Raschke 1

Zoe Raschke

Madison Aittama

English 102

July 16, 2023

Critical Conversation Essay; Let’s Talk About the Gender in Wages

We are living in a time that presents itself with a historically high percentage of polarized

views. (Pew Research Center, Political Polarization in the American Public.) Surprisingly,

however, one discussion of peak interest is not so polarized. I am alluding to the conversation

about the gender wage gap. Although there is extensive research regarding what may be

contributing to this well-known phenomenon of differing human capital, experts are not in

agreeance. Speculations cover endless topics such as potential discrimination, separation of sexes

between occupations, parenthood, lack of wage regulation, management, psychological

involvement, and more. My exploration of a small portion of the research available reveals that

the answer may not be so black and white.

Despite the general lack of polarized consensus within this debate, researchers agree that

the forces driving the wage gap can be divided into two factors: the explained, and the

unexplained. The explained portion consists of a large mass of information that can be measured.

Scientifically speaking, this is synonymous with the dependent variables within the research.

One article titled “Gender-Specific Wage Structure and the Gender Wage Gap in the U.S. Labor

Market” explains that the data matrix within for this factor conglomerates to two factors of its

own, and that is work experience, as well as education (Rotman and Hadas, Gender-Specific

Wage Structure). What all of this means is that we have attempted to explain the wage gap

through observation and empirical research; however, an unexplained portion remains. This
 Raschke 2

brings me to factor two. The same article states that “the ‘unexplained’ portion is the ‘residual’,

commonly presented as a rough estimate of labor market discrimination” (Rotman and Hadas).

The authors go on to tell us that the margins within the first factor appear to be reducing, while

the second factor appears to be on the rise.

Between these two factors, a few leading theories have emerged. According to “The Pay

Gap Causes, Consequences and Actions” by the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status

of Women, “The three most common economic theories concerning the reasons for the pay gap

are the theories of human capital, dual labour market, and the reserve army of labour.” This

publication explains the 3 theories as follows.

The most popular theory is that of human capital. This is where the idea originated that

women earn less on account of being less educated, experienced, or willing to work. However,

New Brunswick sheds light on a Canadian study that claims as little as 12% of the wage gap can

be attributed to such causes (New Brunswick, “The Pay Gap Causes”).

The second theory, dual labour market, refers to the notion that our working class is

separated into two sectors. In this theory, the first sector is comprised of experienced, high paid,

unionized jobs that one might label as practical. The second consists of what many might call a

“starter job.” These jobs tend to be regarded as less practical, and generally receive less pay and

additional benefits (New Brunswick).

The reserve army of labour theory points to an idea that capitalism itself is upheld by

exploiting workers. In practice, this theory relies on women being amongst a portion of the

working population that is seen as nonessential and continuously replaceable within the grand

scheme of things (New Brunswick).

 Raschke 3

As with most things, many have stepped forward to offer their explanations as to why a

differential wage problem prevails. Perhaps one of the more suggested explanations is that

people of different sexes earn different wages due to occupational segregation. Oxford Reference

defines occupational segregation as “the division of labour, in the context of paid employment,

as a result of which men and women (or members of different ethnic or religious groupings) are

channeled into different types of occupational roles and tasks, such that there are two (or more)

separate labour forces” (Oxford Reference, “Occupational Segregation”). Many claim that this is

a large contributor to the topic of interest, but even the reasoning within occupational segregation

differs.

One author named Kristin J. Kleinjans offers corresponding reasoning in her article titled

“Occupational Prestige and the Gender Wage Gap.” Kristin argues that separation within the job

market in relation to gender can be attributed to differing job preference between men and

women. The argument is based around what the author defines as “occupational prestige.” Her

research presents an idea that women choose jobs with lower pay because they reap personal

benefit in other ways. She suggests that women typically identify with altruistic work that feels

rewarding because it is generally being viewed as humanitarian. The author also states that,

additionally, men do not share this sentiment, contributing to the division of labor and moreover

widening the gap.

Another piece called “Bridging the Gender Wage Gap: Gendered Cultural Sentiments,

Sex Segregation, and Occupation-Level Wages” adds to the segregation argument with a few

large claims. Authors Robert E. Freeland and Catherine E. Harnois present research that states,

“a significant decrease in sex segregation between occupations [occurred] in the 1970’s, but the

curve has lessened,” and “nearly half of all women would need to switch jobs in order to
 Raschke 4

eliminate sex segregation in occupations” (Freeland and Harnois, Bridging the Gender Wage

Gap). The argument is premised on their idea that labor segregation can be accredited to

gendered views of occupations. They believe that this may be contributing to the gap by creating

a hypothetical social blockade between women and high earning careers.

