in which they were otherwise great matches, but one wanted kids and the other didn't. If careers are equally highly important to both people that neither wants to take the time off, it's a bad match.



It's not encouragement to be a golddigger... it's societally-normed hypergamy.

I honestly feel bad for women who are looking to have a career and kids and a husband who originally says he'll give up his career to raise them, and then backs out. But my sympathy doesn't extend as far to women who want a career and kids and whose husband makes it clear that he won't give his up. I can't tell her that Mr. Right is out there, but I can say for sure that that guy ain't it. Maybe making a baby with him isn't the best idea.

Ok, but why is that? At the end of the day, the man is holding fast to his career, while the woman is giving up hers. What's being suggested here is that since the husbands won't budge, society has to. [/quote]

Well, I certainly wasn't suggesting that life in New York is anything like Sex and the City 🙂 but I think that particular anecdote rings true for a lot of women, at least ones that I know. A lot of my single classmates have trouble getting dates, because men with just BAs don't want to date women who are getting their Ph.Ds. Maybe this is based on your philosophy: that ambitious, career-oriented women must find men with little career ambitions. The problem is that those are few and far between. Men want to be viewed as the breadwinner; to do otherwise is emasculating.

I think your idea that if a couple wants children one of them must be willing to stay home is oversimplified. Nobody says that one person must fully devote themselves to childrearing. Both partners may work full-time, but that's only going to work if the job has some flexibility to allow for child-related duties. If both spouses have this type of flexible job, it seems feasible to have both career and family. But academia doesn't seem to work like this. I think it could, but several structural and cultural changes need to occur.

As for your last comment, I think that it has to do with expectations. In Sweden, men are expected (and granted through government sponsored leave) to take time off to raise children, as are mothers. Interestingly, Sweden has one of the lowest discrepancies between male and female pay. Coincidence? I think not. Now, Sweden is also a socialist country, and I don't think that we're going to get two years of free maternity and paternity leave here in the States anytime soon. But the same principles apply-- more flexibility, and encouragement of paternal helping, reduces disparities.

Kyril, I think you raise a good point-- the traditional father's role-- only seeing kids at night and working all the time-- isn't necessarily ideal for dads either. More equitable sharing of parental roles would help everyone. I don't think it's possible to take 5 years off to raise kids full time and also have a high powered tenure track academic job, but I do think it's possible to have balance and raise your kids while still having a research job (presuming some changes in the culture). Day care will probably be an important part of the picture, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

Your example isn't really analogous. You're implying that women who chose to have children should be penalized for making that choice, and should be OK with it because no one forced them to have children. There are two major problems I see with this. First, being able to make the choice to have children is a fundamental right. Not everybody wants to have children, but the substantial majority does, and see them as an integral part of their life plans. Second, it's discriminatory because men don't have to make that choice (see my CEO example above) and in our current system women generally do. To all the men out there: If you had to choose between having a fulfilling career or having a family, which would you choose? Could you choose? Maybe some of you don't want children, but for those of you who are sure that you do, man, that's a hard one. And that's what millions of women are forced to do everyday.

I like your sentiment about mothers being important, but I don't agree that they're the only ones who can do the job (except for the obviously biological aspects of motherhood, of course). Fathers can be just as nurturing and contribute just as much. Of course, that's not the way our culture is set up-- men are taught to value careers first. How many of you men would take 6 months off to raise an infant? And even if you wanted to, your boss would probably laugh at the idea.



I have read some of the research, but it was ages ago and I can't cite anything specific or give your citations. Most of it is in other disciplines, though, like economics (most of what I've read), sociology, and women's studies.



I dunno. Your suggestions are interesting. I think the most important thing is a change in the culture of academia. It's so cutthroat, and about being as productive as humanly possible, and anyone straying from that is viewed disdainfully. I think there needs to be more recognition that many people balance different priorities.

But I am interested in hearing others' ideas. I think sometimes about my planned career path, and I then I wonder where on earth kids are going to fit in. I don't want to wait until I have tenure at age 40 and then end up needing IVF or something.

Actually, it is exactly analogous, and it is not relevant that the "majority" of people want to have kids. The majority of people want alot of things that they don't get because of reality. Your war is against the reality that women are the ones who have to get pregnant if children are going to be a part of the picture.

And, I am sorry, but the old "men and women are exaclty the same except for genetalia" argument is finally starting to be shown for the silliness of my parents generation that it is. My mom so desperately tried to make me into a girl throughout the 70's before she just gave up. Because one can find a few men who are nurturing does not mean that the generalities that 1,000's of years of prior collective wisdom was able to identify without studies are not true.

