In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

If you weren’t having babies, you (mostly) wouldn’t get cheated at work

baby_c_Julien-Haler_2009.jpgChamber of Commerce Senior Communications Director Brad Peck decided to commemorate the 90th anniversary of suffrage, the recognition of women’s right to vote, by suggesting last week that women who want equal pay have a “fetish for money,” and recommending that women focus our energies on “choosing the right partner at home.”

His post was titled “Equality, Suffrage and a Fetish for Money.” Instead of quoting at length, I’ll let Peck’s own comments on Twitter, in response to SEIU’s Kate Thomas, give you the shorter version in his words:

No. Point was pay is just one thing of value. To achieve your values need to pick the right job/right partner. (1/2)

Fixating on pay as the only thing of value shows a fetish for money. (2/2)

In the post itself, he approvingly quoted another writer who compared women’s interest in equal pay to the famously greedy, stingy Disney character, Scrooge McDuck.

Peck went on to say that “individual choices” about how much time women take out of paid work are responsible for most of the pay gap. The mysterious reason for all this extra time off that women end up taking? Peck doesn’t say explicitly in his own words, but he’s clearly referring to family responsibilities, as spelled out in the section of the New York Times article that he quotes at length in the body of his post.

The message seemed clear enough: if women chose not to have children, they didn’t have much to worry about. Only someone with a “fetish for money” would be concerned about the rest of the pay gap.

After his post was roundly bashed on other blogs, Peck added a sort-of apology, and the next day David Chavern, the COO of the Chamber wrote a post walking Peck’s statements back. But this is cold comfort, because the Chamber has lobbied for years against legislative efforts to reduce gender disparities at work, particularly fighting hard against accommodations for pregnancy and motherhood.

The market has failed women, failed their families. What’s truly offensive is that neither Peck, nor Chavern, nor any of their colleagues will acknowledge it. Chavern pretends complete ignorance of the well-documented reasons why women do better in environments “they create for themselves.” Presumably, environments women create for themselves don’t regard their experience as parents as a trivial annoyance causing mental incapacity.

Thanks in part to the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce, laws against pay equity have been delayed and are still insufficient. Thanks in part to the efforts of the Chamber of Commerce, the US is alone in industrialized countries without paid leave for new mothers.

They can’t apologize sweetly enough to make these assaults on the financial security of America’s working families less damaging.

Photo courtesy, Julien Haler on Flickr, Creative Commons licensed, 2009.

Cross posted from SEIU Early Learning.


24 thoughts on If you weren’t having babies, you (mostly) wouldn’t get cheated at work

  1. So his message is essentially – marry a man with enough money to keep you so that you never have to enter the workplace, and then stay home to raise babies, or shut up? It’s like the Fifties never went away. Maternity leave/paternity leave and adoption leave should be a right, not a privilege. Paid sick leave (ad hoc, not on a “You have X days a year which you must not exceed” basis) should be a right, as should a decent amount of holiday/vacation days for every employee, how can the World’s most powerful country keep denying those rights? They’re so basic, so vital to the continuing health of the workforce and prosperity of the country.

    For anyone interested here is the UK Govt’s portal for Money and Work entitlements for parents: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Moneyandworkentitlements/index.htm

  2. It doesn’t surprise me that S. McDuck entered into it, because Peck, from what I read, IS a cartoon.

  3. I want there to be one woman in the Chamber of Commerce who tweets – If pay is just one thing of value, I fully expect Peck to spend more time with his family. It’s so greedy to focus solely on winning the bread.

    Is anyone else irritated that Twitter is the cool new way to spread oppression? Between this guy and Palin, I can’t handle it anymore.

  4. “So his message is essentially – marry a man with enough money to keep you so that you never have to enter the workplace, and then stay home to raise babies, or shut up?”

    No. His point’s that women have kids with men who put them in the situation of having to compromise their careers and then blame their employers, rather than looking at their own choices.

    Imagine you leave college at 21 and have a child at 30 with a man who’s 33. None of those numbers are remarkable. But the man will have had a (33-30)/(30-21) = 33% longer career. I wonder what that will mean when they decide who will stay at home and end up working 16 hours a week?