Additionally, some believe that female dominated fields may be paid less because they

are female dominated, such as educators. This is the belief driving what has come to be known as

devaluation theory. As written by Charlotta Magnusson in “Gender, Occupational Prestige, and

Wages: A Test of Devaluation Theory,” “Devaluation theory’s basic assumption is that women

are culturally devalued in society. As a consequence, female occupations and tasks are assumed

to be less valued than are male tasks” (Magnusson, Gender, Occupational Prestige, and Wages).

She elaborates that there is a direct correlation between higher volumes of women in any given

occupation and a reduction in that occupation’s wages. Rather than focusing on wages directly,

Charlotta’s research aims to test the correlation between the believed social prestige of an

occupation and its female representation. Her findings suggest that because many women

dominated fields, such as those generally viewed as nurturing or caring, are often deemed

prestigious, devaluation theory loses some of its credit. However, the author also states that

“women receive lower wage returns than do men [with] attained occupational prestige”

(Magnusson). Essentially, her findings would suggest that female dominated fields are not

underpaid because they undervalued by the general public, but they are paid less, and the women

within these fields are generally paid even less than their male counterparts.

In relation to this, some would explain that women are statistically paid less than men

within the same field due to maternal leave, or parenthood resulting in a loss of hours worked.

This brings me to the notion of motherhood penalties and fatherhood premiums. This is the idea
 Raschke 5

that when women become mothers, they experience a wage penalty, but fathers experience quite

the opposite. A research article by Wei-hsin Yu and Yuko Hara states that “women's pay

decreases as they become mothers and that the across-employer motherhood penalty is larger

than the within-employer penalty. By contrast, fatherhood is associated with a pay premium, and

the within-employer fatherhood premium is considerably greater than the across-employer one”

(Yu and Hara, Motherhood Penalties and Fatherhood Premiums). They go on to argue that they

find this as evidence for discrimination against working mothers and creating a wage favor for

working fathers. Furthermore, one article titled “Parenthood Wage Gaps Across the Life Course:

A Comparison by Gender and Race,” shows that “Only White women with three or more

children suffer large and persistent adjusted motherhood penalties up to age 40,” (Fasang and

Van Winkle, Parenthood Wage Gaps). They build on the argument surrounding differential wage

effects of parenthood between sexes by analyzing exactly when, and who parenthood affects the

most. This argument is evidence in favor of the gap being partially due to the experience of

parents.

Other researchers have attempted to look at the issue from a different angle, one

involving management. One such researcher is Mabel Abraham, and in her article, “PAY

FORMALIZATION REVISITED: CONSIDERING THE EFFECTS OF MANAGER GENDER

AND DISCRETION ON CLOSING THE GENDER WAGE GAP,” she shares what she has

discovered about how having women in management may have an effect on closing the gap. Her

studies show that the difference in pay between men and women diminishes when oversight is

facilitated by female management. Abraham informs us that there have been ambiguous results

when attempting to evaluate the effects of formalized pay, and instead suggests that “it is critical

to take manager gender and the organizational position of the employees being evaluated into
 Raschke 6

account when assessing the relationship between the formalization of pay and gender pay

inequality” (Abraham, Pay Formalization Revisited). This could imply that it may not be a

matter of taking away managerial discretion altogether, but rather maintaining equal

representation when assigning management.

Similarly, another study reveals a break in worker discretion surrounding increasing task

interdependence in the workplace. Science Direct defines task interdependence as “the degree to

which a team designs its creative tasks in an interconnected way such that team members by

design depend on one another when performing their task” (Grabner, Autonomy and Task

Interdependence). Authors of “Task Interdependence and the Gender Wage Gap: The Role of the

Gender Composition of an Occupation”, share their belief that an inflation in this style of work

may be building onto the gap by creating ample ooportunity for “gender bias in credit attribution

for interdependent work” (Meuris, Jirs, and Allison Elias, Task Interdependence and the Gender

Wage Gap). They support this hypothesis by showing that task interdependence was observed in

correspondence with greater wage dissimilarity in male dominated fields, but not in female

fields. Within the passage, this is generally accredited to women receiving less credit within a

group task due to credit being perhaps misplaced upon male coworkers.

