In advancing a non-preference
based conception of rationality, Elizabeth Anderson proposes a conception of
collective agency and individual identity and applies these concepts to the
social and economic disadvantaged status of women. In particular, Anderson
mentions that one of the obstacles that women face is “the gendered paid
division of paid employment, which reserves most higher-paid jobs and jobs on
promotional ladders to men” (34). I found this discussion to be super relevant for
today, April 12th. Equal Pay Day is a symbolic day to commemorate a women’s
salary “catching up” to men’s salary from last year. While there have been some
improvements over the years, this day illustrates that action needs to be taken
to close the gender pay gap. Recent statistics state that on average, women
earn 79 cents for every dollar a man earns (http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/).
Making a significantly less compensation than men not
only affects her personal financial stability, but the family's overall financial
stability as well.
Anderson
points out that divorce laws aid in this systematic disadvantage by offering women
minimal financial support. By understanding that divorce is more expensive for
women, men benefit from a “threat advantage” (34). The higher cost of divorce
leaves women more vulnerable to exploitative relationships. She highlights that
this threat advantage not only occurs within the marriage, but before since the
woman is in an unequal bargaining position as she states, “The worse off a
woman would be on her own, the worse deal she gets in the marriage” (33).
Anderson proposes outside employment
as an aid in elevating the women’s social and economic status. According to the
bargaining theory, outside employment will “reduce the cost of exit from
marriage and thereby improve women’s prospects within marriage” (35). Anderson further extends the benefits of outside
employment. Outside employment not only increases the woman’s claim of shared
resources in a marriage, but also exposes her to additional opportunities,
where she can form collective identities, and consequentially, develop her
agency as an individual (36).
However, when we incorporate this condition of unequal
pay, outside employment that Anderson proposes as a way to elevate women’s
bargaining position is an unsettling solution. While outside employment raises
the women’s bargaining position by providing additional opportunities, I would
argue that outside employment, with the prevalent gender pay gap, still leaves
women vulnerable to the “threat advantage” (34). If a wife continues to earn less
than her husband, she will continue to be in an unequal position. I would like to push
Anderson a little bit further. She should not only encourage outside
employment, but pay equity as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Tierra,
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with your belief that Anderson should support pay equity, but I do not think that we have any evidence that she does not. I think that Anderson would support such equity, but instead may be trying to be more practical. In discussing women's employment, Anderson's main point seems to be that any employment, regardless of the pay, will allow women to reduce the cost of exiting the marriage. In many instances, women would not be earning equal wages to men regardless of the pay gap, because they may take on part-time jobs so that they can still maintain some domestic duties. Anderson would point to these cases as positive conditions for a woman because they give her power to leave and allow her to form a sense of self, even though her pay may not be equal to men. Put another way, it seems that Anderson's main concern is the number of opportunities, not the type of opportunities, although of course she would desire the best opportunities for women.
Fantastic post Tierra!! I absolutely agree that if women are not given equal wages, they will earn less than their husbands and will only continue to feel dependent on them. As you note, this will not solve the "threat advantage" husbands often have over their wives, but will only reenforce an unequal playing field between the two partners (Anderson, 34). Yes, it is probably a step in the right direction for women to be able to generate some income on their own and hopefully save some of this money for herself. However, if men still pay a disproportional amount of the family's expenses, men will continue to have leverage to exploit their wives. This problem is only exacerbated by unequal "access to education [and] legal barriers to female inheritance and property ownership" in many parts of the world (33). As long as women are not given equal access to education, they will be unable to develop many of the skills necessary to be able to be self-dependent and therefore be free to choose as an individual separate from her family. Further, if women are not able to acquire or be trusted with non-labor income (especially inheritance), they will continually start on an unequal playing field with men, drastically reducing any agency they may be able to gain from working outside the home.
ReplyDeleteHi Nisha! I think you are right to point out that Anderson is posing a more practical solution here. Certainly, having some income and savings will allow women to be more financially independent and therefore feel like they have an increased power to choose what they would like to do, rather than solely doing what's best for the family. However, I also think that Tierra is right to push back on Anderson's practical solution. If a husband and wife can each work the same number of hours a week in the same job and the wife makes 79 cents for every dollar the husband makes, he is still likely to pay more expenses than she is. That's physiologically problematic in a relationship. Going back to Hampton, the woman might feel like she receives a disproportional number of gifts from her husband and is therefore more likely to act in an Amy-like fashion. She may be much more willing to excuse her husband's ill-treatment towards her, even if they work the exact same number of hours per week doing the same thing. (This problem is worsened by the fact that women often do not attain the same levels of jobs as men do.) I agree that Anderson's solution is a step in the right direction. However, I do believe that this solution will be able to solve the problem of giving all people equal agency on its own, and this is I think what Tierra was pushing back on.
ReplyDelete