Opinion Piece: Gender (In)Equality

The recent hubbub about Walmart’s tendency to pay its male employees more than its female raised the point that the inequality between the genders is alive and well in these United States. However I would like to raise the point that this is by no means a one-sided issue and I can speak from personal experience on being treated unfairly by female dominated industries, as well as by traditionally male enterprises. In the following piece I will talk about my personal experiences, perceptions, and even a slightly justified theory as to why it occurs.

The education, developmentally disabled care, and library fields are, to this day heavily female dominated. I have worked in them all, I enjoyed them, I tried to make progress, and seeing an area of mediocrity I have set out to correct it. Every time this has met with severe resistance, either with me being asked to resign, transferred, or “counseled”. I’m told my techniques are “too aggressive” or that that’s “the way things have always been done”. I believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that this would not occur in a more gender-balanced, or male dominated, place of employment.

The military, the world’s second oldest profession, and the most heavily dominated by the male persona, and yet I present evidence of discrimination against men, or perhaps favoritism towards women. Especially in the more junior ranks promotions are at least in part dependant on physical fitness score, and yet not only are the requirements for a higher score lessened for women, in some branches of the military they are completely dissimilar. Quick progression through the lower ranks leading to earlier access to the higher ranks leads to easier progression (and higher pay) by women through the military than men.

As for why men get more pay for the same jobs occurs, besides tradition, I have several theories. First the “first date” theory: simply put men are still expected to lead the relationship and also pay for the first, possibly several, dates; thus single men should be compensated for this expectation. Second theory, the “family man” theory: I have yet to meet a woman in Idaho who is not at least willing, if not actively seeking, to have a man “take care of her” (i.e. stay home while he works); thus a married man may very well be required to bring home twice the income.
Is there a solution, yes, and it’s already in place. Federal law already states such disparity between pay based on gender is illegal, hence the class-action lawsuit against Walmart. Is it right? In some cases yes, in other, maybe not. If a person (male or female) is the sole source of income for their family maybe they should earn more, then again why should the company they work for be penalized, de facto, for hiring a married person.

I simply believe the issue is deeper than pay, although that is the most common area we see it representing itself. It has not yet been a century since women were declared equal to men in this country on paper, much less in practice. But in pursuit of this we need to be ensuring balance. The military still argues dissimilarity between the genders on a physical basis and yet we could make that same argument for race and ethnicity; female dominated industries still treat men as poorly as male dominated ones treat women; and it is still expected for the man to pursue the woman, pay for the dates, and support the family. Maybe we should be working on these things first and pay will follow suit?