CHAPTER

13
Is the Gender Gap in
Pay a Myth?
U N DE RSTAN DI NG GEND ER
IN E QU AL ITIES AT WORK

I f you do an Internet search for “gender gap in pay,” one of the first things you may
discover is that the gender gap in pay is not real. Numerous Internet sources—many of
them credible—have called the gender gap in pay a “myth.” While these sources concede
that the gender gap in pay exists on paper, it is a myth, they argue, that the pay gap is pro-
duced by some nefarious, discriminatory plot against women, perpetrated by sexist men
in business and government. Writing for Forbes, a prominent business magazine, Karin
Agness Lips (2016) characterized the gender pay gap as an effort by progressives “to con-
vince women that they are the victims of systematic societal discrimination, and, there-
fore, stand to benefit from further government action.” Instead, Lips and others argue, the
gender gap in pay is simply the reflection of individual decisions. Men work more than
women and work harder jobs than women, these voices assert. Therefore, men should be
paid more than women. Jordan Peterson (Friedersdorf 2018), an established professor
of psychology and popular podcaster, explains the gender gap in pay as a reflection of
fundamental gender differences. Women are inherently nurturing, he suggests, and men
naturally competitive, leading men and women to make different career choices. From
this perspective, the gender gap in pay reflects biology, not gender discrimination.
The notion that the gender pay gap is a myth has risen in popularity in recent years.
Unfortunately, this perspective is overly simplistic, lacking nuance. A more sophisticated
approach would ask questions like, If men are choosing to work more hours than women,
why is that the case? If women are choosing to care for their children, rather than devote
themselves to their careers, why is that the case? The sociological perspective brings
nuance to these questions. It examines the choices individual people make but also places
these choices within a broader context. It blends, in other words, explanations that focus
on the individual and social context.
The central question explored in this chapter is why do men outearn women? Like all
sociological explorations of inequality, this question is best answered by taking a look at
dynamics that occur at the micro and macro levels. Accordingly, our exploration begins

407
408 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

first with the role of the player: the choices individual women and men make that contrib-
ute to unequal earnings. Yet because sociologists know that no one lives in a bubble, we
also explore how the choices of men and women are shaped by the rules of the game: the
way work is structured and how that impinges on men’s and women’s work experiences
and wages. Once we do that, we see that the gender gap in pay is not a myth but a complex
reality produced by sometimes unseen and unnamed social forces. This chapter shows
that the structure of society at the macro level influences people’s micro-level behaviors
and that decisions at the micro level aggregate to form the macro-level architecture of our
society. First, let’s look at some numbers and explore the financial scope of the gender
gap in pay.

THE GENDER GAP IN PAY—HOW UNEQUAL ARE WE?

When I was in graduate school, one of the student organizations on campus sponsored a
“Feminist Bake Sale.” Spread across the table was an assortment of goodies—peanut but-
ter cookies with Hershey kisses on top, neat square Rice Krispies treats, messy seven-layer
bars, and more. What made this a feminist bake sale was that students were selling each
item to women for 75 cents but to men for a dollar. The goal was to raise awareness of the
gender gap in pay, charging men and women in proportion to their average earnings in
society (at that time). While the University of Maine declared one of these bake sales on
its campus illegal—alleging that it violated the state’s civil rights laws—the gender gap in
pay itself has not been declared illegal.
The gender gap in pay is typically expressed as a ratio of how much the average
woman earns for every dollar earned by the average man. One way is to compare all work-
ing men to all working women; here, we find that women earn about 68 cents for every
dollar earned by a man. Yet because women are less likely than men to work full-time,

PHOTO 13.1
The gender gap in
pay has narrowed
over time.

iStockphoto.com/hyejin kang
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 409

year-round, a different comparison is needed. Looking only at full-time, year-round work-

ers (FTYR), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019a) data indicate that the gender gap in
pay is about 81 cents to the dollar. At the Feminist Bake Sale, I could buy a cupcake for
81 cents, while a male colleague would have to fork over a dollar. While women like me
may get a deal at the bake sale, the broader social reality is one of disadvantage. Annually,
this disparity translates into median earnings of about $43,836 for women who work full-
time, and $53,144 for full-time employed men.
As Figure 13.1 shows, the pay gap among full-time workers has been closing over time.
During the 1960s, the average woman earned about 60 cents for every dollar earned by
the average man; that ratio continued through the late 1970s. During the 1980s and ’90s,
women’s wages increased, while men’s wages began to stagnate. This led to a narrowing
of the gap. At the end of the chapter, we consider how the gender gap in pay may change
in the coming decades.
Taking an intersectional perspective, Figure 13.2 shows that the gender gap in pay var-
ies along racial lines. The data show that the gender gap in pay is smaller among Black and
Hispanic workers than it is among Asian and white workers. For example, women of Asian
descent earn 76 cents for every dollar earned by an Asian man, but Black women earn 89
cents for every dollar earned by a Black man. Why might this be the case? A big reason is that
disadvantaged minorities already have lower wages, so that Black and Hispanic women are
less financially able to take time off of work when they have children; the fact that they return
to work more quickly after having a child minimizes the “experience gap” between themselves
and men in their same racial/ethnic group, and keeps men’s and women’s wages more on par.
Although it is useful to know how much women earn compared to men on average,
this statistic conceals as much as it reveals. For example, it does not take into account
hours worked or years of experience, performance or productivity, level of education, or
the type of work women and men do. Therefore, more refined comparisons are needed.

figure 13.1   Gender Gap in Pay Over Time

Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s

85
82.2 82.182.5 81.9 81.8
81.2 81.1
80 80.4 81 80.880.279.980.2 80.9 81.1
79.4
77.9
77.1 76.976.4
75.8
76.4 76.376.5
75.5 75
75 74.2 74.4

71.9
70 69.569.8
70.270.1

67.668.1
66.5
65.7
65
64.2 64.4
62.3
60
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985

1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997

Womens Pay
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2018/home.htm#:~:text=In%20
2018%2C%20women's%20earnings%20ranged,percent%20of%20what%20men%20did.
410 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

figure 13.2   Gender Gap in Pay by Race/Ethnicity

Median Weekly Earnings

Hispanic
$617
$720

Black $654
$735
$817
White
$1,002

Asian $937
Americans $1,241

All Groups $789

$973
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400
Women Men
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/median-weekly-earnings-were-806-for-women-1004-
for-men-in-first-quarter-2019.htm

figure 13.3   Gender Gap in Pay by Occupational Sector

Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s

Construction 99%
Real Estate 90%
Education 84%
Public Administration
(Government) 82%
Retail 81%
Information Technology 78%
Manufacturing 78%
Health and Social Service 72%
Finance 64%
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Women’s Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s

Source: Statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/244202/us-gender-wage-gap-by-industry/

Figure 13.3 illustrates the scope of the gender pay gap across occupational sectors. This
allows a comparison of men and women working the same job. Data from the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics (2019b) show that women outearn men by a few cents (on the dollar) in
only a small number of fields, namely lower-paying occupations, including teacher assis-
tants, restaurant/bar employees, and paralegals. In fact, it is among the higher-paying
fields that the gender gap in pay is the largest. For example, in the financial services sec-
tor, women earn 64 cents for every dollar earned by a male counterpart. Among physi-
cians and surgeons, women earn 71 cents on the dollar (Goldin 2014). Surprisingly, there
are some “brawny” fields where the gender pay gap is smaller. In construction trades, for
example, women earn 99 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Strange right? It makes
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 411

more sense, though, given the fact that construction trades are heavily unionized, with
predictable wage calculations.
When looking at these figures, it is important to look beyond the ratio of what
the average woman earns for every dollar earned by the average man. On a weekly
basis, the typical woman earns $789 while the typical man earns $973. This $200
gap may or may not sound like a lot to you. On an annual basis, though, it trans-
lates into a difference of $10,000, with an average income for women of about
$43,836, and $53,144 for men. These disparities also mean that each year women
have smaller contributions to Social Security; in jobs with retirement accounts and
raises, these are smaller as well, since raises and benefits are typically calculated in
relation to one’s base salary. Across the life course, men earn about a million dollars
more than women.
Finally, the gender gap in pay starts early. As teens, girls do more chores than their
male counterparts (Crouter, Head, Bumpus, and McHale 2001; Raley and Bianchi 2006).
Frank Stafford and his team have found that the average girl does about 7 hours of
chores each week and the average boy about 5; data suggest, though, that the gender gap
in chores has been shrinking over time (Schellenbarger 2006). What’s more, boys get
paid more for doing less. A report from the allowance app BusyKid (2018) shows that
during 2018, boys’ weekly allowance was $13.80 and girls’ allowance was $6.71. Notations
in the app indicated that boys were being paid to brush their teeth and take showers,
while girls were not. So what are boys doing in their downtime? They are not sleeping
or doing homework, the study suggests, but playing and watching TV. This is called the
leisure gap—whereby each week boys experience about 2 hours more “free time” than
girls. All together, these statistics indicate that the gap in pay is real and substantial and
persists from childhood through retirement.