It is women who have been socialized for the last 2 generations to believe that career is just as satisfying as staying at home and nurtuing their little ones, and they are now angry, because after 20, 30 and 40 year careers, they realize they were sold a bill of goods.

 

[Thrak]

It is women who have been socialized for the last 2 generations to believe that career is just as satisfying as staying at home and nurtuing their little ones, and they are now angry, because after 20, 30 and 40 year careers, they realize they were sold a bill of goods.

Not all women want to "stay home and nurture their little ones." Not all women want "little ones" to nurture. Believe me, I've talked to enough women who don't want children, women of various ages, women who get sterilized in their 20s to prevent an "accident" ever happening. Not all of them want careers, but to assume that all women want to be mothers is not only presumptuous, it's dead wrong.

And honestly, not only do I think you're misinterpreting the past two generations of women, I think you're wrong for the previous generations of women as well. Many of them would have loved careers outside of the home, they just didn't have that option open to them. And I've heard many stories of the "evil mother" or "evil grandmother" who resented the hell out of their kids.

I know many brilliant women in the legal, medical, engineering professions. Some of them want kids, some don't. But to think that they wouldn't find their careers fulfilling is just ridiculous.

The idea that motherhood is the ideal, the be-all-and-end-all for all women is the bill of good that women have been sold now for decades. Women aren't a monolithic group and we have to stop thinking of them in that way.

 

[psychanon]

Actually, it is exactly analogous, and it is not relevant that the "majority" of people want to have kids. The majority of people want alot of things that they don't get because of reality. Your war is against the reality that women are the ones who have to get pregnant if children are going to be a part of the picture.

And, I am sorry, but the old "men and women are exaclty the same except for genetalia" argument is finally starting to be shown for the silliness of my parents generation that it is. My mom so desperately tried to make me into a girl throughout the 70's before she just gave up. Because one can find a few men who are nurturing does not mean that the generalities that 1,000's of years of prior collective wisdom was able to identify without studies are not true.

It is women who have been socialized for the last 2 generations to believe that career is just as satisfying as staying at home and nurtuing their little ones, and they are now angry, because after 20, 30 and 40 year careers, they realize they were sold a bill of goods.

I'll echo what Thrak said. I have no desire to be a stay at home mom! I cannot even fathom the idea of staying at home all day and cleaning the house and joining the PTA. I'd take a Ph.D. over an MRS any day!

I also never applied that men and women are equivalent! I simply said that men are perfectly capable of doing a lot of the childrearing and housekeeping chores. Where in my double XX chromosome is the gene for picking up kids from soccer practice, cleaning gross diapers, staying home from work when the kid is sick, making dinner, packing lunches, and so on. I think you sell your gender short! Women do need to be pregnant, give birth, and breastfeed. I'm not a parent, but without minimizing those tasks, they're not the entire tamale of 18 years of raising a kid. Just because women are stuck with some of the more gruesome biological aspects of having kids doesn't meant that they need to be stuck with the whole deal!

I don't think your example is analogous for the same reasons that I've already said. Going back to graduate school in your 30's is a luxury. Being able to have a family is a fundamental human right.. After all, helping us live long enough to reproduce is the primary objective of every one of our genes. 😎

 

[73BARMYPgsp]

All of this is amusing to me because it is the result of the death of generalizations. In our PC world, it is not OK say "in general, women _____" or "generally, men ________." We have been paralyzed by a fear of "painting with a broad brush" or "stereotyping."

When someone points out an obvious general truth (truth is not the same as facts) they are inevitably meet with "well, I know of some (women, men, homosexuals, arabs, whatever) who do/don't fit that description."

Of course you do, those are called "exceptions."

Generalizing has fallen out of favor, for a variety of reasons, some understandable. But you cannot make wise, policy decisions without them. That is why the older I get, the smarter the previous generations get to me (The incredibly vapid, nihilistic and wisom-less baby boomers not withstanding--another generalization--Gasp!!). They understood the world the way it is, not the way they would like it to be. They did so by observing the world around them, and looking skeptically when they heard the phrase "studies show." Once one can say "OK, here is the truth" then they can move on to "how do I create a life that works for me within those boundaries." But not a minute before.

 

[psychanon]

All of this is amusing to me because it is the result of the death of generalizations. In our PC world, it is not OK say "in general, women _____" or "generally, men ________." We have been paralyzed by a fear of "painting with a broad brush" or "stereotyping."

When someone points out an obvious general truth (truth is not the same as facts) they are inevitably meet with "well, I know of some (women, men, homosexuals, arabs, whatever) who do/don't fit that description."

Of course you do, those are called "exceptions."