    The standard response when this happens is to complain about how unfair business is in not wanting people who don’t have sufficient recent experience to fly aeroplanes or perform surgery, or to question the masculinist logic behind not wanting a trading desk that costs $100k a year in upkeep to only be used half the time. But the fact is you should really be taking a closer look at your personal life.

  5. This kind of crap really makes me sick and angry, and it’s not going to go away until we actually get men to engage with the work of raising children in the same way that women do. We need to stop believing collectively that raising children is the responsibility of women, and frankly the first step of that is to cut out the pretense. What Peck is saying is a widely held (if also widely unspoken) belief. Pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing take a big toll on a career because they are all hard, physical work. And once they are over many (even most) women still don’t get to split the job 50/50 with a partner — they have to do the bulk of it themselves. Yes, it is a shame that the US doesn’t have paid leave for new mothers, but what we need even more is leave for fathers and some kind of requirement that they actually take it.

    I’ll agree with one thing Peck says — to achieve your goals you do have to pick the right partner, one who is going to share in all of the work it takes to raise a child.

  6. I think the point is that it is not the responsibility of employers to take care of women. Think about it, if they won’t even pay for healthcare anymore how do we expect them to financially support women?

    This is not a burden men should shoulder anymore either. If we want to be liberated and independent we have to stop expecting men, businesses or government to financially support us. Men are starting to catch on that if they take on the provider role while married, they will have to be our provider after divorce. Whoever takes on the provider role is pretty much screwed.

    Though I don’t even know how to afford a family anymore. I’ve always been one for a free market but socialism or even aspects of communism look like the better choice as time goes by.

    The point is that as much as we hate to admit it someone has to support women. If not men and family then the Government and businesses will have to.

  7. It’s more than having a partner who helps. An awful lot of jobs want you to have no outside responsibility, life, or committments. And women are the ones who are viewed negatively for child rearing while men get applauded. A woman who leaves early for her child’s ballet recital is seen as less hard-working and loyal. A man who leaves early for his child’s ballet recital is smiled at knowingly and excused with no questions. Having a partner who helps is important, but it won’t erase the double standards.

  8. Love the post. Additionally the issue isn’t just that women deserve time off for children/their families. Men deserve time off to be fathers. It’s problematic when people blame the pay gap on women who take time off to raise families – men rarely are expected (/criticized for having) to choose between ‘having a family’ and ‘having a career.’ Largely, the pay-gap-exists-because-of-moms argument is flawed on a variety of levels, but what bothers me most is living in a society that doesn’t support parents; particularly women who, in circles like Mr. Peck’s, have been assigned the only ones with the onus of parenting.

  9. Australia doesn’t have paid leave either, but both sides in the current, never-ending election battle have promised it, so soon the US will indeed be alone in that.

  10. Seems to me that Mr Peck should apply the same standards equally. If women concerned about equal pay are displaying “a fetish for money” then surely it follows that the men who are receiving higher pay are also displaying the same “fetish for money”. After all, if “pay is just one thing of value. To achieve your values need to pick the right job/right partner.” Then it follows that the men who are not taking time out of paid work must be neglecting those other things of value (and presumably, neglecting finding the right partner and keeping him/her).

    Either men are happy (in which case, concerns about equal pay are legitimate) or men are not happy (in which case, maybe giving women equal pay would be a material influence in helping give men more time off to focus on those other things of value). Whichever way you look at it, Mr Peck’s argument does not support the conclusion (that women should not want equal pay).

  11. @Miss S
    Yes, it’s more than having a partner who “helps” — it’s having a partner who does what any mom would do — do drop offs and pickups, leave work for a sick kid, make doctors appointments, etc. I think men are excused with no questions precisely because they don’t do it all the time. We have a double standard precisely because you can expect that a woman with kids is going to have to do the bulk of the work related to those kids, but a man with kids will only be “helping” (at the most), so they’ll only have to occasionally experience that work/home conflict.

  12. You can have babies and not get cheated at work. Hell, in most cases, you can even get a raise for it. There just one secret to it…you have to be male.