THE GENDERED PLAYER: MICRO-LEVEL EXPLANATIONS

FOR THE PAY GAP
So why does the gender gap in pay exist? The metaphor of the player draws attention
to the circumstances and choices made by individuals. When it comes to the pay gap,
this means focusing on the gendered choices of men and women, as well as the possibil-
ity that some players are “poor sports” who cheat or otherwise give advantages to their
own “team.” The notion that some players cheat refers, of course, to discrimination at the
micro level. Many people assume that individual players—usually men—use their power
and position to create bastions of male privilege in the workplace, overtly discriminat-
ing against female applicants and employees. Statistical analyses, however, suggest that
overt sexism and the rigging of the game by poor sports and cheats is relatively rare. In
fact, only a small portion of the 20 cent difference may reflect overt discrimination. A
more significant explanation for the pay gap focuses on men’s and women’s decisions:
whether to go to college, what to major in, what type of job to pursue, and how to balance
work and family obligations. The totality of these decisions shapes a person’s human
412 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

capital—differences among workers in terms of educational background, occupation,

years of experience, and hours worked. A substantial portion of the gender gap in pay
reflects differences in human capital and the fact that men and women are different kinds
of workers, with different work histories and employment characteristics (Blau 2012;
Blau and Khan 2008). The fact that men and women accumulate different amounts of
human capital, however, reflects years of socialization and decisions made in light of how
work is organized at the macro level.

Gender Segregation in the Workplace

Looking at gender differences in human capital, it is essential to point out that much
of the labor force is segregated along gender lines. Men and women choose different lines
of work and approach them differently. Think for a moment about the major you have
chosen or the job you hope to have one day. Is it considered a “man’s” or a “woman’s” job?
Traditionally, men have been more heavily employed in white- and blue-collar jobs, while
women have been concentrated in pink-collar jobs. Using the metaphor of the player, this
means that men and women wear different “uniforms” and play in different occupational
“leagues.” Because men and women choose different kinds of work, and because this work
has different economic and social value, men end up earning more.
Researchers have numerous tools for documenting the occupational choices of male and
female workers. To put these numbers in context, it’s important to note that women make up
47% of the labor force. That is, men and women are nearly equally represented among U.S.
workers. Yet significant gender imbalances exist across occupational sectors (see Table 13.1).
For example, women comprise just 4% of workers in “construction and extraction” occupations

table 13.1   Gender Segregation by Occupational Sector

Percent Female Percent Male

All Occupations 47% 53%

Constructional and Extraction Operations 4% 96%

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 4% 96%

Transportation and Moving Materials 23% 77%

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 25% 75%

Art, Design, Entertainment, and Media 49% 51%

Sales and Related Occupations 49% 51%

Management, Business, and Financial Operations 44% 56%

Community/Social Service Occupations 68% 32%

Education, Training, and Library 74% 26%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 413

table 13.2   Gender Hypersegregation by Occupation

Occupational Category Percent Female Percent Male

Occupations with High Concentration
of Females

Preschool and Kindergarten Teachers 98.7% 1.3%

Secretaries and Administrative Assistants 93.2% 6.8%

Paralegals and Legal Assistants 89.6% 10.4%

Nurses (RNs) 88.9% 11.1%

Librarians 79.9% 21.1%

Occupations with High Concentration of Males

Construction Management 10% 90%

Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers 7.5% 92.5%

Mechanical Engineers 6.6% 93.4%

Firefighters 3.3% 96.7%

Auto Mechanics 1.9% 98.1%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

and “installation, maintenance, and repair” occupations but about 74% of teachers and librar-
ians. The two sectors that come closest to gender parity—where men and women are rep-
resented relatively equally—are “sales” and “art, design, entertainment, and media.” Gender
segregation in the workplace is so pronounced that some occupations are “hypersegregated.”
Table 13.2 documents some of these occupations, indicating that nearly 99% of preschool and
kindergarten teachers in the United States are women and 98% of auto mechanics are men.
The gender dissimilarity index measures the degree to which occupations are seg-
regated by gender. It indicates that while U.S. occupations have become more integrated
since the 1970s, about 50% of men and women would have to switch jobs to achieve gen-
der parity in the workplace. Yet few men and women would like to switch jobs. Occu-
pational segregation reflects notions of “gender essentialism”—deeply rooted cultural
beliefs that women are (biologically) suited to jobs that involve nurturing and human ser-
vice (teaching, nursing), while men are (biologically) suited to jobs that involve physical
strength and abstract analysis (construction, engineering) (Charles and Grusky 2004). As
such, occupational choices reflect years of gender socialization, whereby young men and
women draw conclusions about what they are good at, what they are interested in, and the
social roles they are likely to occupy as adults (breadwinner, caretaker); these beliefs then
guide their occupational choices, leading to unequal outcomes (Correll 2001).
So far, we have explored some of the reasons why men and women choose different
occupations. But why is it that “women’s jobs” are routinely paid less than “men’s jobs”?
One hypothesis is that men’s jobs are paid more because they are dangerous and that
414 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

PHOTO 13.2
The danger wage
premium.

iStockphoto.com/ilkercelik

table 13.3   Top 10 Dangerous Jobs

Fatalities Per 100,00 Workers Percent Male

Logging Workers 135.9 98%

Fishers and Related Fishing Workers 86 ---

Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers 55.5 93%

Roofers 48.6 98%

Refuse and Recyclable Materials Collectors 34.1 92%

Structural Iron and Steel Workers 25.1 99%

Truck Drivers and Other Drivers 24.7 93%

Farmers, Ranchers, and Agricultural Managers 23.1 76%

Construction Supervisors 18 90%

Grounds Maintenance/Gardeners 17.4 94%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm

workers should be compensated in advance for risking their lives at work. This has been
called the danger wage premium (or the wage-risk premium). It is true that men are
concentrated in the jobs that pose the greatest health risks. Table 13.3 shows that the most
dangerous jobs in the United States are disproportionately held by men. Unfortunately,
researchers don’t know whether the danger associated with these jobs is why men are paid
more. Others have hypothesized that women’s jobs are paid less because they generally
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 415

have other “benefits,” like physical safety and emotional benefits (Stier and Yaish 2014).
As it turns out, many variables determine how much different jobs are paid, so that some
statistical models show that the gender gap in pay is reflective of men’s more danger-
ous jobs (Strawiński and Celińska-Kopczyńska 2019), while other models do not support
this conclusion (Aldy and Smyth 2014; Dorman and Hagstrom 1998). For the time being,
then, we cannot confidently argue that men are paid more because they take on dangerous
jobs that women would rather not do.
A second hypothesis is that jobs held by women are paid less simply because they are
held by women (Bielby and Baron 1987). From this perspective, the wage gap reflects a
general devaluation of women, not the actual traits associated with different jobs, such as
how much education, skill, or physical risk is involved in doing them. Careful statistical
analyses show that as the rate of women working in a given occupation increases, pay
in that occupation declines—even when controlling for education and skills (Levanon,
England, and Allison 2009). If it sounds a bit extreme, the idea that women’s jobs are
paid less simply because women do them, consider a few illustrations. Take the job of
the computer operator. Back in the 1940s, women were the first computer operators and
programmers; one film that nicely documents this is Hidden Figures, which tells the story
of Black women’s contribution to the U.S. space program. Since the 1960s, more men
have entered the field of computing. As men entered this growing occupation, the job was
redefined as intellectually demanding, rather than a routine clerical task. While the job
duties themselves changed little, computer programming was socially reconstructed as
suitable for men and, consequently, commanded higher pay. Historical and cross-­cultural
case studies show that as women have moved into dentistry, pharmaceutical occupations,
veterinary medicine, book publishing, banking, psychology, and clerical work, those
formerly male-dominated positions have lost prestige and pay (Cohn 1985; Irvine and
Vermilya 2010; Kimmel 2009; Reskin and Roos 1990; Strober and Arnold 1987). These
patterns suggest that part of the reason women are paid less is that the work they do is
constructed as less difficult and less important.