Generalizing has fallen out of favor, for a variety of reasons, some understandable. But you cannot make wise, policy decisions without them. That is why the older I get, the smarter the previous generations get to me (The incredibly vapid, nihilistic and wisom-less baby boomers not withstanding--another generalization--Gasp!!). They understood the world the way it is, not the way they would like it to be. They did so by observing the world around them, and looking skeptically when they heard the phrase "studies show." Once one can say "OK, here is the truth" then they can move on to "how do I create a life that works for me within those boundaries." But not a minute before.

Um....so....are you trying to make the statement that stereotypes are good things and that we should use them to make policy decisions (e.g., that it's a good idea to pull over black drivers more than white drivers and assume that anyone with dark skin is a terrorist)? This is getting OT, but....really? Let alone the whole liberty and justice for all thing that this country is founded on, but as psychologists, we have the data to show that stereotypes are socially constructed, inaccurate, and harmful. Oh wait, but you don't like data? What's with the "studies show" comment? What kind of psychologist would show disdain for empirical studies? Data are what keep us from making flawed assumptions about the world! And while I certainly never said or implied that it's good to view the world through rosy, overly idealistic glasses, what's wrong with striving for better than what we have now? Would you be saying that if you lived in the time of Jim Crow laws or slavery?

OK, I don't really like being on the soapbox position, so if unless someone says something that I really feel motivated to respond to, I'm stepping down. Y'all get my point. Back on topic, I'd love to hear from other women (and men) who are making decisions about balancing family and academia.

 

[psychwanabe]

Well, okay...I'll chime in. I am non-traditional in the largest sense of the word in that I got married *very* young, had my son, raised him, and then went to college/grad school to begin my career. I don't disagree that women seem to be more "natural" at raising children, however I believe that's as much about socialization as it is disposition.

I also believe that the gender-role socialization process is (and should be) changing so that boys learn to be nurterers as well. It is much more common now for boys to be open to the idea that they may be stay-at-home Dads, and that they will definitely be sharing in the care of children. Those choices are about what fits best for the family.

73BARMYPgsp: while I actually agree with some of your statements, the thing is is that the world is changing. My son (now an adult), my nephews (in their 20s) are examples of men who don't expect that women will adopt the role of primary caregiver for their children.

I do think though that there is a trade-off for men or women choosing to leave the workforce to stay home with their kids. It sucks, but that's life. The trade-off is that your kids get the long end of the stick instead of the short one.

...my $.02.

 

[MacGyver]

There is a lot of research looking at why women make less pay, and there is a pretty clear primary culprit: babies. Women are, for a variety of reasons (biological, societal, etc.), the primary care giver for children in the vast majority of marriages. Careers-- and academia is particularly notorious for this-- are poor at making allowances for this. I remember reading an article about female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies once. Almost all of them were childless. In contrast, when male CEOs have children, it has little impact on their careers. This is a problem that I and many of my female colleagues are at a loss for-- when the hell can you have kids in academia--and it's something that, frankly, men don't have to worry as much around. And that's the part that's discriminatory.

Here's an interesting article about women in academia:
http://chronicle.com/jobs/2000/10/2000102703c.htm

Thats a load of bunk. Women CHOOSE to be primary caregivers, whereas men do not. Yes I know society puts more pressure on women to primary caregivers, but at the end of the day its a personal choice.

All the feminazis spout this stuff about how men have it so easy because they can be CEOs working 80 hour weeks and have no problems raising a family, whereas a woman cant do the same thing. Their position is based on a flawed assumption that a male CEO is actually a caregiver for his kids, when in reality he is very far removed from being a primary caregiver. He doesnt see his kids much, he doesnt go to their activities, he is NOT a primary caregiver. Either he has a stay at home wife or he has a nanny at home.

CEOs, male or female, are NOT primary caregivers, so therefore its bunk to cry foul that male CEOs have it so much easier than females do, because they dont. A female CEO has to have a stay at home husband or nanny just like a male CEO has to have a stay at home wife or nanny.

the real difference is that women WANT to be primary caregivers AND reach the highest position in a company and thats simply not going to happen. Males have no illusions about being primary caregivers and they dont really give a damn about it.

 

[MacGyver]

I'm the first to admit that choices available to women and men are biased. But guess what, thats biology and its not going to change. Its a fundamental fact that women have a 9 month birth cycle that they MUST go thru to have a baby, whereas men are not burdened by that.

What I have a problem with is the idea that women should be given "extra credit" for raising kids and be promoted at the same rates, despite the fact that they are less productive and putting in less hours than the standard male counterpart.

