From Rachel Swarns at the New York Times comes the story of a woman, Angelica Valencia, fired from her $8.70-an-hour produce packing job because her doctor said she couldn’t work overtime because she was three months into a risky pregnancy. There actually is a new law on her side, but her employer somehow didn’t get around to notifying her of her right to reasonable accommodation.
Before reading my comment on this, why not check out this new video from the chapter on gender in my book. The video accompanies a much more compelling version of this graphic, showing the gender composition of some occupations, calculated from the American Community Survey:
Count that gender gap
OK, Back to Angelica Valencia. I’m not an expert on pregnancy discrimination, but I want to use this to comment on how we look at the gender gap in pay. The Census Bureau reports on the gender gap this way:
In 2013, the median earnings of women who worked full time, year-round ($39,157) was 78 percent of that for men working full time, year-round ($50,033).
Critics complain that this doesn’t account for occupational choice, time out of the labor force, and so on. As Ruth Davis Konigsberg sneeringly put it in Time:
Women don’t make 77 cents to a man’s dollar. They make more like 93 cents, as long as they don’t major in art history.
And Hanna Rosin helpfully explained:
Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying.
So what does the story of Angelica Valencia pregnancy tell us (besides the pitfalls of majoring in art history)? Valencia may end up winning some back pay in a lawsuit. But let’s assume someone just like her didn’t, and ended up instead in a lower-paying job that doesn’t like overtime, such as at McDonald’s. If we insist on statistically controlling for occupation, hours, job tenure, and time out of the labor force in order to see the real wage gap, people like Valencia may not show up as underpaid women — if they’re paid the same as men in the same jobs, holding constant hours, job tenure, and time out of the labor force. So the very thing that makes Valencia earn less — being fired for getting pregnant — disappears from the wage gap analysis. Instead, the data shows that women take more time off work, work fewer hours, change jobs more often, and “choose” less lucrative occupation.
Sure, a lot of women chose to get pregnant (and a lot of men choose to become fathers). But getting fired and ending up in a lower paid job as a result is not part of that choice (and it doesn’t happen to fathers). The overall difference in pay between men and women, which reflects a complicated mix of factors, is a good indicator of inequality.
For background on the motherhood penalty in wage, you might start here or here (including the sources citing these).
Family Inequality 
“Sure, a lot of women chose to get pregnant.”
Agreed.
To add to what you said, the species has to continue SOMEHOW and it still does take both genders to make a pregnancy happen. A system and a set of cultural expectations that penalizes women for being pregnant (and then taking maternity leave) reinforces the idea that children are a “woman’s responsibility” rather than a communal responsibility.
LikeLike
Very interesting to read on a extremely relevant topic! I would really appreciate it if you could take the time to look at my blog and comment on any thoughts or feelings you may have on various issues regarding domestic violence. It is part of my University degree so I would really appreciate the support, thanks!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on uchechioma blog.
LikeLike