Academic Majors and Professional Specialization

Another choice that impacts the gender gap in pay is the decision to go to college and
the selection of a major course of study. Although women represent the majority of col-
lege graduates, their wages continue to lag behind their male counterparts. As Figure 13.4
shows, men earn more than women at every level of education. One reason for this, as
suggested, is that men and women segregate themselves into different occupations; for
college students, this means first segregating themselves into different majors.
Consider your own major and the classes you are taking this term. While courses at
the lower level—general education courses, especially—tend to be gender-integrated, once
students move into their majors, many find themselves in gender-segregated classrooms.
Once again, based on years of socialization and assessments of what one enjoys and
expectations of adult roles, individual players choose to play for gender-segregated teams.
416 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

figure 13.4   Gender, Education, and the Pay Gap

Men’s and Women’s Earnings by Educational Attainment

140,000
127,230
120,000
100,180
100,000 91,600

80,000 71,990
68,510
60,000 54,700 52,440
42,440 40,640
40,000 32,240

20,000

0
High School or Associates Degree Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree Professional Degree
Equivalent Men Women
Source: NCES 2019; 502.20

table 13.4   Bachelor’s Degrees Granted by Gender and Field of Study

Field of Study/Major Percent Male Percent Female

Health Professions 16% 84%

Education 19% 81%

English Language and Literature 29% 71%

Communications 34% 66%

Social Science and History 50% 50%

Business 53% 47%

Mathematics and Statistics 58% 42%

Engineering 78% 22%

Computer and Information Sciences 80% 20%

All Fields 43% 57%

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics: 2018 (2019; 322.40 and 322.50).

Gender patterns are especially evident in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering,
and math). Not only are these fields growing and high-paying, they are also heavily pop-
ulated by males. As Table 13.4 shows, males make up 78% of those majoring in engi-
neering and construction trades and 80% of computer and information sciences majors.
Female students, by contrast, make up 84% of those majoring in health professions and
81% of education majors. The broad field of social science is split evenly between men
and women, yet men outnumber women in economics while women outnumber men in
sociology.
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 417

While some hypothesize that women are less likely to enter STEM fields due to lower
abilities in math and science, this appears not to be the case. Even when female students
have high math scores on the SAT, they are less likely than their male peers to major
in fields like economics, math, or engineering (Turner and Bowen 1999). As with occu-
pational choices more broadly, socialization plays a powerful role in shaping students’
choice of major. Many college students appear to choose majors based on expectations of
the future: Male students may focus more on pay and the expectation of being a bread-
winner, while female students may focus more on majors and jobs that help them balance
work and family (Turner and Bowen 1999; Zafar 2009).
Finally, even when women and men major in the same fields, obtain the same graduate
degrees, and enter the same occupations, gender differences in pay exist. Today, women
make up about half of those graduating with advanced degrees in law (JD), business
(MBA), and medicine (MD). Within those fields, women tend to specialize in subfields
that provide more job flexibility but are lower paying. In law, for example, men are more
likely to opt into the intense and highly paid—and time-consuming—fields of patent law
and mergers and acquisitions; women, by contrast, are more likely to opt into family law.
In medicine, women are more likely to become general practitioners or family doctors—
which offer lower pay and more manageable schedules—while men select specialties like
anesthesiology, transplantation, or cardiology. Again, we see how macro-level forces of
gender socialization impact individual-level choices: The desire to balance work and ­family
remains at the forefront of women’s decisions, even when they earn advanced degrees.

Signing a Letter of Intent: Gender and Wage Negotiations

Once offered a job, the gender gap in pay is also shaped by differences among players
in their negotiation strategies. At the micro level, men are more likely to negotiate their
salaries, and when they do negotiate, they negotiate harder. Economist Linda Babcock
and coauthor Sara Laschever (2021) document these patterns in their book, Women Don’t
Ask: Gender and the Negotiation Divide. They report that men initiate wage negotiations
about 4 times as often as women; when they do negotiate, women typically ask for 30% less
than men. Moreover, while women described negotiations as a painful process, not unlike
going to the dentist, men saw them as a lively competition. Context matters, though, in
terms of women’s tendency to negotiate: Women appear more inclined to negotiate when
they are advocating on behalf of someone else—a friend, a child, or coworker—than when
they advocate for themselves (Amanatullah and Morris 2010; Mazei et al. 2015).
How can we explain these gender differences in negotiation? As discussed in Chapter
7, male gender socialization revolves around toys and social interactions that emphasize
competition and one-upmanship. In her work on gendered patterns of communication,
linguist Deborah Tannen (1996) argues that men tend to communicate using report
talk—a style of conversation built on establishing dominance and status. Female gen-
der socialization revolves around toys and social interactions that emphasize consensus
and common ground. According to Tannen, women tend to use rapport talk, a style of
418 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

PHOTO 13.3
Women negotiate
their salaries less
often than men;
this may reflect the
tyranny of nice

iStockphoto.com/gradyreese

communication aimed at finding consensus and collective well-being that avoids rocking
the boat. Scholars use the term the tyranny of nice to describe one overarching message
of gender socialization: that women should be nice, polite, deferential, and cooperative,
above all else (Martin 2003). The fact that women are more likely to negotiate on behalf of
others than for themselves suggests that self-motivated assertive behavior may be uncom-
fortable and undesirable on the part of women, while acting on behalf of others is seen
as more congruent with women’s communal gender role. Experimental research shows
that women are less comfortable with the notion of negotiating, with its adversarial con-
notation, but more comfortable asking for a raise (Small, Gelfand, Babcock, and Getman
2007). Women are more comfortable asking for a raise, since it is seen as a linguistic
gesture of politeness and deference used when attempting to get something from another,
which is consistent with low-power social roles women have typically occupied at work
(Brown and Levinson 1987).
As it turns out, women who do negotiate may face obstacles. Experimental research
shows that male evaluators are less likely to want to hire or work on a team with women—
but not men—who initiate negotiations. Women who initiated negotiations were seen as
demanding and not nice (Bowles, Babcock, and Lai 2007). It is possible, then, that wom-
en’s disinclination to negotiate is a rational strategy; the outcome is that women who
don’t negotiate experience a financial penalty at work but receive a social premium, as
they are seen as more likeable and easier to work with.
Returning to the economic significance of the gender gap in pay, Babcock and Lasch-
ever (2021) note that what may start out as a relatively minimal salary difference between
men and women in their first jobs tends to accumulate over time. Over the course of a
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 419

woman’s career, the consistent decision not to negotiate could cost her between $1 and
$2 million—and that does not account for related differences in retirement contributions.
Although it may be tempting to recommend that women simply reframe the act of nego-
tiating as a polite request in conversation, researchers have discovered that asking for a
raise may itself bring penalties.

Trying to Play for Two Teams: Balancing Work and Family

Can men and women “have it all”? Is it possible in this day and age for players to play
for two teams—the “home team” and the “work team”? At the micro level, the real and
perceived decision to have a family has a measurable and disparate impact on the work
experiences of women and men. One of the biggest reasons why women earn less than
men, even when they work the same job, is that they are more likely to take time off of
work and/or reduce their work hours when they have children. Among heterosexual cou-
ples, a calculation takes place: Which parent is best suited to provide for the child’s needs
(breastfeeding, for example), and whose earnings will take less of a hit by taking time off?
Because the average woman earns less than the average man, in heterosexual relation-
ships this often leads to the decision for the mother to stay home, to cut back at work, to
pick the child up from school when sick, and so forth.
Men and women with children combine work and family differently. Table 13.5 shows
labor force participation rates, indicating that for men with children under the age of
18, working is pretty much universal; yet among women, about 33% opt out of the labor
force when they have children under age 6, and 28% of women with children under age 18
continue to opt out. Among women who work, about 30% work part-time, while just 16%
of working men are part-time workers. The decision to take a break from work or move to
part-time employment takes place in a macro-level context where women earn less than
men. In the short term, it makes sense for women who earn less than their male partners
to take time off. Over time, however, these individual-level decisions result in substantial
differences in human capital in terms of skill and seniority, as workers with less human
capital are worth less in the labor market. It is estimated that among married women, the
birth of each child results in a 5% to 10% decrease in wages (Budig and England 2001;
Gough and Noonan 2013). The reduction in wages among mothers is called the mother-
hood penalty and reflects changes in their labor force participation after the birth of a
child. For female players, their commitment to the home team can be expensive.

table 13.5   Labor Force Participation by Gender and Child Age

Children Under 6 Children Under 18

Men 94.5% 93.4%

Women 66.4% 72.3%

Source: Employment Characteristics of Families, 2020.