The last viewpoint I present takes more of a psychological approach to the issue. Leonora

Risse, author of “Personality and Pay: Do Gender Gaps in Confidence Explain Gender Gaps in

Wages?”, shares with us her research on how the patterns viewed within the personalities of

different genders may affect gender wage discretions. She joins the discussion from the

perspective of the individual, and talks about how “women’s weaker inclination to engage in

risk-tasking, negotiation, and competitive behaviours” may affect their economic outcomes

(Risse, Personality and Pay). Risse’s main theory is to demonstrate how confidence among other
 Raschke 7

5-factor psychological personality traits could be harming or helping women. She continues to

state that “wage outcomes are not simply a function of an individual’s productive value in the

labour market, but also a reflection of their confidence to put themselves forward for a challenge,

test their capabilities and surmount any fears of failure—a trait that appears to be strongly

patterned by gender” (Risse, Personality and Pay). This perspective introduces a new idea into

the conversation, and suggests that personality holds a large weight within women’s wages.

With this many well-educated theories available, one could assume that the problem at

hand is very complex. However, when you look at statistics, a few things become certain.

According to a recent article posted by Forbes titled “Gender Pay Gap Statistics in 2023”, as of

this year, some irrefutable facts are; “When comparing women and men with the same job title,

seniority level and hours worked, a gender gap of 11% still exists in terms of take-home pay,

…there is only one job role where men and women earn the same pay, … women with a

bachelor’s degree earn 74 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts with the

same level of education, [and] …the pay gap between men and women only widens with more

education. (Forbes, “Gap Statistics in 2023”)

I believe that this data completely discredits any attempt to suggest that women continue

to earn less due to lack of education or participation within the workforce. As of today, this topic

has been meticulously researched. There is no longer an excuse to be paying women less for

equal work, and it’s become clear to me that there is an undeniable bias at play. No matter which

way you swing it, the ball is landing in favor of men. I do believe, however, that the reasons

behind this cannot be attributed to any individual cause. Many experts have attempted to give

their two cents on the problem, and it seems reasonable to assume that most of them are at least a
 Raschke 8

little bit right. But I’d like to disclose where I agree and disagree, beginning with parenthood and

occupational prestige.

Charlotta Magnusson touches on the subjects again in a separate article of hers titled,

“The Gender Wage Gap in Highly Prestigious Occupations: a Case Study of Swedish Medical

Doctors.” In this study, Charlotta effectively demonstrates the stark differences between how

male and female parents experience work within what is arguably one of the most prestigious

occupational fields, the medical field. She begins by saying that “the gender wage gap among

physicians was greater in 2007 than in 1975, … [despite] the share of female physicians

[increasing] from 18 percent in 1970 to 48 percent in 2000” (Magnusson, The Gender Wage

Gap). She attempts to further discredit this difference in pay potentially being attributed to a lack

of participation from women in medicine due to parenthood. She makes an interesting argument

when she says, “these individuals have already chosen to invest many years at university in order

to complete their degrees, … it would seem unlikely that there are extensive differences in work

commitment among female physicians even if their family status differs.” In other words, why

would a female doctor who has already committed a great portion of their life to their career

show any less commitment than a male doctor who has done the same? The logic doesn’t make

sense, and if this research was based in a country that has offered paternity leave since 1974

(Sweden Sverige, “Work Life Balance”), why is this gap higher than it was in 1975?

A previously mentioned research piece by Wei-hsin Yu and Yuko Hara makes another

compelling argument when they say, “Because employers are likely to trust women who become

mothers while working for them more than new recruits who are mothers, their negative bias

against mothers would be more salient when evaluating the latter, which could result in a larger

between-organizational motherhood penalty” (Yu and Hara, Motherhood Penalties and

 Raschke 9

Fatherhood Premiums). This draws the question, does the act of becoming a mother create

discrimination against women in the workplace? I would argue yes. There is a longstanding

belief within our culture that women should be with their children, and the father will provide. I

believe it is highly likely that this belief, subconscious or otherwise, may be affecting women’s

wages.

I do believe that while Fasang and Van Winkle confirmed that the gap is due in part to

parenthood, their research, and that of Yu and Hara, also discredits the possibility of it strictly

being due to parental responsibility by showing the timing and nature of how it affects wages. If

this is truly substantial in justifying lower overall economic returns for women, why then is it

only substantial for white women with 3 or more children? And if it cannot be attributed to

discrimination, why is the motherhood penalty harsher for mothers attempting to attain new

employment? In the United States, women make up 50.4% of the population (US Census

Bureau), and yet “A 20-year-old woman starting full-time work can expect to earn $407,760 less

over a 40-year career compared to a man in the same position” (Forbes, “Gap Statistics in

2023”). How could labor hours loss to childcare equate to this big of a loss for all women? I’m

not buying it. Furthermore, this does not justify the previously mentioned fact that even when

women work the same number of hours, they still receive a gross income of 11% less.