One of the common refrains from feminists is that you "dont need" to put in 60 hours a week to be productive. Thats a red herring argument, because absolute thresholds are irrelevant; relative comparisons are whats key. Promotions are based on COMPETITION and what the market will bear. If males are willing to work 150 hours a week to get promotions, than females will have to match that if they want to get promoted at the same rate. What this really comes down to is women saying "hey I dont want to put in 150 hours a week but I still want to be promoted at the same rate as men" and THATS discriminatory and BS.

 

[ClinMixie]

I'm the first to admit that choices available to women and men are biased. But guess what, thats biology and its not going to change. Its a fundamental fact that women have a 9 month birth cycle that they MUST go thru to have a baby, whereas men are not burdened by that.

What I have a problem with is the idea that women should be given "extra credit" for raising kids and be promoted at the same rates, despite the fact that they are less productive and putting in less hours than the standard male counterpart.

One of the common refrains from feminists is that you "dont need" to put in 60 hours a week to be productive. Thats a red herring argument, because absolute thresholds are irrelevant; relative comparisons are whats key. Promotions are based on COMPETITION and what the market will bear. If males are willing to work 150 hours a week to get promotions, than females will have to match that if they want to get promoted at the same rate. What this really comes down to is women saying "hey I dont want to put in 150 hours a week but I still want to be promoted at the same rate as men" and THATS discriminatory and BS.

I think this is a very interesting string and since deciding that I want to go into academia, I have given a lot of thought to how these two roles (of a professional and caregiver) will be very difficult to reconcile for those that want to do both well. Thanks to everyone for some very intelligent and well thought out points.

MacGyver I just wanted to respond to your problem with the idea of giving women "extra credit" for raising kids. While I agree that within the current system it doesn't really make sense that women in academia should be awarded raises/promotions just for being a childbearer/primary caregiver, I think you are missing the point of what a lot of people have been saying. Its not necessarily about being rewarded within your specific job field for work that is done in the home, it is about the idea of having a society that overall considers work in the home to be worth something economically.

Within the structure of our current society, only things that directly to producing revenue are rewarded and seen as contributions to the economy. However, society needs people to give birth and rear children in order to have a future workforce to keep the economy going. Take Japan as an example. From what I understand they're having a demographic crisis right now because so many people are choosing careers over children...their population is continually aging (which is very expensive in terms of healthcare costs) with a decreasing youth base (because people aren't giving birth). This means that some years down the road they will probably run into trouble because they don't have the human workforce available to keep their economy going.

I think the key idea here is that those who take time out of the formal economy (ie. working for a wage) in order to contribute to the informal economy through child-rearing are penalized within the formal economy, because taking time away from their profession = less money (due to both direct losses in terms of lost time at your job, and long term losses due to lost chances for raises/promotions/less time to make the same number of contributions in the same amount of time as your non-childrearing counterpart). I'm not sure what the exact policy solution to this would be, I just think that its essential that we consider the way our current economy is penalizing people for choosing to sustain the economy in the long-run. And that yes, in some way childrearers probably should be given "extra-credit" since they play a vital role in the economy too, even if they're not getting a wage for it.

 

[Ollie123]

Well, right after starting a thread I have to disappear as I get in over my head with work and doing the "come to our school" song and dance for some interviewees.

First off, full disclosure - white male here with no plans for children in the immediate future, possibly not at all (just honestly have zero desire to have kids) - just wanted to get that out there😉

To me, this sounds like we are really discussing two separate issues - society and academia. They're related obviously, but will have vastly different solutions.

The main reason I made the original post was a response to something I perceived as a belief that it is the responsibility of academia to make all things equal within it. While its a noble goal to have, I think that's both unrealistic, and unfair to academic institutions because there are far too many problems that pervade society itself and are beyond the reach of academia to fix. Academia cannot fix the fact that we live in a society where women feel pressure to be the primary caregiver. I don't think it is their responsibility to try and adjust for that fact in their policies for a variety of reasons that basically boil down to it being impractical, impossible to do well, and really just opening the floodgates for a huge number of other problems. Please don't take this as my not supporting changes to that societal belief, I just don't think institutions are the right target.

That being said, I'm all for opportunities that make it more possible to have a work-life balance. Telecommuting, flexible hours, etc. is all fantastic. However I don't think an institution should have to sacrifice its own productivity to accomodate personal decisions. I'm a free-market kind of guy, and I think a business should be entitled to hire and keep on staff whoever is going to do the best job for them. Its easy to ignore the interests of faceless institutions compared to those of actual people, but I think its just as important to watch out for the interests of those institutions - after all, they are the ones advancing science and health care and making sure those children people choose to have become productive members of society. If someone can work 40 hours a week and be productive enough to meet their standards, that's great and I think it would be a tragedy for someone to not be tenured because of that. Yet there is a supply and demand issue here, and short of a VAST increase in the number of colleges and universities to eliminate the need for heavy competition for faculty jobs, I don't know what would solve this problem. Some posts here seem (at least to me) to be greying the area between being accomodating versus simply lowering the bar. The former is positive, whereas I think the latter is far more degrading to women than the current situation.