420 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

PHOTO 13.4
Motherhood penalty

iStockphoto.com/MilosStankovic

The tendency for women with children to exit the labor force or cut back at work has
been called the mommy track. In a New York Times Magazine article on the subject,
journalist Lisa Belkin (2013) profiled a group of women who exited the labor force, despite
their prestigious degrees and high-profile jobs. According to Belkin, these women actively
made choices—choices they did not seem to regret—to reject the world of work and rede-
fine the meaning of success. “I don’t want to be on the fast track leading to a partnership
at a prestigious law firm,” Katherine Brokaw told Belkin. “Some people define that as
success. I don’t.” These women touted the joys of motherhood and admitted that they
simply didn’t want to “work that hard.” Some women used the language of essentialism
and suggested that as women, they had been born with less desire to compete and more
desire to nurture. In asking “Why don’t women run the world?” Belkin concludes, “Maybe
it’s because they don’t want to.”
Yet many women with children do return to the workforce—whether because of a
desire or need to work—and when they do, being a mother may harm them further. Audit
studies show that mothers are perceived as less competent and less deserving of higher
salaries, compared to working fathers (Correll, Benard, and Paik 2007). Biases against
mothers were even greater among successful women with high-quality work histories
(Benard and Correll 2010). Men, by contrast, were often rewarded for being fathers: They
were “seen as more committed to paid work and offered higher starting salaries” (Correll
et al. 2007, 1332). This dynamic has been called the fatherhood premium: a pattern
where married men with children are paid more than those without children—even after
controlling for relevant human capital traits (qualifications, experience). It is estimated
that coresidential fathers (those who live with their children) experience a 4% to 6% boost
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 421

to their wages—even when work experience, marital status, and other variables that affect
wages are taken into account (Budig 2014; Killewald 2013). Because the fatherhood pre-
mium cannot be explained by human capital factors, sociologists believe it simply reflects
a cultural preference and a belief that married men with children make the best workers,
along with a perception that a “family man” is more mature and committed. In short,
having children can be a bonus for men but a detriment for women.

EXPLORING INTERSECTIONALITY
The choice for women to opt out of the labor market to care for their children plays a big
role in the gender gap in pay. Yet not every couple is composed of a man and a woman
who make gendered decisions about who cares for a child. This means we need to move
beyond heteronormative assumptions and take an intersectional approach to more fully
understand how gender and sexuality shape couple’s efforts to balance work and family.
Let’s take a look at what sociologists have learned about how lesbian and gay couples bal-
ance their work lives and responsibilities at home.
When it comes to heterosexual families, women complete two-thirds of all household
duties, while men complete about one-third. This is quite a change from the 1960s, when
women completed about 5 hours of household labor compared to each hour completed by
their male partner. So how do gay and lesbian couples approach the household division
of labor? Gay and lesbian couples strive toward egalitarianism and distribute housework
more equally compared to heterosexual couples (Biblarz and Savci 2010; Brewster 2017;
Goldberg 2013). In same-sex families, it is less likely for one partner to do a dispropor-
tionate amount of the housework. When differences in the division of labor do emerge, the
partner with less income, more job flexibility, or less notoriety within their field is usually
the one that takes on more housework (Brewster 2017; Goldberg 2013). In this way, the
distribution of labor in same-sex families is determined by availability, resources, and
personal preferences rather than heteronormative gender roles.
Some researchers believe that same-sex families tend to distribute housework more
equally because gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are more flexible in their gender
identity and expression (Goldberg 2013). Because gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals
are more flexible in how they “do” gender, they are less beholden to traditionally gendered
family roles. Yet this does not necessarily mean that gay and lesbian families are “gender-
less” in their division of labor. Abbie Goldberg’s (2013) research suggests that same-sex
couples are influenced by heteronormative “meaning systems” surrounding housework,
and that they both resist and reinforce these systems through their division of labor. In
butch-femme couples for example, one partner may devote herself to a domestic role and
nurture family, beauty, and femininity; as opposed to heterosexual couples of the 1950s,
however, a femme role in a lesbian couple is not necessarily one of less power.
In addition to having a gender and a sexuality, family members also have a race.
Mignon Moore’s (2008) research examines all of these identities together, shedding
light on how Black lesbian women do gender. Looking at both the division of labor and
422 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

parenting roles, she finds that while both partners share the role of provider, the biologi-
cal mother tends to take on more housework. In exchange, the biological mother acquires
more authority in the household and greater control over household functions, such as
financial and child-rearing decisions. While these differences exist outside the framework
of male privilege, they are not entirely separated from heteronormative gender roles.
Much like Goldberg, Moore suggests that traditional gendered notions of what makes
a family a “family” are engrained in our social institutions and influence how same-sex
couples navigate family life. How same-sex couples approach egalitarianism is influenced
by both race and gender; the division of labor Moore observed in Black lesbian families
differs from that observed in predominately white and middle-class families.
Less research has been conducted on gay fathers—in part because fewer of them
become parents. Whereas some research has examined the tremendous challenges—
financial and emotional—gay men face in becoming parents, others have looked at gay
men’s understandings of fatherhood (Carneiro, Tasker, Salinas-Quiroz, Leal, and Costa
2017). Even though gay men live outside of heteronormative expectations, they may
struggle to align masculine gender role expectations with parenting, and see being a good
or nurturing parent through a feminine lens. There is ample room for future discoveries
in this area, with Biblarz and Savci (2010) calling for research that takes a comparative
approach, examining how masculinity itself is understood and navigated outside of a het-
erosexual context.

THE GENDERED GAME: MACRO-LEVEL EXPLANATIONS FOR THE

GENDER GAP IN PAY
The decision to opt out of the labor force does not take place in a vacuum. When men
and women make decisions about how to balance work and family, they do so with the
macro-level context in mind. Across the globe, women in many societies don’t opt out—­
suggesting that something social is at work. Decisions about how to balance work and fam-
ily are shaped by broad cultural messages about gender roles along with considerations of
the social organization of work and the presence or absence of “family-friendly” policies.
In this section we discuss the gendered aspects of the game and how they ­perpetuate
­gender inequalities at work.

The Social Organization of Work: The Challenge of

Playing for Two Teams
The social organization of work in the United States makes it difficult for parents to
balance work and family roles. The social organization of work refers to the nearly
invisible and taken-for-granted ways in which work is structured in society. Elements
of this structure include (a) the fact that many jobs take place between the hours of 9 to
5 (or 8 to 6); (b) the fact that employees are expected to be most productive during their
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 423

childbearing years; and (c)

the lack of policies that help
employees balance work and
family life. The social orga-
nization of work has emerged
over the last century, with
male workers in mind. Nine- PHOTO 13.5
to-five schedules and going up More workplace
for major promotions during accommodations,
like a lactation room,
one’s most fertile years (in might help parents
law, medicine, academia, balance work and
and may other career fields) family

made sense when men were

the primary breadwinners
and women were the primary
caretakers. Then, Dad could
go to work and Mom could get
the kids off to school and take
care of the family business iStockphoto.com/Luke Wendling
(banking, doctors’ appointments, trips to the dry cleaners, grocery shopping). Today,
women represent 47% of all workers, but the workplace has not evolved to take into
consideration that nearly half of all workers may give birth to children. So why does
work have to take place from 9 to 5? Is there anything inherent in the nature of work
that requires it to be conducted during these hours? In fact, many workers would like to
have more flexible schedules; that way, going to the doctor or having a parent–teacher
conference would not require one to take time off from work.
As noted, one aspect of the social organization of work that can hinder women is that
many occupations require employees to be most productive during their early careers.
This feature of the game has gendered consequences, given that these years overlap with
women’s prime reproductive years. Jobs in sales, for example, ask that employees be
especially flexible during the beginning of their careers; committed workers are expected
to show their ambitions by being willing to travel—across the state, the nation, or the
globe—to meet with clients, attend conventions, and participate in social events that go
along with a sales job. In academia and law, the most significant work is done during the
first 6 years (or so) on the job. At that point, professors go up for tenure and lawyers can
be promoted to partner. Similarly, doctors enroll in residency programs where they are
asked to be almost singularly devoted to their professional development. While these are,
admittedly, high-level examples, the general principle applies to many jobs, but especially
those requiring a college degree.
Although some people do not aspire to become parents and others may have difficulty
becoming parents, 80% of all people do become parents—and most of these parents also
work. Barring unforeseen scientific discoveries, those who bear children will be women.
424 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