    WTF. The women in my world aren’t taking much time off for pregnancy, and work practically up until the day we go into labor (that’s what I did….called in sick the day I went into labor). Funny how lengthy layoffs don’t seem to have the career-damaging effect on men that a mere two or three months of leave has on women. Funny how lengthy recovery times for motorcycle accidents, falling out of tree stands, various medical maladies, etc. doesn’t have the career-damaging effect on men that pregnancy leave has on women. Really funny that men can feel free to take week or even two week vacations with their families, take early days from work for golf games, biking, motorcycle or car-racing (either as audience or participant), baseball or football games, etc.—-but Maude forbid a woman has to pick up her sick child from school early; she’s just not committed to her work!

    No, Peck. The problem is you’re looking at the world through sexist lenses. And I’ll stop having a “fetish for money” when housing, utilities, transportation, food, clothing and medical care are all free. Here’s an interesting way to find out who has the real “fetish for money”….bust highly-paid male executives down to the pay scale of the average women in their company. Not the average executive woman in their company—start giving them the average woman’s paycheck. How fast would it take them to howl?

  13. “Yes, it is a shame that the US doesn’t have paid leave for new mothers, but what we need even more is leave for fathers and some kind of requirement that they actually take it.

    I’ll agree with one thing Peck says — to achieve your goals you do have to pick the right partner, one who is going to share in all of the work it takes to raise a child.”

    @Angela Gail, i think the second point largely affects the first point. I wish I could find the source, but I remember reading about maternity/paternity leave in academia a few months ago. There was a little tidbit about how some of the tenure-track men were indeed using their paternity leave, but not to help their partner with childrearing duties — just to get more time to work on their research undisturbed.

    It just makes me wonder how much forcing a non-feminist man to take paternity leave could accomplish, unfortunately.

  14. Fun fact: a lesbian, regardless of partnership status, falls into the same lousy pay categories as other women. Damn us for wanting to make ends meet! My experience has also been that we are seen as perpetually single and often get lower pay then het women b/c we don’t have family responsibilities. *yawn*

  15. Wow. I especially love where he quotes another article that basically likens pay inequity to a man who goes to the gym a lot and gets all the sexy babes so all the couch potatoes are jealous of him. Right. Because pay equity is aaaaall about women being jealous of men, not, like, making ends meet or anything like that. Fairly certain that biceps are not necessary to survive, but making a decent friggin salary is.

  16. Agree about the need for paternity leave and for men to take it. One of the links in the post discusses the Swedish model, which includes leave for men that they have to take in the first year of their child’s life.

    But as to the effect that would have on non-feminist men, I’ve read that men of whatever background whose wives are incapacitated for a while following birth, who are compelled to be their infant’s primary caregiver, often bond more closely with their children and come to like the idea of being a caregiver. It’s not, from what I understand, without rewards by which adults of all kinds can be charmed.

    Notwithstanding, even the most emotionally rewarding parent-child relationships involve people who must have food, clothing and shelter, for which hard cash must be paid.

  17. Any time women advocate for more access to things that are given to men without question or complaint (such as power, money, etc.) we are told it’s not that important, and that we’re somehow strange for wanting it.

    If Mr. Peck thinks that getting paid fairly demonstrates a fetish for money, I invite him to take a huge cut in pay and to STFU.

  18. Angela- Yes I know. I was responding to another comment. I agree that it shouldn’t be seen as helping, but I don’t think that a man taking more responsibility for the home and children is going to help if women are still viewed negatively for doing the same things as men.

  19. Q Grrl – I’m not saying it’s not a bad thing to be paid less than het co-workers (because it’s pretty horrific), just that the practice is by no means universal.

    TBH I still can’t wrap my head around people in ordinary day to day jobs (retail, sales, call centre workers etc.) being paid differently according to their gender it doesn’t make any sense to me so that’s probably why there’s no way I could wrap my head around a company having a het/homo-related pay-scale.

    The ‘perpetually single’ thing would be more than I could bear, and actually, here it would be subject to legal action. At the time I moved in with my partner there were no civil partnership-related legal rulings in place, and yet we were assigned ‘married’ status by each of our employers, alongside heterosexual married or common-law colleagues. This included health and dental benefits, family leave for illness of a partner/in-law, and the right to invoke legal action against anyone who used any language that was deemed to reflect negativity toward our sexuality. (similar clauses existed in my workplace wrt racism, cissexism etc. The penalty for being racist, transphobic or homophobic was instant dismissal and legal action offered on behalf of the wounded party)

    So I’m sorry if I made it sound like it hadn’t affected you, just that here in 2010 I cannot conceive of a policy so disgusting as to separate out gay employees from straight ones.

