Is it really unequal pay, or is it a boosted statistic?

So this election has got me thinking about the one argument that I've heard most "equal rights" feminist women (some who are my friends) make... "Women make 81% (or whatever the current statistic is) to what a man makes. That's bull****, its not fair and we need to institute some sort of law that makes this illegal". It maddens me that people are voting towards one candidate or the other for this battle of women's equality. I feel like they are pushing us back to the time of suppression where there was a need for womens rights arguments, and rallies and the feminist movement. But I truly believe we are past that era and time, and we need to move forward (not a slogan that I'm trying to steal from the Incumbent President I promise)



Well we do have a law, a slue of them, that makes this illegal. One of them is the Civil Rights Act of 1964" (Title VII)- it makes it illegal to discriminate against an individual based on race, sex, national origin, religion and color. So there's a protection for discrimination. Differentiating pay more for a man vs a woman? Any lawyer can construe discrimination against that...

Not good enough you say? Ok, let's go with something a little more direct: The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) This law makes it illegal to pay different wages to men and women if they perform equal work in the same workplace. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Those are only two of a ton of laws that are there to protect each individual in a workplace against unfair practices, and therefore getting rid of the "good ole boys" and "men's club" era. Are there some companies that still practice this? Hmm...probably. On a lesser scale. Should it be stopped? Absolutely. But let's be honest... One manager who is newly promoted, should not expect to make as much as a manager that she had replaced solely because there is a difference of their time in position, experience in the position, their previous reviews (also known as merit based raises), etc. If a company loses a lawsuit over this, there's normally a reason and it can be taken down to the direct management level - not a practice of a major corporation, and a practice throughout the entire corporation. When determining pay for a new manager, so many factors go into play; their current pay, their past experience, amount of responsibility, past performance, etc. Example: One manager makes 70k a year, while another makes 60k. One has been in position for 3 years, the other is starting a new position, and was promoted into that position. Should the new manager make exactly the same pay as the manager who was there for 3 years? ABSOLUTELY NOT. They are at different levels of expertise. It only makes it fair to be started out at a lower pay rate than the manager who has been there for 3 years.

So let's look at the statistic, and what it really means, and what it represents. In April of 2012, the statistic was that full time women earned 81% of what full time men made. So for every Dollar a man made, the woman made 81 cents. (in the words of what one of my favorite comedians stated - wait a minute, that doesn't make sense, that's not fair, the man's only left with 19...Bo Burnham - even though his statistics were older than this) So just to make up for that gap, women would have to work until the middle of March. Sorry. No thanks. So just off that statistic, it isn't fair at all.

Now what goes into this statistic: what does it include? Well, does it take into account how many hours each sex works? NO. Does it take into account what sector each sex works in? NO. Does it take into account the actual positions of each? NOPE. So how is it a fair representation of pay? It's not. It's a boosted statistic, plain and simple. It says on average, women work 7.75 hours a day, vs a man's 8.14. (which means women leave early, and men stay a bit later) Also, think about this... maternity leave.... Men get paternity leave, just not as much as a woman gets. So the average women's pay gets taken down a few months already. So lifetime earning potential is lower, due to less time worked. So, disadvantage to women right?. Do we say that's unfair because we get 3 months off work to spend with our precious newborn baby? Which is completely optional to take mind you. If you say it's unfair, you are just impossible to please. You can't have it both ways. Sorry.

Also, think of this - if a company offered you an executive position that started at, oh I dunno, 100,000 a year. Would you take it - no questions asked? What if they then told you this would require you to travel Mon - Fri, and work 60 hours a week... even when you are at home, you'd still have to be on call, and email when you are at home. So you would be required to be away from your family every day but the weekends. Would you take it then? Why or why not? Now, if a woman (mother) is answering these questions, it's a longer pause, and more of a debate with herself as to if it's really worth it. A man answering it would have less of a battle, because to him he views the job as an ability to take care of his family better. Now, obviously, I'm not an expert, but I'm not an idiot. This isn't for every single situation out there, but, it's a compelling argument. You have to admit that women are less likely to actively pursue those occupations because, by nature, they tend to go for different kinds of occupations, that have stable hours, more time off, and different sectors that are inherently paid less than those sectors that pay more.

So, for those who still believe there is a gap in pay, there may be a slight one, but that's bound to be just because of a few differences that are not avoidable. How can we move forward if you believe in the statistics that keep us in the past? And how can we truly make a change if we aren't willing to look at the real statistics that show a gap?