The last post I think is really interesting, and a point I hadn't considered. We do need to look to the long-term as well. I think its an unfortunate problem in our society that it is the most educated and successful folks who often end up being the least likely to pass on their genes. I have no idea what can be done about it though - its all well and good to say we need to be sure we are bringing in another generation of individuals, but the reality is that many universities are struggling with funding as is at the moment, and if faculty start working less hours, that means universities will need more of them just to stay afloat. Any suggestions on where that money could come from? I'm not being sarcastic, I think what you're saying is true, I just have NO idea how we can achieve it.

 

[psychanon]

Thats a load of bunk. Women CHOOSE to be primary caregivers, whereas men do not. Yes I know society puts more pressure on women to primary caregivers, but at the end of the day its a personal choice.

All the feminazis spout this stuff about how men have it so easy because they can be CEOs working 80 hour weeks and have no problems raising a family, whereas a woman cant do the same thing. Their position is based on a flawed assumption that a male CEO is actually a caregiver for his kids, when in reality he is very far removed from being a primary caregiver. He doesnt see his kids much, he doesnt go to their activities, he is NOT a primary caregiver. Either he has a stay at home wife or he has a nanny at home.

CEOs, male or female, are NOT primary caregivers, so therefore its bunk to cry foul that male CEOs have it so much easier than females do, because they dont. A female CEO has to have a stay at home husband or nanny just like a male CEO has to have a stay at home wife or nanny.

the real difference is that women WANT to be primary caregivers AND reach the highest position in a company and thats simply not going to happen. Males have no illusions about being primary caregivers and they dont really give a damn about it.

First of all, I find the term feminazi to be deeply offensive (and honestly, bandying about Howard Stern lingo doesn't do much for your credibility).

Secondly, it may be true that many women want to be primary caregivers, but it's certainly not true that all women (or all mothers) want to be the primary caregivers. But for women who don't, there are roadblocks, both societal (everyone thinking you're a terrible mother if you don't take a year's maternity leave) and logistical (i.e., easier time taking maternity leave than paternity leave). My point isn't that all women should do one or the other. I'm saying that the rules for who can take off time to care for children should be the same for both men and women. We've been talking about it like one parent has to be 100% family and the other 100% career, and that's certainly not the case-- I'm sure it's possible to divide things equitably between the two spouses, and it's up to each couple to negotiate that. But only if the same rules apply to both men and women-- otherwise, women end up getting stuck with it all.

Obviously only women can get pregnant, nurse, etc. So, there need to be extra steps to ensure that this inherent disparity does not translate into an automatic disadvantage for women in the workforce. I never said that women should get affirmative-action style extra points if they have kids (so that a woman with kids would get promoted over a man with the same qualifications). I'm more talking about flexibility in policies that directly conflict with motherhood (e.g., ticking tenure clocks coinciding with prime childbearing years).

Ollie brings up the free market. The problem is, economically speaking, this is a market failure. As ClinMixie brings up, society is better off with children who are well cared for. The economy is also better off with more women being productive in the workforce.

I don't know what the perfect solution would be, but I do think that there must be a feasible solution out there.

PS- If you want to see what it would be like if the fertility rate among intelligent people continues to decrease, while the birth rate of dumb people continues to increase, Netflix the move Idiocracy.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I never said that women should get affirmative-action style extra points if they have kids (so that a woman with kids would get promoted over a man with the same qualifications). I'm more talking about flexibility in policies that directly conflict with motherhood (e.g., ticking tenure clocks coinciding with prime childbearing years).

There are certain jobs that are not going to be congruent with motherhood. It would be nice if a business decided to make jobs more congruent (possibly gaining access to an untapped market, raising employee loyalty, etc), though in many of those careers there is enough competition that they don't have a reason to change. The question then becomes, what does the currently excluded population have to offer that the current competition can't offer? I don't know if there is an answer, but if the only reasoning is, "but it isn't fair", there isn't going to be much...if any, change.

Ollie brings up the free market. The problem is, economically speaking, this is a market failure.

It is more of a consequence of free market, not a market failure.