The tensions that exist between the social organization of work and gendered dimensions
of family life (and the fact that only women can give birth) mean that many women (and
their partners) must choose between work and family.
A reasonable solution to these tensions would be for employers to offer more part-
time options or flexible scheduling arrangements. In some fields, these are increasingly
common. Many jobs, however, maintain an all-or-nothing approach. While some pro-
fessionals do successfully reduce their hours (or work from home), others who choose
these options face a brick wall in terms of advancement. A part-time lawyer can still take
on cases, but it is unlikely they will be given the most interesting or demanding cases in
their firm. College professors can also have a hard time cutting back. If I wanted to cut my
course load from three classes to two classes per semester (thereby becoming an adjunct),
my salary would drop from about $30,000 to $4,000 per semester. In addition, I would
likely lose my employment benefits, like health care and retirement contributions. While
the same is true for a man who chooses to reduce his workload, gender schemas, biological
realities, and unequal paychecks mean that women are more likely to make these choices.
It is, of course, imperative to point out that while professionals may struggle to cut
back at work, other families cannot get enough work. The fact that many employees in ser-
vice occupations (retail, food service) are offered only part-time work is also problematic.
While these employees may have time to devote to their families, these lower-paying jobs
do not offer employees much in terms of affordable health care or the ability to provide
for many of their family’s basic needs.
Perhaps the primary reason that women accumulate less human capital than men and,
therefore, have lower incomes is that the United States lacks meaningful family leave
policies. Family leave policies include maternity and paternity leave, as well as the ability
to take care of a family member when sick. The United States is the only Western indus-
trialized country that does not offer paid maternity leave. What the United States has
instead is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Passed in 1993 under President
Bill Clinton, it provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave annually; the leave is available only to
people working in firms with more than 50 employees and can be used for the birth or
adoption of a child or to care for a sick family member. Unfortunately, as many as 40%
of workers are not covered by the FMLA, whether because they work in small firms or
because they have not worked long enough to be eligible. As of 2020, employees of the
federal government are now eligible for 12 weeks of paid leave. Despite the lack of a fed-
eral policy, some employers do offer paid leave to their workers: the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2019c) estimates that about 17% of the labor force has some form of paid family
leave. The lack of family leave has a significant impact on women’s earnings: As Figure
13.5 shows, women’s wages decline during periods of their life when they leave the labor
force to care for a family member.
Since the passage of the FMLA, the gender gap in pay has narrowed. Prior to its
passage, there was no guarantee that a woman’s job would be waiting for her when she
returned to work after a pregnancy. In fact, through the 1970s, pregnant women were
routinely terminated. Because the FMLA offers job-secured leave, workers are now able
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 425

figure 13.5   Gender and Wages Across the Life Course

Cumulative Lifetime Earnings

Over a lifetime of savings, a woman who takes three breaks from her career to care for children, parents,
and a spouse can end up with a total $1 million less in financial resources than men who have
continuously stayed in the workforce.

$2,000,000

$1,055,000
Lifetime gap
1,500,000 at retirement
Caregiving
Men
Spouse
1,000,000 Caregiving
Parent
Parenting
Women
500,000

0
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Source: Reshma Kapadia, The Stubborn Wealth Gap Between Men and Women. Barron's Online, Apr 19, 2018.
Copyright © 2018, Dow Jones & Company.

to return to their jobs and continue building seniority in the same, or equivalent, position.
Even so, the inadequacies of U.S. family leave policies mean that many women still have
stops and starts in their employment, leading to lower human capital accumulation and
lower pay over time (Hofferth and Curtin 2006).
Taking a closer look at the gendered dimension of family leave, research shows that
even when men have access to paternity leave (FMLA or employer sponsored), they may
not take it. Many men hesitate to take family leave, worried that doing so sends the mes-
sage they are not serious about their jobs, making them unlikely candidates for promo-
tion (Halverson 2003). In fact, research shows that men who request family leave may
be viewed as weak and less ambitious; these negative perceptions may lead to demotion
or being downsized (Rudman and Mescher 2013). When men perceive family leave as
unwise, this calculation can lead to the decision for their female partner to take time
off. Such concerns were even the case in Iceland and Sweden—two gender egalitarian
­countries—where men were not taking the paid leave they were offered; this led ­legislators
to requiring men to take paid leave.
While support for paid family leave in the United States has grown over time, some
remain concerned that family leave policies are simply too expensive. Indeed, paid leave
would have to be paid for, whether through employee or employer contributions. Yet nine
states and the District of Columbia have decided that the matter is so important they
have passed their own paid family leave laws (see Figure 13.6). In California, for exam-
ple, workers are entitled to 8 weeks of paid leave at 70% of their regular wage (capped at
426 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

figure 13.6   States With Paid Family Leave Policies

Washington New Hampshire Maine

Montana Minnesota Vermont
North Dakota Michigan
Oregon
Wisconsin Massachusetts
Idaho New York
South Dakota Rhode Island

an
ig
Connecticut

ich
Wyoming
Pennsylvania

M
Iowa New Jersey
Nebraska

a
Ohio

ian
Delaware
Illionois

Ind
Nebada West Maryland
Utah Virginia
Colorado Virginia Washington DC
Kansas Missouri Kentucky
California
North Carolina
Tennessee
Arkansas South
New Mexico Oklahoma Carolina
Arizona

i
Georgia

pp
Alabama

ssi
ssi
Mi
Texas
Louisiana

Florida

Alaska

Hawaii

States with paid family and medical leave laws

Source: Better Balance, https://www.abetterbalance.org/resources/paid-family-leave-laws-chart/

about $1,300 per week). In other states, the policy allows for 12 weeks of paid leave at
50% of one’s wage. Typically, these programs are paid for by a 1% deduction from each
employee’s paycheck; in some cases, the deduction is split equally between the employer
and employee.
The question, though, is whether these programs have been costly or burdensome for
employers. Employers report that the effects have been considerably more positive than
they expected—being neither especially costly nor cumbersome. In fact, researchers have
identified numerous benefits—to employers, to families, and to society as a whole. Employ-
ers, for example, experience more predictable returns to work from their employees and
have reduced the costs associated with employee turnover. In addition, they retain that
worker’s workplace expertise and don’t have to train a worker all over again. For mothers,
the policies have led to higher earnings and more predictable career advancement, as well
as better mental health (Bullinger 2019; Rossin-Slater 2017). Numerous studies suggest
that dedicating time for parents to be with their children in the earliest months of life
can bring significant health benefits to children (Burtle and Bezruchka 2016). For society
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 427

as a whole, then, this means a more productive workforce as well as healthier children,
which can reduce the amount spent on social service programs. Moreover, because the
California program has increased fathers’ participation in paid family leave, we can expect
a reduction in the gender pay gap as time goes on.
While the social organization of work applies to all genders equally, its conse-
quences are more deleterious for women, since they are the ones who bear children and
because couples typically make decisions about how to balance work and family life
in the context of women’s already lower wages. For young women in the early stages
of planning their careers, social norms still assume they will be the primary caregiver
(especially early on). In practice, these gender ideologies mean that many women select
careers that allow them to balance work and family life—like teaching, which conve-
niently takes place during the same hours that kids are in school and allows flexible
childcare during the summer. Young men are constrained, as well, since they may be
socialized to have a career that pays enough to support a family. The consequences of
these macro-level gender norms are that women tend to select jobs that are flexible
but lower paying, while men typically select jobs that are less flexible but offer greater
earning potential.
While these are heteronormative assumptions—based on the assumption that young
men and women will partner with someone of the other sex—they constrain the choices
of both men and women, and impact all women, regardless of sex or childbearing status.

