The God of the Wage Gap
When it comes to the wage gap, we keep finding more and more explanations that really have nothing to do with "misogyny" or "patriarchy".
We once believed that there was a 30% wage gap, but that has continued to shrink as we've uncovered more and more reasons for it.
At one point we basically had this,
A 30% wage gap
Caused by:
- The patriarchy!
Then it turned into,
A 10% wage gap
Caused by:
-
Working hours
-
Career choice
-
Work experience
-
Aaaand the patriarchy!
Then we learned even more about it, so now we have a situation that looks like,
A 2% wage gap
Caused by:
-
Working hours
-
Career choice
-
Work experience
-
Salary negotiations
-
Lower productivity
-
Preferring benefits over pay
-
Preferring shorter commutes over pay
-
Unpaid time off
-
Different roles even if the job title is the same
-
...
-
The patriarchy strikes again!
When really it should look like,
-
Working hours
-
Career choice
-
Work experience
-
Salary negotiations
-
Lower productivity
-
Preferring benefits over pay
-
Preferring shorter commutes over pay
-
Unpaid time off
-
Different roles even if the job title is the same
-
Another unknown factor
-
Another unknown factor
-
Etc
And we even have good ideas for what some of those unknown factors are. We just haven't quantified everything yet (and it might not even technically be possible to do that).
Of course many radfems just go back and say that those factors are caused by the patriarchy. But we often find better explanations when we look in those directions, too. So at a certain point, patriarchy becomes less and less of a useful model as we push it further and further back.
To me this has very clear parallels with the God of the gaps argument. The God of the gaps is usually presented as "we don't understand this natural phenomenon, so God must have done it!".
For example, thousands of years ago, we didn't understand what lightning was. So we said the gods did it.
Well we eventually did figure out how to explain lighting, so we no longer say that the gods do it.
Over the years, that pattern has repeated itself over and over again. The more we look, the less God seems to do in the world. So the conclusion might be that God doesn't do very much at all. That even if we don't currently understand something, that doesn't mean that God is behind it.
I think similar logic can be used when talking about the patriarchy. The patriarchy is really this floppy, nebulous idea that we keep pushing further and further into the shadows. Today it looks more like a conspiracy theory than anything concrete and physical in the real world.
Hence I think a lot of the debates around patriarchy and the wage gap resembles something you'd be more likely to see inside of religious debates than anything factual or scientific.
Posted May 6, 2023, 11:43 PM UTC Β· edited
I think that's an accurate criticism of the "radical feminist" approach and it is more akin to a religion. I would hold up as a counter-example, though, which is that women disproportionately comprise low-wage service work relative to their share of the population. Think food service, fast food, Starbucks. That seems to be what's really driving the gender pay gap: women are concentrated in "lower" sectors of the economy and they're paid less and treated badly. This work is devalued, and much of it is non-union, and it'd be worth looking at how male chauvinist ideas help reinforce that situation.
But that's a particular, concrete example rooted in some material analysis. And we can reason out from that particular example to a general indictment of how capitalism exploits the work of many to enrich the few, and then unite in particular struggles such as campaigns to organize the working class against our common enemy.
There's growing research indicating that women prefer "people" jobs while men prefer "things" jobs.
I left that out of my post because it's, well, technically idpol I guess?
But then so is your statement. So that's an example of where feminists say ok I see your reasoning, but patriarchy is what causes those things! And then when you look at it, you still find something more logical than this nebulous patriarchy idea.
I do agree that at the end of the day it's capitalism though.
If you consider your example, you can see this pretty clearly: it ultimately comes down to supply and demand.
Anyone can take your order at a restaurant. It's not (technically) difficult. You don't need a lot of training and you don't have to be very smart, strong, or anything like that. You just have to show up.
Compare that to like a trades worker who needs to be both physically strong, smart enough to understand technical concepts, and requires a good bit of training before (s)he can do the job.
It's an explanation that exists inside of capitalism, not patriarchy, or "chauvinism", or any of those other feminist dogmas. But that also means it would go away with capitalism as well. So any feminist who claims to care about these issues should give up on their idpol male hatred and instead look at Marxism.
I don't get why it would be more logical to assume "women just like the jobs that pay less" than to do a more complex analysis of the relationship between the jobs traditionally occupied by women and capital and labor. Could women's lower wages be related to how women were excluded from trade unions in the earlier half of the 20th century, for example? It feels like you're working backwards from the conclusion that the patriarchy is a silly idea to try to find alternative explanations other than that sexism is a real force that has had lasting impacts.
e: for that matter, why are you equating the belief in an all-encompassing patriarchy with the belief that the wage gap exists and has sexism as a cause? It's certainly not necessary to believe in the first to believe in the second, and you can't simply dismiss the reality of the second with your lack of belief in the first.
It's really simple. Service jobs, like waiting tables, are comprised entirely of young people, men and women in equal measure (since they don't have experience), or slightly older women (precisely because they can be part-time, flexible hours, can dip in and out of employment, and one can do such a job while managing a family at home).
So the question is simply why women do most of the family-work at home. And that's because women give birth to children, and men don't.