PS- If you want to see what it would be like if the fertility rate among intelligent people continues to decrease, while the birth rate of dumb people continues to increase, Netflix the move Idiocracy.

I *LOVE* that movie, not because it is a great movie, but because it is an interesting social commentary on what happens when those in the best position to procreate don't, and those in a less than ideal position to procreate....do.

 

[parto123]

To the posters who believe that women who go on maternity leave are getting a raw deal- what exactly would your solution be?

The law is already set up that a women who go on leave are protected from termination or being penalized, which almost everyone believes is fair. Are you now asking that women actually be given credit for time worked when you in fact were on leave? So a women who was off almost 2 of 4 years for maternity leave, should be on the same footing as the women who didn’t have kids and worked the entire 4 years?

Or is there some other solution you would implement?

 

[Thrak]

PS- If you want to see what it would be like if the fertility rate among intelligent people continues to decrease, while the birth rate of dumb people continues to increase, Netflix the move Idiocracy.

Ok, seriously, I love that movie too, but too many people are treating it like a documentary. And this whole idea of "the smart people aren't outbreeding the dumb people" has come up for decades, and it still smacks of racism and classism.

Why is the birth rate falling in so many industrialized nations? Because 1) women are getting educations, and 2) women have access to reliable birth control. We're also fighting against the previous baby boom, since we had a generation of people who got access to medicine to make them live longer, but didn't compensate by having fewer children to keep the population stable.

Why is the birth rate rising in other countries? Because medicine and food is getting to them, but birth control either isn't, or it is but the cultures haven't adopted on the fly to the idea that having a bunch of kids isn't a sign of manliness, and women are people and not property.

In the US, we still live in a society where if your parents are better off, you're better off. I can't tell you the number of Harvard Law students right now that have parents who graduated from top law programs, or were ivy league grads. Or how many medical students are the sons and daughters of doctors. Is there a genetic component? Perhaps. But there are a lot of first-generation college grads going into law and medicine as well. Hell, my father had maybe an 8th grade education, my mom a high school diploma. I already have my masters, and I'm competitive for the PhD programs I'm applying to. At that level of education, I should be one of the "dumb people" but I dare say I'm not.

There are a good number of intelligent people on this board, but honestly, if a large number of us didn't replicate ourselves, I don't think society would necessarily be worse off in the long run. And I've already included myself in that subset.

 

[JackD]

I think that it is kind of strange that women have problems earning as much as men in psychology. Of course in American society, that is generally how things are but don't women out number men like 3:1 when it comes to doctors of psychology? You would think they would have quite a bit of influance when they are about 75% of the field. However, i think being a guy in the psychological field could also have its benifits 😍

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think that it is kind of strange that women have problems earning as much as men in psychology. Of course in American society, that is generally how things are but don't women out number men like 3:1 when it comes to doctors of psychology? You would think they would have quite a bit of influance when they are about 75% of the field. However, i think being a guy in the psychological field could also have its benifits 😍

Maybe up and coming, but in CURRENT positions of power and influence....I'd say the percentage is much lower. It may change in the coming decades, but I'm pretty sure it is still skewed as you move up the ranks.

 

[JackD]

Maybe up and coming, but in CURRENT positions of power and influence....I'd say the percentage is much lower. It may change in the coming decades, but I'm pretty sure it is still skewed as you move up the ranks.

The only thing i can think of is that these are more recent trends. I was looking at statistics about this and women began out numbering men in terms of graduates in the 1980's and now they are graduating 3 women for every one man. However, i suppose that doesn't mean that all of the guys who were graduating in the 1960's and 1970's are gone yet. It probably is still a bit top heavy from all of the old dudes that are still hanging around.

 

[psychanon]

There are certain jobs that are not going to be congruent with motherhood. It would be nice if a business decided to make jobs more congruent (possibly gaining access to an untapped market, raising employee loyalty, etc), though in many of those careers there is enough competition that they don't have a reason to change. The question then becomes, what does the currently excluded population have to offer that the current competition can't offer? I don't know if there is an answer, but if the only reasoning is, "but it isn't fair", there isn't going to be much...if any, change.

I'm not saying that women are always going to be better than men on a case by case basis, but if you eliminate half the labor market, you are clearly going to strike down some of the most talented and productive members of the work force. So there are real economic reasons to encourage women to work, besides the "it isn't fair" argument. Besides, what's wrong with the "it isn't fair" justification? If there are policies in place which handicap 50% of the population and give an unfair advantage to the other half, isn't that a problem? We shouldn't just think of it as a handicap for women-- it is an unfair advantage for men.

It is more of a consequence of free market, not a market failure.