Gendered Assumptions, Gender Dynamics, and

Cultural Organization of Work
Now, thinking about cultural expectations, we see that men’s and women’s experi-
ences at work—and the resulting gender gap in pay—are profoundly shaped by deeply
embedded notions about gender. Many workplace cultures reflect a male standard, where
workers in those settings are evaluated using a male standard of behavior—in terms of
appropriate behaviors, negotiation strategies, pursuit of career goals, and so forth. This
may not be intentional; it likely reflects the fact that men constitute the “default” worker
in society. These nearly invisible assumptions about what a “good worker” is like give
male workers privilege and set up barriers for many women.
The first step in getting a job is applying and, in many cases, submitting letters of rec-
ommendation. Numerous studies of letters of recommendation show that the language
in these letters is highly gendered. Female applicants are often described using “com-
munal” language (“a pleasure to work with,” a “team player”), along with adjectives like
hardworking, conscientious, dependable, meticulous, and diligent (Madera, Hebl, and
Martin 2009). Men, by contrast, are described using more “agentic” language (leader,
go-getter), and receive more “standout” adjectives, like brilliant, outstanding, superb, or
exceptional (Schmader, Whitehead, and Wysocki 2007). The framing of women as collab-
orative and men as competitive can influence hiring, especially in jobs where competitive
428 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

and ambitious function as shorthand for a desirable worker (Carnes, Bartels, Kaatz, and
Kolehmainen 2015).
A second step in getting a job is an interview or, using the language of the player
and the game, a “tryout.” An unconscious preference for men can impact hiring deci-
sions, even when a player’s talent should speak for itself. During the 1970s, women
made up less than 5% of the nation’s top orchestras; today, they comprise at least 25%
of these orchestras. What happened? Did women suddenly up their game and become
better musicians? As economists Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse (2000) show, the
rules of the game surrounding the hiring of musicians changed. In the late 1970s, orches-
tras began using blind auditions. By placing performers behind a screen, hiring panels
were unable to use gender cues to evaluate those auditioning. By focusing more on what
evaluators were hearing, hiring panels consequently hired more female musicians. The
takeaway from this example is that if we want to begin to close the gender gap in pay,
changes can be made in policies and procedures at the macro level, so that applicants’
gender is concealed during the hiring process, forcing evaluators to pay more attention
to qualifications and less to gender.
Gender differences in language continue to shape one’s career trajectory, spanning
the hiring process and advancement through one’s career. STEM professions (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) provide an excellent illustration of this. They
raise questions about whether it is better to be a ball hog or a team player. To be a suc-
cessful scientist, it should be enough to produce novel, relevant, and rigorous work. It
appears, though, that scientific excellence is determined by more than the quality of one’s
work. Subtleties in language and self-presentation also contribute to the social construc-
tion of an excellent scientist. The simple decision to describe one’s research using I or
we, for example, can impact how a scientist is perceived. While men tend to use I, which
highlights their individual accomplishments, more women use the inclusive and commu-
nal we; this may lead to the impression that the female scientist is not the driving force
in her lab. The flip side of this dynamic, however, is that when women do assert them-
selves (asking questions about lab space, research assistants), they risk being perceived
as unlikeable.
Quoted in a New York Times article on women in science, Columbia University profes-
sor Daniel R. Ames stated that the range “of acceptable behavior for women [in employ-
ment negotiations] is narrower than it is for men” (Dean 2006). Women who request
funding for multiple research assistants and new lab equipment may be viewed as pushy
and, therefore, may not be granted these resources. Such differential treatment in nego-
tiations can, according to Ames, “accumulate over a career [and] lead to significant dif-
ferences in outcomes” among men and women scientists. The perception of STEM fields
as male domains, driven by a male culture where women don’t fit in, is also one of the
reasons why young women—even those with strong credentials—do not pursue STEM
majors or careers (Cheryan, Ziegler, Montoya, and Jiang 2017) In this context, male
players are allowed to be “ball hogs” and are rewarded for selfish and self-aggrandizing
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 429

behaviors, while women are expected to be team players and may be penalized if they
deviate from this expectation.
Research conducted in other work settings similarly suggests success and likeability
may be at odds for women. Social psychologists refer to this as perceived role incon-
gruity, meaning that occupational success and femininity are seen as incompatible with
one another, so that women may have to choose between being seen as competent or
being liked. Experimental research shows that assertive women who display masculine,
“agentic” (active and self-serving) traits are viewed as violating feminine expectations of
niceness (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, and Tamkins 2004; Rudman and Glick 2001). Such
perceptions can also impact women at the beginning of their careers. One audit study
showed that high-performing college women face barriers when it comes to getting a
job: Female applicants with grades in the B-range were perceived as being more sociable
and easier to work with when compared to female applicants with grades in the A-range
(Quadlin 2018). Women who display signs of aggression or excellence may experience
bias in hiring and promotions, given the perception that while they may be highly compe-
tent, they are not especially likeable.
Once hired, the cultural preference for male workers can lead to rapid promotion or the
ascent to leadership positions. This has been called the glass escalator (Williams 1992),
referring to the invisible mechanisms by which men move up in the workplace. In her
research on men in traditionally female jobs, Williams found that men working in fields
like nursing, education, and social work are seen as progressive pathbreakers; women
working in traditionally male fields, however, may be viewed as interlopers (Kanter 1977).
Williams and others describe the glass escalator as the process by which men are effec-
tively “kicked upstairs,” often as a result of cultural beliefs about where their true talents
lie. In social work and education, for example, employers may have an unconscious belief
that men’s talents can best be used in supervisory roles, rather than boots-on-the ground
positions as caseworkers or classroom teachers. Other research finds that men actively
seek out supervisory roles as a way to reassert their masculinity in female-dominated
occupations and distance themselves from their “lowly” female coworkers (Cross and
Bagilhole 2002).
These gendered dynamics in the workplace are not individual acts of discrimination;
rather, they are largely unconscious norms, operating at the macro level. The irony of
these preferences is that they do not always serve a firm’s best interests. Research sug-
gests that businesses with strong records of promoting women to executive positions or
to serve on corporate boards are more effective than those with few women in leadership
positions. In his analysis of 200 Fortune 500 companies over a 19-year period, Roy Adler
(2008) found that firms that aggressively promoted women were more profitable—with
profits 34% higher than industry medians—even when controlling for other traits. The
profitability of women executives has been confirmed by other researchers (­Bennouri,
Chtioui, Nagati, and Nekhili 2018; Carter 2007; Terjesen, Couto, and Francisco 2016).
Due to the complexities of this kind of research, however, not everyone concludes that
430 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

female leadership improves firm performance (Adams and Ferreira 2009; Carter,
D’Souza, Simkins, and Simpson 2010).
So what might women bring to the table that benefits corporate performance? Some
researchers speculate that simply bringing diverse voices into leadership positions is in a
company’s best interest. With more diverse points of view, companies are able to develop
more innovative products and marketing strategies. A second explanation for the female
advantage in leadership is the belief that women’s traditional communication styles foster
teamwork, with a focus on consensus-building and deliberation (Dezsö and Ross 2012).
Women leaders appear more committed to using the “different knowledge, experience,
and values that each member brings to the board” (Post and Byron 2015, 1546). This is
another way of saying that women’s “rapport talk,” which is an adult manifestation of
childhood socialization centered on role-playing and finding common ground, can be pro-
ductive. Finally, women leaders appear less prone to risky decision-making, again using
more careful deliberation (Faccio, Marchica, and Mura 2016). As it turns out, promoting
qualified women is not just equitable, it can also be profitable.

