A week ago was Equal Pay Day. Sadly, this has nothing to do with the candy bar.
I know that was a stupid joke. I'm on a diet and salty peanuts and caramel and chocolate sound really good and I'm allowed to make a stupid joke ok god.
Equal Pay Day symbolized how far into 2011 women (working full time) had to work to match what men made in 2010.
I'm going to pretend that you, dear readers, are the men (so basically everyone) who ask the same two questions every time this comes up in my globalization class:
But Emma, don't women make less because they work less?
First of all, let's get the privilege in that statement out of the way. Women work less because they are still the primary caregivers in families that have the option of a non- or part-time working parent. I know you didn't say any different, but there is an institutional bias at work there. Women don't just work less than men.
Second - no. This number is comparing women with full time jobs to men with full time jobs.
But Emma, don't women tend to take lower paying jobs like teachers and nurses?
Has it occurred to you that perhaps those jobs pay less because they're traditionally 'women's work'?
There you go. If men had taken 2011 off until last week, women would have caught up from January 2010. Assuming, of course, that they weren't still catching up from April 2010 - Equal Pay Day last year. Or April 2009. Or 2008.
Oh - one final indignity. Women who work full time but have children make 2.5% less, on average, than women doing the same job who don't have children. Men with children make 2.1% MORE than men without children, doing the same job.
A girl I know said that she's not a feminist because this is a solved problem.
Doesn't seem like one to me.