It is a market failure for all of the reasons I listed before. It's not just that it's unfair for women, it's bad for the economy-- for ALL parties. It's a non-zero sum game-- under the current system, we all lose because the economy loses half its workforce (bad for productivity) and/or we lose someone to raise children who are the future of the economy. In contrast, if we had a system that allowed women and men to raise their children AND work effectively, it'd be good for everyone.

I *LOVE* that movie, not because it is a great movie, but because it is an interesting social commentary on what happens when those in the best position to procreate don't, and those in a less than ideal position to procreate....do.

I should point out that i brought up that movie as a joke--- it's true that it's not a social documentary, and it certainly has classist undertones. I'm not so concerned that the more intelligent genes are going to die out. This problem affects all sectors of the economy. In fact, at the lower end of the economy, there are more working single moms, which quintuples all of the issues we've discussed--- these are people with NO help from dad, with one income to support a family--- without some flexibility in the workforce, they will have no chance of moving up the social ladder.

As for what the solution is...this is where I would like to hear ideas. Is the current academic system-- where the race for tenure coincides with women's prime childbearing years-- really necessary for departments to be defined as productive?

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm not saying that women are always going to be better than men on a case by case basis, but if you eliminate half the labor market, you are clearly going to strike down some of the most talented and productive members of the work force. So there are real economic reasons to encourage women to work, besides the "it isn't fair" argument. Besides, what's wrong with the "it isn't fair" justification? If there are policies in place which handicap 50% of the population and give an unfair advantage to the other half, isn't that a problem? We shouldn't just think of it as a handicap for women-- it is an unfair advantage for men.

I agree that forcing women to choose between a career and a family (obviously a black and white example, though I believe there is much more gray area) there is going to be a loss of talented women. I'm not sure if this is a loss in the zero-sum game (do those spots stay vacant, or are they filled with equal or relatively equal talent?), though I could argue that in some markets, they adjust with availability, so there is a loss, though it its realized in the current setup since there isn't a 'spot' available to evaluate.

As for not being fair....in an ideal world this would be reason enough, but if it comes down to dollars and being fair, I have a hard time arguing for being fair if it is my dollar. Companies have found value in 'doing things the right way', because they have realized gains by working with their employees, but this doesn't happen across the board. Places like Microsoft in the '90s and Google in the '00s, have realized that their investment and greatly flexibility with their employees has paid off in loyalty, quality of work, etc. Things like flex hours, day care coverage, paid sabaticals, etc. The problem with this setup is that it doesn't work in all places, so trying to convince a company to 'change' for altruistic reasons is an uphill battle. If I were fighting that battle, I'd look at finding value. For instance, real estate companies found value in mother's who wanted to work on a part-time basis. Many of these women are highly skilled and are a great asset to any company. It is all about making it work for *both* sides.

If the work productivity of employee #1 is 70% of employee #2.....can employee #1 expect a promotion over employee #2? What is truly 'fair' in this example?

Is the current academic system-- where the race for tenure coincides with women's prime childbearing years-- really necessary for departments to be defined as productive?

Yes. The university is investing in the professor, and they are on the hook if a professor up and walks, which is can be a financial and intellectual drain on the department and university. In most university settings, the productivity is tied to grant funding....which is tied to departments and resources. If a department had 10 professors, but all worked 70% of their expected work, the university is left with a 30% deficit in financial and intellectual capital.

If the tenure track was done on a less than full time basis, the 'risk' would be spread between the university and the professor...though this still isn't ideal because the supply far outnumbers the demand and there is nothing that the university gains by going this route, unless they gain access to people who can fill a need not met by the traditional method.

Maybe others can speak to the tenure track (I'm only looking to adjunct), so I'll defer to others who know more on the topic.

 

[Ollie123]

Let me start by saying I'm impressed with how collegial this thread has remained despite the vastly different opinions. Yay us for being able to discuss this without it degrading into the name-calling and petty squabbling that usually results in discussions like this, that I think are a major reason nothing ever gets done on the issue🙂

T4C pretty much covered my thoughts on much of this.

I have an idea...an idea so controversial, impractical and insane I'm hesitant to post it. I don't mean to imply this is a final solution, its just kind of food for thought and an exercise in thinking about this issue😉

What if we got rid of tenure entirely and made all university positions soft money, so you can compile teaching, research, and service in whatever combo you choose and is most valued by the university? Say, $1000 for being on a search committee, $3000 for teaching Psy101, the typical NIH research support guidelines.

To say there are some kinks that need to be worked out is the understatement of the century, but it WOULD give people more flexibility on the amount they needed to work. Of course, it would utterly demolish any sense of academic community, probably foster some intra-department issues with people pushing in line to get to be involved in things that provided the greatest amount of money for the least amount of effort.