Cheats and Unsportsmanlike Conduct:

The Role of Overt Discrimination
Although games have rules, “cheating” and bending the rules are part of many games.
When it comes to gendered experiences in the workplace, what is the role of cheating
and unsportsmanlike conduct (i.e., discrimination)? Each year, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (n.d.) receives between 23,000 and 30,000 complaints of gen-
der discrimination. About 20% of those are filed by men, and 80% by women. In 2019,
firms paid out $138 million in settlements; this figure does not include payments achieved
through litigation. When it comes to gender discrimination, researchers believe that
overt and intentionally sexist attitudes and behaviors have a statistically small, though
socially significant, impact on the gender gap in pay. Still, sexism and harassment make
for toxic workplaces and contribute to gender inequalities at work in various ways.
One facet of gender discrimination in the workplace involves the belief that men make
better workers than women; while not violent or overt, this subtle belief affects who gets
hired and promoted. These beliefs can form a glass ceiling, where women face an invis-
ible yet unbreakable barrier—like glass—that impedes advancement to higher positions.
High-profile legal cases have brought awareness to this phenomenon. In 1997, for exam-
ple, the Publix grocery chain was accused of systematically denying women opportunities
to advance. One female employee was told by a male supervisor that women simply are
not capable of supervisory roles; another was told she could not be promoted because she
was not the head of her household. An investigation found that promotions were typi-
cally awarded in an informal manner; rather than advertising job openings and having
interested parties apply, management filled vacancies using personal connections and
the “old boys’ network.” In one of the largest gender discrimination cases of all time,
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 431

Publix agreed to pay $81.5 million to the 150,000 women who were part of a class-action
lawsuit. Similar allegations have been leveled against Walmart, yet for technical reasons
that class-action case—involving more than 1.5 million women—has not moved forward.
Indeed, allegations of sex discrimination often play out over many years, with firms hiring
high-powered attorneys to defend themselves. In recent years, such allegations have been
levied against banking firm Goldman Sachs, venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, Face-
book, and Google. In 2017, a U.S. Department of Labor audit found systemic compen-
sation disparities against women at Google. More than 8,000 women are organizing to
form a class-action lawsuit against the IT giant. The case against Goldman Sachs alleges
a culture of sexism, where women were systematically denied promotions and referred to
as “bimbos” and “babes” in internal documents.
A second form of workplace discrimination is sexual harassment. Sexual harass-
ment takes several forms: pressuring workers to trade sex for favors, called quid pro
quo; sexual advances, whether physical (groping) or verbal; and the creation of a hostile
environment. The quid pro quo variety of sexual harassment has been the centerpiece
of the #MeToo movement, as women from across the country and employment fields
have banded together to confront sexual misconduct at work. One high-profile case was
initiated against Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News, who was accused by 20 women,
including hosts Gretchen Carlson and Megyn Kelly, of bribing with higher pay and pro-
motions in exchange for sex. Carlson alleged she was fired from Fox for not cooperating
with Ailes’s request for sexual favors. Investigations into misconduct led to Roger Ailes
being forced from his position in 2016, and Gretchen Carlson receiving a $20 million
­settlement—believed to be the largest such settlement in a non–class action case.
Hostile environments are those where the culture is deliberately offensive to one
group, for example, where there is persistent use of sexual humor or where employees’
lockers or public spaces are decorated with sexual or pornographic imagery. This is more
than just teasing or joking—which is not illegal. Filed in 1988, Jenson v. Eveleth Taco-
nite was the first successful class-action sexual harassment lawsuit. Portrayed by Charlize
Theron is the movie North Country, Lois Jenson detailed years of harassment working in
the iron mines of northern Minnesota; there, she and other women endured abusive and
sexual language, stalking, and threats and intimidation. The Court ruled that the harass-
ment was intentional and motivated by the women’s gender and that the company had a
responsibility to prevent it. The case was finally resolved in 1998, when Eveleth Taconite
settled out of court, agreeing to pay $3.5 million to the 15 women who were part of the
case. In cases like these, sexual harassment is not about sex, per se; rather, it is about
power, where sexual jokes and imagery are the tools used to exert intimidation and dom-
inance in the workplace. Men, often gay men, can also be subject to sexual harassment.
Indeed, people of every gender can be victims.
How do discrimination and sexual harassment affect the gender gap in pay? Both
subtle and overt forms of discrimination keep women in lower-level positions, where
they are passed over for promotions. This clearly fuels the gender gap in pay, as work-
ers are unable to break the glass ceiling and advance to higher positions (McLaughlin,
432 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

Uggen, and Blackstone 2017). Sexual harassment can also have psychological conse-
quences, which may lead to financial consequences. If women quit their jobs to flee a
hostile environment, they lose pay and the opportunity to accumulate human capital.
Women who are sexually harassed may experience high levels of stress, leading to absen-
teeism and lower levels of productivity. Lois Jenson, for example, was diagnosed with
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after she left Eveleth Taconite in 1992. Research
based on thousands of respondents shows that for women, hostile workplaces are linked
to worse mental and physical health (Harnois and Bastos 2018). Workers who experience
these psychological stresses may not perform at their best, leading to lower levels of pay
and advancement.
While the United States does not have an “equal pay for equal work” law as in Iceland,
legislation passed in 2009 provides one more legal tool to fight the gender gap in pay.
Signed into law by President Barack Obama, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act provides
a legal tool to those who feel they have experienced gender discrimination in pay. The law
honors Lilly Ledbetter, a manager at the Goodyear Tire Company, who discovered after
20 years of employment—beyond the statute of limitations—that she was paid $3,727
per month, while the lowest-paid male with similar seniority received $4,286 per month
and the highest paid received $5,236. While paying workers different amounts based on
performance and productivity is legal, paying workers different amounts based on gender
is not. While the notion of equal pay for equal work was originally articulated in the Equal
Pay Act of 1963, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act updated one of its provisions, allowing
workers a lengthier period of time to initiate their complaint. While all of these laws apply
to both men and women, it is women who have been historically most negatively affected
and, therefore, most likely to initiate cases.

EXPLORING INTERNATIONALLY:
GENDER AND FAMILY POLICIES ABROAD
If the average woman in the United States earns 81 cents for every dollar earned by the
average man, how does this stack up against other countries? One feature of the socio-
logical perspective is the assumption that we can better understand social phenomena
by looking at them historically and cross-culturally. Looking at other countries can help
us understand the degree to which gender differences and inequalities are socially con-
structed, rather than inherent (i.e., biologically determined).
Considering gender disparities in a global context, every year the World Economic
Forum (2020) assesses the world’s nations in terms of educational opportunities, health
and well-being, and political representation. Taking these factors into account, the United
States currently ranks 53rd out of 153 nations. Not so hot. So which nations score well for
gender equality? A journey to find the most gender-egalitarian societies would take us
straight to Europe’s Nordic countries. Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden occupy the
top four spots, and Denmark is also pretty high on the list. Looking at the bottom of the
rankings, we find many Arab countries and nations in sub-Saharan Africa (see Table 13.6).
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 433

table 13.6   Top 10 and Bottom 10 Countries for Gender Equity

Top 10 (Greatest Gender Equity) Bottom 10 (Least Gender Equity)

1 Iceland 144 Oman

2 Norway 145 Lebanon

3 Finland 146 Saudi Arabia

4 Sweden 147 Chad

5 Nicaragua 148 Iran

6 New Zealand 149 Democratic Republic of Congo

7 Ireland 150 Syria

8 Spain 151 Pakistan

9 Rwanda 152 Iraq Lebanon

10 Germany 153 Yemen

Source: World Economic Forum, 2020.

So what makes the Nordic countries especially gender egalitarian? All of these coun-
tries have consciously enacted social policies to promote gender equality. For example,
in the 1970s, several of these countries introduced voluntary gender quotas in political
representation; requiring women to run for office led to high representation of women in
politics. Whereas women have made up about 23% of those elected to the U.S. Congress in
recent years, women make up 45% to 50% of parliamentarians in these Nordic countries.
In 1980, Iceland was the first country to elect a woman, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, to serve as
its president. Today, both Iceland and Finland are led by female prime ministers. When
more women are in office, more laws are passed with women in mind.
Another set of policies that profoundly impacts gender equity in the Nordic countries
is paid family leave. These nations offer parental leave that is well-paid and lengthy. The
policies stem from the belief that children have the right to be raised by both parents,
along with the belief that all parents should be active in the labor force. In Iceland, new
mothers and fathers each receive 5 months’ paid leave (80% of one’s wages), with another
2 months to be divided as the parents choose. In Sweden, parents are given 16 months to
divide up between them, where they too receive 80% of their wages (up to about $65,000
annually). Families are allowed to spread this time across several years, yet each year
parents also receive an additional allotment of “sick days” to care for a child. All families—
regardless of income—also receive a “child allowance” of approximately $100 per child
per month, along with some funds to support children’s participation in extracurricular
activities.
In these Nordic countries, expanding maternity leave programs alone wasn’t suffi-
cient; creating paternity leave and requiring men to take some portion of the leave time
434 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

PHOTO 13.6
Prime Minister
of Iceland Katrín
Jakobsdóttir.