  20. Imagine you leave college at 21 and have a child at 30 with a man who’s 33. None of those numbers are remarkable. But the man will have had a (33-30)/(30-21) = 33% longer career. I wonder what that will mean when they decide who will stay at home and end up working 16 hours a week?

    Well… that depends. She’s been working 9 years. He’s been working 12. Sure, it’s a 33% difference… but what’s the salary differential looking like? How competitive are their professions (ie, how screwed will he be for cutting his hours, versus her)? And would these factors have made the decision in the absence of time off work?

    In my experience, there’s very little difference between the salary of a talented professional who’s been working 9 years and the salary of a talented professional who’s been working 12, if they’re in the exact same profession and have been getting approximately similar raises. Because raises barely keep pace with inflation, so the guy with 3 extra years would have gotten the job out of college at a lower rate than the younger person got, and by the time they’ve been working 9 and 12 years, the differences between them have evened out.

    However, the difference between a man and a woman who have worked the *same* number of years is significant. This is due to a number of factors:

    – There are professions women are, from childhood, told are too difficult for them, and presented with high barriers to entry. These tend to pay well, or, they pay well for the low level of education they require.

    – There are professions men are, from childhood, told are too feminine for them, and they will be mocked by their friends if they attempt to enter those professions. These tend to pay dirt. The few men in such professions often are very dedicated, but they also generally either quickly drop out because they feel that the salary is too low and they’ve been taught that their worth as a human is partially dependent on their salary, or they end up as supervisors/managers in that position. Compare the proportion of elementary school teachers who are male to the proportion of elementary school principals who are male.

    – In professions that are actually stereotypically considered to be open to either sex, men demand raises, and get them. Women do not demand raises, but if they do, they not only do not get them, they are likely to be fired, or not hired in the first place.

    – When a profession that women were previously denied entry to finally starts to have a large number of female members, the pay drops. Compare the difference between the pay rates of a general practitioner or pediatrician to a specialist, now, versus 30 years ago when both professions were primarily male. This is presumably not happening because the women are voluntarily and with full knowledge of the pay rate of their male counterparts accepting less money for the same work; it’s happening because employers think they can get away with paying women less, and employers think so because it’s true. Since all of them do it, almost no woman can get higher pay by playing hardball.

    Stereotypically feminine professions that require high levels of education, are physically grueling and can be dangerous — I’m thinking specifically nursing, but teaching elementary school can fall in here as well — are paid less than stereotypically male professions that require similar levels of education but no physical effort and no danger, for example, accounting. Stereotypically feminine professions tend to be centered around taking care of people, whereas stereotypically masculine professions tend to be centered around making things, doing things, or working with money — but when stereotypically masculine professions are centered around taking care of people, such as being a doctor, they pay well. Until they start having large numbers of female professionals.

    So this is not at all likely to be caused by the fact that women tend to be younger than men, in couples; the average age difference between couples nowadays does not have a sufficient impact on the salary difference that anyone would use it as a metric for who should quit their job. The fact that women quit to take care of the baby because the man makes more money is *because* the man makes more money, as he is a man. It is not the cause of the phenomenon. It doesn’t even strongly perpetrate the phenomenon. Married women with no children still make less than male counterparts. And it has a lot less to do with women’s choice of profession than you might think, as any profession which becomes close to majority female experiences a pay drop.

    No, the reasons boil down to an obnoxious line from an obnoxious song: “You don’t need money with a face like that, honey” — Jet, “Are You Gonna Be My Girl?” It is assumed by most people that women don’t really *need* money because women will always be able to get a man to pay for them, so it’s okay to pay women less. This is not just Obnoxio the Clown logic when it comes to the existence of widows, lesbians, single women who are asexual, divorced women, and women who are not conventionally attractive; it also suggests that all heterosexual women who are attractive enough to find a man who wants to marry them are prostitutes, directly trading sex for the man’s earning power. And that therefore, no man who does not have money is worth a woman’s love. It manages to do enormous damage to women in general *and* put crushing burdens on men that prevent them from pursuing their dreams because they fear the consequences of the financial loss. Like many sexist systems in our society, it screws over both sexes, though it does more damage to women.

Comments are currently closed.