If that were the case, I imagine there would still be unequal wages as most likely more women would choose to work less. If that were the case, would it still be considered unfair?

Psychanon - If you do think the above system would be fair (economically fair I mean, let's ignore the grotesque number of other problems for a moment), what about it is different from the current system where theoretically, doing more work gets you promoted, which gets you more money? What aspects of it would make that system more fair than the current one? The fact that guidelines for pay are set and not semi-subjectively determined? The fact that pay is based off continuing productivity rather than having to make one good run of productivity that happens to fall at an incredibly inconvenient time for women?

Also - please don't take the above as an attack or anything. I actually agree with most of what you've said as well, I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of generating discussion since I think that can only help the issue. Not that I think you would be offended since I think I've made it relatively clear I stand on your side of the issue and we only differ in what the best way to address it is, but just wanted to make sure🙂

 

[Thrak]

What if we got rid of tenure entirely and made all university positions soft money, so you can compile teaching, research, and service in whatever combo you choose and is most valued by the university? Say, $1000 for being on a search committee, $3000 for teaching Psy101, the typical NIH research support guidelines.

I think they may have something like this in Australia. They break it up into four areas... teaching, research, administration, and community. You have to excel in two of the four areas.

One of the bosses where I work is Aussie and was talking about it. The conversation previously was how in the US, you can be the most awesome professor in the world, be a complete inspiration to your students, but if you're not publishing or pulling in grant money, you're out the door.

I could be wrong, though.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think they may have something like this in Australia. They break it up into four areas... teaching, research, administration, and community. You have to excel in two of the four areas.

One of the bosses where I work is Aussie and was talking about it. The conversation previously was how in the US, you can be the most awesome professor in the world, be a complete inspiration to your students, but if you're not publishing or pulling in grant money, you're out the door.

I could be wrong, though.

I like that idea. I was going to propose a point system (4 areas with a cap of how many points you can get, so people can be evaluated a bit more objectively) then I deleted it because I don't know how schools do it currently, so I thought I'd leave it up to others to talk about.

 

[psychanon]

Let me start by saying I'm impressed with how collegial this thread has remained despite the vastly different opinions. Yay us for being able to discuss this without it degrading into the name-calling and petty squabbling that usually results in discussions like this, that I think are a major reason nothing ever gets done on the issue🙂

T4C pretty much covered my thoughts on much of this.

I have an idea...an idea so controversial, impractical and insane I'm hesitant to post it. I don't mean to imply this is a final solution, its just kind of food for thought and an exercise in thinking about this issue😉

What if we got rid of tenure entirely and made all university positions soft money, so you can compile teaching, research, and service in whatever combo you choose and is most valued by the university? Say, $1000 for being on a search committee, $3000 for teaching Psy101, the typical NIH research support guidelines.

To say there are some kinks that need to be worked out is the understatement of the century, but it WOULD give people more flexibility on the amount they needed to work. Of course, it would utterly demolish any sense of academic community, probably foster some intra-department issues with people pushing in line to get to be involved in things that provided the greatest amount of money for the least amount of effort.

If that were the case, I imagine there would still be unequal wages as most likely more women would choose to work less. If that were the case, would it still be considered unfair?

Psychanon - If you do think the above system would be fair (economically fair I mean, let's ignore the grotesque number of other problems for a moment), what about it is different from the current system where theoretically, doing more work gets you promoted, which gets you more money? What aspects of it would make that system more fair than the current one? The fact that guidelines for pay are set and not semi-subjectively determined? The fact that pay is based off continuing productivity rather than having to make one good run of productivity that happens to fall at an incredibly inconvenient time for women?

Also - please don't take the above as an attack or anything. I actually agree with most of what you've said as well, I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of generating discussion since I think that can only help the issue. Not that I think you would be offended since I think I've made it relatively clear I stand on your side of the issue and we only differ in what the best way to address it is, but just wanted to make sure🙂

I don't take any of that as an attack. I don't know if it would be a good plan or not because I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the current system. I will say that the idea that NIH only pays $3000 for teaching PSYC 101 is incredibly depression-- I made more than that as a TA! There are probably a lot of logistical problems. I don't think that there is sufficient grant support in our current political climate to support every academic out there. But I like the idea of removing the clock system. I'm sure I'll enjoy tenure if I get it one day (let's hope), but I wonder if it's really so important to productivity. I am sure that it helps young assistant professors be productive, but how about tenured full professors? So many of them don't bother with grants and mainly publish when their students write something. On the other hand, tenure helps faculty take academic risks. So I don't know.