co-written with Rachel Dempsey
In the last post, we talked about the problem of pregnancy discrimination against women in hourly jobs -- cases where mothers were refused simple accommodations that would help them have healthy pregnancies. Discrimination against pregnant women and mothers is a huge problem for working-class women, for whom a single missed day at work could mean that they lose both their jobs and the ability to support their families.
Professional women, by and large, are more likely to have flexible schedules and are more likely to be given paid maternity leave than working-class women. It seems pretty unlikely that, say, a lawyer or a professor would be fired for asking for an ergonomic chair to make pregnancy more comfortable. But that doesn't mean that they're immune to the effects of discrimination against pregnant women and mothers. In fact, a recent article in The American Scientist by Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci proposed that discrimination against mothers -- not against women in general -- is almost single-handedly responsible for the gender gap in the academy in science and math-related fields.
And a staggering gap it is. According to the article, women in math-intensive fields such as chemistry, physics, mathematics, engineering and computer science make up only 4.4 to 12.3 percent of full professors, and only 16 to 27 percent of assistant professors. The article assessed several possible causes for this gender gap and dismissed several of the more popular ones, including an ability gap (Larry Summers' pet theory), a stronger desire for work-life balance than comparable men, and general sex discrimination. In fact, according to one statistic in the article, women were actually more likely than men to be hired for tenure track positions, proportional to the number of women who apply.
But only 20 percent of the people applying for tenure-track positions are women. Women are gone long before tenure becomes an issue. The reason, the study's authors propose, is that tenure track requires potential professors to demonstrate incredible productivity, a willingness to work long hours, and the ability to relocate for a job. The most demanding years in the process usually happen when candidates are around ages 30 to 35 -- which, as it happens, are also key years for starting a family. As a result, "[o]nly one in three women who accepts a fast-track university job before having a child ever becomes a mother," and '[a]mong tenured scientists, only 50 percent of women are married with children, compared to 72 percent of men." As the articles authors write, "For women who want to have children and a career in science, the picture is not pretty."
This holds true outside of science and math, and outside of the academy. One study found that mothers were 79% less likely to be hired, 100% less likely to be promoted, and offered $11,000 less in starting salary than non-mothers, making discrimination against mothers by far the strongest form of gender bias. For examples outside the laboratory, just look at law firms, which demand a level of commitment similar to academics that also typically peaks in employees' early-to-mid 30s. While nearly 50 percent of incoming attorneys are women, the percentage drops to a mere 15 percent at the equity level.
The statistics are similarly grim in business. The American Scientist article cites a study that found that ten years after graduation from an M.B.A. program, only 52 percent women with children work full-time and full-year. Having kids may be a choice, but the choice has dire consequences for women and not for men. That's literally the definition of discrimination.
Williams and Ceci put forth a series of policy suggestions for how to eliminate or diminish the brain drain that takes place in the academy as women start having children. Their suggestions include educating women about the potential consequences of taking time off or pursuing alternative career paths, instituting a part-time tenure track, or allowing primary caregivers to stop the tenure clock while their children are young.
This is all good advice, although it's worth noting that these policies also exist at many universities but are underutilized because of the perception -- and often the reality -- that they make the stigma of motherhood worse, not better. Penn State, for example, has a system in place for parental leave, but in a study conducted between 1992 and 1999, only seven parental leaves were reported out of 500 professors who had children. "Those who utilize the policies may be viewed as uncommitted and, at worst, experience the ultimate failure for an academic in the denial of tenure," the study noted. And while many universities have policies that allow professors to stop the tenure clock, tenure review committees often aren't even apprised of the policy -- which of course effectively negates it.
The burden professional mothers carry is, by and large, metaphorical, but that doesn't mean it doesn't weigh them down. And if we continue to refuse accommodations to pregnant women -- whether those accommodations are help lifting a 50-pound box a more flexible tenure timeline -- gender inequality isn't going anywhere.
Follow Joan Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JoanCWilliams
We have to look at the societal bias to identify why the consequences don't affect men. With the divorce rate being what it is, and the number of mothers that get physical custody, because they want it (just as many fathers would like it as well if given the chance), then they would be more responsible for the day-to-day caring of the children, and society just bills the father, leaving his schedule open.
To say it is discrimination AGAINST mothers is an interesting take on the reality of what is happening in society. If physical custody were given to men in 50% of the cases, I think you'd see just as many men with "dire consequences" as women. But as a society, we just can't seem to see past the nose on our face. We do things in one area of law, and then point to the results as some great discrimination that is going on. Well, until all are considered equal, in both the home and the workplace, the results of the discrimination in one area will have "dire consequences" in others. But until we do something about the cause, we can only "band-aid" the symptom.
How about a husband who is willing to stay home or put his own career on hold while the wife persues her own career? Men are more successful because they have more support at home, if women had the outside support then they could do just as well.
Maybe that's part of the "women aren't treated equal" problem. Over 50% should be serving.
Women are awarded full custody 90% of the time. 50% is equal.
90% of worked killed on the job are men. Must be because men are so "threatened" by women taking over the dangerous dirty jobs that result in death they need to put them back where they thhing they should be - in an air conditioned office complaining they aren't paid equally to men who get killed doing dirty dangerou work.
Yeppers. I think you got this whole thing figgered out.
Shameful. Let's also get all disabled out of the workforce so jobs open up. That's nature, too.
My husband works in a "heavy lifting" job. In the "old days" the young guys did most of the heavy lifting then transitioning into more lighter lifting and desk work as they aged out.
Now with gender quotas, the "old guys" STILL have to do all the heavy lifting while the women took over the lighter duties and desk work.
At 60 years old my husband is doing heavy lifting while 20 year old women have taken over most of the slots once held by strong 20 young men willing to do the heavy work.
Rotator cuff surgery, double hernia surgery, extreme back and joint pain is the price my husband pays for women's "equality" and "helping them out".
It's all about choices and whether or not we accept the responsibility that comes with them. We can't be free to make a choice and then complain about the result. That's why choices are available to everyone.
No woman bares that responsibility. It is a choice she makes. Does she want a child at this point in her life? Does she want to have it and give it up? Does she want an abortion? Does she want to be with that child and raise it? Does she want to give it to the father, pay child support, and go after her career? There are so many options, that saying society forces her to do anything is ridiculous. You have to ask each individual woman (mother), why she made her choice. Maybe she didn't WANT to be a math professor. If she did, don't you think she'd be smart enough to weigh the consequences of each choice? We have to give women some credit here and let them make their choices, realizing that they are aware of the limitations they will face in being able to put the time into a full-time career. We can't just put our desire to work (both men and women) on mothers who have made the choice to balance.
I don't ask you to support MY choices, I don't "choose" to support yours.
I have a choice as well. Not just you.
I am child free by choice, but I'd really like to see that the people who parent the next generation are enabled to do so without having to give up on other important things in life.