Continuing off a previous thought, I think it’s highly likely that subconscious factors may

be affecting the gap in more ways than one. So, while I support Leonora’s psychological

approach to explaining the gender wage gap, I feel conflicted with some of the evidence

presented. I believe that the issue behind personality traits affecting differential wages goes

further than measuring someone’s “confidence”, or “lack of confidence”, and then measuring

their human capital, but rather taking a look into the difference in the way that people of
 Raschke 10

differing sexes perceive these traits. One article titled “Gender Stereotypes of

Personality: Universal and Accurate?” states that “Numerous studies have documented subtle but

consistent sex differences in self-reports and observer-ratings of five-factor personality traits, and

such effects were found to show well-defined developmental trajectories and remarkable

similarity across nations” (Gender Stereotypes of Personality). This essentially boils down to the

fact that people of different sexes rate themselves and others differently when it comes to

personality. This includes confidence, and I believe it is possible that mean and women would

rate each other differently in terms of confidence.

Furthermore, psychologically, there is clear evidence as to why an individual may view

exceedingly similar behavior in the opposite sex differently than that of their own sex. For

starters, there is the theory of “ingroup bias.” According to the American Psychological

Association (APA), ingroup bias can be defined as “the tendency to favor one’s own group, its

members, its characteristics, and its products, particularly in reference to other groups.” In other

words, it is known that people tend to view individuals more favorably if they view them as

being a part of their “group”. In Mabel Abraham’s article in the “Academy of Management

Journal”, she states that “ingroup biases have been posited to lead male managers to allocate

resources, such as wages, in ways that benefit other men and disadvantage women, … [but] it is

not clear that both male and female decision makers share pro-male biases, … [and] female

managers may favor members of their gender in-group: namely, female employees” (Abraham,

Pay Formalization Revisited). This is evidence in favor of ingroup bias fostering unequal

treatment in the workplace, and in turn, unfairly garnishing women’s wages.

In the end, the web of reasoning surrounding the gender wage gap is deeply rooted and an

almost tangible force of its own. What we know for sure, without any speculations, and without
 Raschke 11

endless hours of research, is that there is a pay gap, and it is largely made up of reasons that can’t

be explained through empirical evidence. Women are more educated and make up a larger

portion of the workforce than any time in modern history. As a matter of fact, according to the

US Census Bureau “Colleges have been graduating more women than men for more than 20

years. … Counting the entire population 25 and older, even women and men who are retired,

women are ahead of men in college graduation” (US Census Bureau, “Greater Educational

Attainment for Women”). Regardless of this fact, if we stay on our current trajectory, the

Institute for Women’s Policy Research estimates that “If the pace of change in the annual

earnings ratio continues at the same rate as it has since 1960, it will take another 39 years, until

2059, for men and women to reach parity, [and] this projection for equal pay has remained

unchanged for the past four years,” (Women’s Policy, “SAME GAP, DIFFERENT YEAR”).

According to this estimate in 2020, women will face a minimum of 36 years without being paid

equal wages if we as a society don’t come to terms with what the research is really saying. There

is a bias, and women have been attempting to overcome this bias throughout history. We are now

living within the most progressive, advanced time known to us, and we are closer than ever to

overcoming this inequality. I believe that as long as researchers keep talking about this, it’s

inevitable that we will run out excuses for wage discrimination. Even if it takes more than 36

years, someday soon, I believe the extensive work attempting to rectify this issue will pay off,

and a long overdue debt to women will finally be paid in full.

 Raschke 12

Works Cited

Rotman, Assaf, and Hadas Mandel. “Gender-Specific Wage Structure and the Gender Wage Gap

in the U.S. Labor Market.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 165, no. 2, 2023, pp. 585–

606, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-022-03030-4.

Kleinjans, Kristin J., et al. “Occupational Prestige and the Gender Wage Gap.” Kyklos (Basel),

vol. 70, no. 4, 2017, pp. 565–93, https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12149.

Bacolod, Marigee. “Skills, the Gender Wage Gap, and Cities.” Journal of Regional Science, vol.

57, no. 2, 2017, pp. 290–318, https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12285.