Magnus Fröderberg/norden.org, CC BY 2.5 DK <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/dk/deed.en>,

via Wikimedia Commons

have been key to narrowing the pay gap. By giving men the chance to take paid time off,
couples no longer have to decide whose job is worth more. Accordingly, men and women
experience similar disruptions to their work trajectories and acquire similar levels of
human capital (seniority, job skills). In 2018 Iceland implemented an “equal pay for equal
work” law, which is accompanied by routine monitoring to ensure that individuals with
equivalent experience and performance receive the same pay. Today, across the Nordic
countries, women earn 85% to 94% of what men earn, with men and women having sim-
ilar labor force participation rates. In Sweden and Iceland, for example, the labor force
participation rate is about 81% for men and 78% for women. As in the United States,
however, men and women in Nordic countries tend to work in gender-stereotypical jobs.
Nordic countries use an extensive set of policies to achieve gender equity. These kinds
of policies rub many Americans the wrong way, given their dislike of government involve-
ment in the private lives of citizens. In the Nordic countries, by contrast, is the belief
that private lives and government policies are closely connected and mutually reinforcing.
Many Icelandic men, for example, have spoken positively about the benefits of having
more time to bond with their children, suggesting that a “new normal” has taken hold.
Accordingly, citizens of these countries generally support government mandates, seeing
them as a tool for producing the greatest benefits for the largest number of citizens.

THE FUTURE OF GENDER, WORK, AND FAMILY LIFE

While many have called the gender gap in pay a myth, it is more accurate to call it real,
persistent, and extremely complex. The gender gap in pay is only a myth if you believe that
it is only caused by sexism. Once you use the sociological perspective, however, you learn
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 435

that the gender gap in pay is partially a reflection of people’s choices and partially a reflec-
tion of the social and cultural context in which those choices get made. From a sociological
perspective, the quickest way to close the gender gap in pay would be to alter the context
in which men and women and other genders choose careers and attempt to balance work
and family. Family leave policies would go a long way toward doing this and would not
be as expensive as many critics believe. In fact, such policies produce documented sav-
ings and other social benefits. Rather than encouraging women not to have children, or
encouraging women to choose higher-paying professions, it makes sense to reduce the
negative consequences of these choices.
Looking ahead, what is the future of work and family life in the United States? How
quickly will the gender gap in pay close? The Institute for Women’s Policy Research sets
the date at 2058 (Costello, Hegewisch, and Phil 2016). These projections are based on
patterns of college enrollment, choice of college majors, changes in family policy, and
shrinkage (manufacturing, where men work) or growth (health care and social services,
where women work) in many occupational sectors.
Is the closing of the wage gap cause for celebration? Is this a victory for women? A
closer look at these projections reveal a more complicated story. In part, the gap is pro-
jected to close not so much because women “catch up” with men but because women’s
wages stagnate and men’s wages fall. In fact, these trends illustrate a long-term pattern,
one with origins in the early 1970s, whereby men’s economic fortunes have been eroded.
Despite these projections—and they are just that, projections based on existing data and
economic assumptions—no one really knows when the gender gap in pay may close. In
fact, during the Covid-19 pandemic, women were more negatively affected than men. Even
though women are more likely to hold jobs that are “recession proof”—in health care, edu-
cation, and social services—they are the ones who left their jobs and stayed home with the
kids, as online learning took over the nation’s schools. These patterns, once again, show
that the lack of family leave policies leads to “choices” that exacerbate the gender gap in
pay.
Yet given that men’s wages have stagnated and the jobs men have historically held
have “dried up”—having been shipped overseas or automated—how might men and
women respond to these economic transformations? Author Hanna Rosin (2012) is con-
cerned that men are not responding well. In her book The End of Men, she coins the term
cardboard men to describe what she sees as men’s rigidity and resistance to changing
gender roles and shifting economic realities. Her concern is that many men are holding on
to older notions of masculinity that emphasize profit, brawn, and competition while fail-
ing to adapt to changes in the job market that would channel them into growing fields like
education, health care, and social services. Women, by contrast, are flexible and adapt-
able; Rosin calls them “plastic women.” The things women have traditionally excelled at,
Rosin says, cannot easily be outsourced and are increasingly important in many occu-
pations. These skills include creativity and interpersonal skills (emotional intelligence,
verbal ability). It appears that ongoing economic transformations are playing to women’s
strengths, and men may need to adapt.
436 UNIT 4 Unequal Outcomes: The Interplay of the Micro and Macro Levels

How will these transformations affect (heterosexual) men and women inside the
home? As women’s and men’s wages equalize, families will face a different choice about
who should—or can—take time off to care for a new child. These projections suggest that
from an economic standpoint, heterosexual parents will have new flexibility in terms of
determining which parent should stay home and whose earnings should be protected.
Unfortunately, since projections show that in upcoming decades the average wages of
women will stagnate and those of men will fall, it may be that taking time off to care for a
child will become an option only for the highest-paid workers, with two incomes needed
to support most families.
When it comes to gender inequalities in wages and work–family balance, it is clear
that the player and the game are mutually reinforcing. In this case, it is difficult to deter-
mine whether new strategies among the players will force employers and the government
to change the nature of the game or whether decisions by employers and the government
will allow players (i.e., workers) the chance to make new decisions. It is reasonable to
assume, however, that workplaces will eventually have to respond to the fact that women
comprise nearly 50% of all workers. At that point, it may be in the economic best interest
of the government and employers to offer flexible employment and paid family leave.
These changes would allow for more gender- egalitarian families and workplaces, while
also improving the productivity of many employers, given the possibility for workers to
have more job security and more opportunity to enhance their human capital.

REVIEW OF KEY POINTS

—— This chapter explains the gender gap in pay smaller in Black and Latino households than it
by focusing on dynamics at the micro and is in white and Asian American households.
macro levels. The fact that men earn more
—— The gender gap in pay starts young,
than women reflects both circumstances and
with research suggesting that even young
decisions made by individual players and the
girls do more housework and receive lower
structure of the game (cultural beliefs and
allowances than young boys. Similarly, there
policies that govern the workplace).
is a leisure gap among males and females from
—— Among full-time workers, women earn 81 early on.
cents for every dollar earned by a man. Over a —— At the micro level, one reason women earn less
worker’s lifetime, a man with a college degree than men is that they select jobs and college
earns an average of $2.1 million, while a woman majors with lower earnings; at the macro level,
with a college degree earns $1.4 million. this reflects broader patterns of childhood
gender socialization.
—— Reflecting historical patterns, continued
inequalities, and differences in childhood —— Women also earn less than men because they
gender socialization, the gender gap in pay is are more likely to take time off for the birth of
 CHAPTER 13 Is the Gender Gap in Pay a Myth? 437

a child or reduce their commitment to part- typically play a role in advancing women’s roles
time; at the macro level, these decisions reflect in the workforce and policies and encourage
broader patterns in how the workplace is men to play more active roles at home.
organized in the United States.
—— To ameliorate gender inequalities in pay,
—— Overt, explicit discrimination against women is changes can be implemented at both the micro
part of the gender gap in pay; more significant, and macro levels. The former would involve
yet less visible, are the subtle cultural beliefs changing individual players’ occupational
that shape our attitudes toward men and choices. The latter would involve changing
women in the workplace. workplace organization in the United
States, offering paid family leave or flexible
—— Currently, the United States is unique among
employment arrangements that would allow
Western industrialized countries in not offering
people to balance work and family life.
paid family leave. At the macro level, this
means women are more likely than men to take —— The future of the gender gap in pay is uncertain;
time off work to care for a child and, therefore, macro-level changes in the types of jobs
are more likely to experience fewer gains in available in the United States, how much those
human and economic capital. jobs pay, and who takes those jobs all suggest
that men’s wages may fall in future decades,
—— In countries that have a smaller wage gap
thereby closing the gender gap in pay.
between men and women, social policies

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1. Statistically speaking, how large is the gender significant in shaping the gender gap in pay?
gap in pay? More important, how is the gender Similarly, at which level do you think the most
gap in pay expected to change over the next 30 progress can be made in terms of narrowing the
years? What factors account for these predicted gender gap in pay and/or promoting greater
changes? gender equity in the workplace?

2. On the micro level, it is individual 5. Considering your own situation, in what ways
circumstances that influence the gender gap may your own micro-level circumstances
in pay. What are the main micro-level factors contribute to a gender gap in pay between men
involved in this process? and women? Shifting your focus to the macro
level, what factors do you think will (or already
3. On the macro level, larger structural factors, have) affect how much you earn?
like policies and procedures governing the
workplace, affect the gender gap in pay. What 6. More broadly speaking, taking into account the
are the main macro-level factors involved? material presented in this chapter and in this
textbook as a whole, do you feel that the gender
4. When you look at these two sets of gap in pay and gendered experiences in the
explanations, do you feel that one is more workplace are problematic? Why or why not?