Honestly, I love Thought Catalog. I find most of the pieces comforting, thought provoking, and insightful. And then, you stumble across pieces like these. So, I decided to do a response piece in the same form as Leah Kuttruff’s earlier piece on the Thought Catalog article “Southern Belle vs. Modern Woman.”
Unlike some people, I don’t think articles such as these are a reason to unsubscribe. In response to one anonymous commenter saying that Thought Catalog had gone too far, another responded, “Right, go back to your echo chamber.” I totally agree with whoever this is. The point behind Thought Catalog is to create a space where anything can be expressed so long as it is of some good writing quality, no matter how biased it is.
Anyway, I recently stumbled across this article while on Thought Catalog’s Facebook page (which I highly recommend you should follow) and was immediately seized by outrage, which then melded into curiosity. All right, convince me. Why should half of the population– specifically my half– be paid less working the same job that men do? Maybe there is in fact a reason behind all this bigotry that is, in fact, not so bigoted.
And I was disappointed. Here is where “3 Reasons Men Deserve Higher Pay Than Women” author Jay Sun went wrong:
His first reason is that “men suffer the vast majority of workplace fatalities and injuries.” His reasoning behind this point is that men comprise 90 percent of employees who do more dangerous jobs, such as construction. Sun writes, “All other things being equal, if one job is more dangerous than the other, it necessarily pays more.” Great. I completely agree. People working dangerous jobs should be paid more, especially if they are putting their life on the line. But does that mean that, just because a dangerous workplace is primarily male, that a woman doing the same dangerous job should be paid a different amount? His logic is really skewed on this. Essentially, he is saying that women should get paid less because, and only because, they are a minority.
His second reason is that “men work more hours than women.” Again, Sun’s logic skewed. Just because, on average, more men tend to work more hours than women does not mean that there are not women who work more than certain men. Also, why not just pay employees of the same positions equally by the hour? This would solve the problem. If someone works more hours, then they get a higher paycheck. Simple. And it has nothing to do with preconceived notions of anyone working more or less based on arbitrary things, such as gender.
His third and final reason is that “men are more likely to work in ‘strategic’ sectors of the economy.” For the rest of the article, he refers to these as “real” jobs. He explains that, while the service sector comprises the majority of our economy, it is also the “least productive per capita.” Okay, that makes sense. But again, what does this have to do with women? Sun explains, once again, that those who work “strategic” or “real” jobs such as farming crops, mining ore, and constructing buildings are men, whilst more women are apt to work in journalism, entertainment, or marketing. So yeah, it totally makes sense that a male journalist should be paid more to be congratulated for being a part of a population that contributes most to the “strategic” work force, and that women working in a “strategic” job should be punished with lower wages because of being a part of a statistic that contributes less to this work force. Wait, what?!? Furthermore, Sun goes on to consider the fact that women are more likely to go on maternal leave. So, what if a family decides that mom is the breadwinner and dad stays at home? Dad would still get paid more, despite the fact that mom did not take maternal leave, except for late in pregnancy. And what about a male who decides to adopt an infant? There are many situations for which Sun is failing to acknowledge, especially in this modern world.
All I got from this article was the view that women, as minorities in dangerous and strategic sectors of the economy, should be paid less. So, what about racial minorities? I guess since they don’t contribute as much to the economy as the majority, they should also be paid less. Sun’s gender views are coloring this piece. He obviously sees strategic and non-strategic jobs as things that are gendered. I believe, if we took out everything about women being paid less because they comprise less of the workforce, then Sun would have a much more valid argument about wages. Employees working dangerous jobs should be paid more, employees working what he considers more important jobs should be paid more, and people working more hours should be paid more. All of these are views that are held by many, but to bring women into it as a general statistic is unfair. In this article, Sun simply uses statistics to bolster his sexist views.
Image: http://blog.timesunion.com/womenatwork/files/2011/10/sexism_tp.jpg