Risse, Leonora, et al. “Personality and Pay: Do Gender Gaps in Confidence Explain Gender

Gaps in Wages?” Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 70, no. 4, 2018, pp. 919–49,

https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpy021.

Freeland, Robert E., and Catherine E. Harnois. “Bridging the Gender Wage Gap: Gendered

Cultural Sentiments, Sex Segregation, and Occupation-Level Wages.” Social Psychology

Quarterly, vol. 83, no. 2, 2020, pp. 129–51, https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519875777.

Löckenhoff, Corinna E., et al. “Gender Stereotypes of Personality: Universal and Accurate?”

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, vol. 45, no. 5, 2014, pp. 675–94,

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113520075.

ABRAHAM, MABEL. “PAY FORMALIZATION REVISITED: CONSIDERING THE

EFFECTS OF MANAGER GENDER AND DISCRETION ON CLOSING THE

GENDER WAGE GAP.” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, 2017, pp. 29–

54, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1060.
 Raschke 13

Hurley, Clarissa. The Pay Gap - Causes, Consequences and Actions - Government of New ...,

www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/eco-bce/WEB-EDF/pdf/en/ThePayGap.pdf.

Accessed 24 July 2023.

Reference, Oxford. “Occupational Segregation.” Oxford Reference,

www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100244561;jsessionid=1

0534F221AEE561BC300E6A06F566525. Accessed 23 July 2023.

“Apa Dictionary of Psychology.” American Psychological Association,

dictionary.apa.org/ingroup-bias. Accessed 23 July 2023.

Geiger, Abigail. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Pew Research Center - U.S.

Politics & Policy, 12 June 2014, www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-

polarization-in-the-american-public/.

Magnusson, Charlotta. “Gender, Occupational Prestige, and Wages: A Test of Devaluation

Theory.” European Sociological Review, vol. 25, no. 1, 2009, pp. 87–101,

https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn035.

Van Winkle, Zachary, and Anette Eva Fasang. “Parenthood Wage Gaps Across the Life

Course: A Comparison by Gender and Race.” Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 82, no.

5, 2020, pp. 1515–33, https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12713.

 Raschke 14

Yu, Wei-hsin, and Yuko Hara. “Motherhood Penalties and Fatherhood Premiums: Effects of

Parenthood on Earnings Growth within and across Firms.” Demography, 1 Feb. 2021,

read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/58/1/247/167586/Motherhood-Penalties-and-

Fatherhood-Premiums.

Haan, Kathy. “Gender Pay Gap Statistics in 2023.” Forbes, 20 July 2023,

www.forbes.com/advisor/business/gender-pay-gap-

statistics/#:~:text=Women%20earned%20an%20average%20of,terms%20of%20take%2Dh

ome%20pay.

Unknown. “Same Gap, Different Year - Institute for Women’s Policy Research.” SAME GAP,

DIFFERENT YEAR, Sept. 2020, iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Gender-Wage-Gap-

Fact-Sheet-2.pdf.

Magnusson, Charlotta. “The Gender Wage Gap in Highly Prestigious Occupations: a Case Study

of Swedish Medical Doctors.” Work, Employment and Society, vol. 30, no. 1, 2016, pp.

40–58, https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017015590760.

U.S. Census Bureau Quickfacts: United States,

www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/LFE046221. Accessed 31 July 2023.

Unknown. “Work–Life Balance.” Sweden.Se, 7 July 2023, sweden.se/life/society/work-life-

balance#:~:text=Gender%20equality&text=In%201974%2C%20Sweden%20was%20the,

maternity%20leave%20with%20parental%20leave.
 Raschke 15

Bauman, Written by: Kurt. “Shift toward Greater Educational Attainment for Women Began 20

Years Ago.” The United States Census Bureau, 17 Nov. 2022,

www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/03/shift-toward-greater-

educational-attainment-for-women-began-20-years-ago.html.

Grabner, Isabella, et al. “Managing the Trade-off between Autonomy and Task Interdependence

in Creative Teams: The Role of Organizational-Level Cultural Control.” Accounting,

Organizations and Society, 11 Feb. 2022,

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368222000149#:~:text=Task%20interdep

endence%20denotes%20the%20degree,autonomy%20and%20high%20task%20interdepen

dence.

Meuris, Jirs, and Allison Elias. “Task Interdependence and the Gender Wage Gap: The Role of

the Gender Composition of an Occupation.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 44,

no. 4, 2023, pp. 606–20, https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2677.