The gender wage gap is something commonly spoken about, with many people arguing as to whether it is simply a myth or something that must be corrected post-haste. Both sides of the argument hold reasonable claims that make logical sense, but there is a massive flaw in either case. What issue exists in the argument itself is that it seems to generalize the gender wage gap as if it is something that does or does not exist for every occupation at once. That kind of inductive reasoning can lead to several faulty concepts, and as such there’s no surprise that there is an argument about it. As is, the situation is like two unstoppable forces crashing into each other for eternity: there is no point when either side can defeat the other, because in the end they are both right to some degree. By looking at the reasons why the gender wage gap is said to exist or not exist, we see that that although there is not a systematic bias against women in all careers in general, which means that rather than focusing on “does it exist”, people should be focusing on “where it exists”.

“It exists” claims many people, pointing at statistics and various studies done on the gender wage gap. Although most people have heard of the seventy-seven-percent statistic for the wage gap in the United States, that is merely the estimated amount. Various studies, such as those taken by the National Science Foundation, show that there were more males than females who were doctorate holders employed in academia every single year, from 1973 to 2008. This was the case for both senior and junior faculty, for almost all if not all fields. In 2008, there were around five women for every ten men overall, but in 1973 there was only around one woman for every ten men (Shen). As such, the employment rate is getting smaller, but those who support the creation of laws to close the gender wage gap believe that it is not closing fast enough. This is due to the fact that women make up around fifty percent of the population in any given nation, and having one hundred efficient workers is better than having… say, eighty of them. 

Although countries developing has decreased gender inequality, the inverse is true. After all, a “growing service sector can also be an engine of growth, in that individual skill endowments can be more efficiently matched to employment opportunities, thus improving labor market efficiency and output” (Rendall 12). Not to mention, doing so will lead to a wider pool of potential managers. In the case that fifty percent of business owners are incompetent, taking fifty clever male leaders and fifty clever female leaders would be better than taking fifty clever male leaders and fifty idiotic male leaders. Despite this, however, studies suggests that “women in management mostly held lower- and middle-management positions, where their impact was limited” (Cohen 699). This is why people claim that the gender wage gap must be destroyed as soon as possible. For the sake of the nation’s economy as a whole, the glass ceiling must be destroyed. Their argument is simple, sweet, and easy to believe.

Most issues with the claims of those who claim that the gap exists can be found simply by looking at their counterclaims. However, calling the opposing side “people who do not believe in the gender wage gap” is a bit misleading. For one, saying that they “don’t believe in the existence of a gender wage gap” is a bit extreme, as most with logical explanations do believe that it exists. Instead, they believe that the gender wage gap is misattributed, as it is due to various differences between the basic preferences and biology between women and men. For example, women in their twenties and thirties often end up having children, and as such need to take maternity leaves. Their fathers, meanwhile, do not have to, and as such work longer hours. A more biological approach is that due to higher testosterone levels, men are able to take jobs that are more physical than others. What twenty-three-percent gap that exists between the genders is not due to systematic discrimination, according to these people. They point out how as women’s rights have improved significantly over the years, what difference in salary that may exist due to sexism is also something that is closing rapidly (Sommers, American Enterprise Institute). It is a commonly known and acknowledged fact that “women have experienced economic gains relative to men over the last thirty years” (Pettit, xi). Considering all this, they claim that very little sexism exists in the workplace, and instead most of what may differ between the sexes can be attributed to general preference.

Unfortunately, these two groups will never be able to agree on this matter. This is not just because both explanations making sense, but also due to the fact that each side tends to discriminate against the other for social reasons. In the case of those who claim that the gender wage gap is a myth, they are actively opposing something that is meant to assist in gender equality. As such, those who believe in the wage gap claims that their opponents are sexist, and as such are less likely to listen to their claims. Meanwhile, the nonbelievers are blinded by the fact that there are a rather large number of extremists among feminists in the recent times. Lately, extremist feminists have been quite vocal in stating their views, which also happen to be more anti-male than for the sake of supporting harmony between the sexes. As they are a “rising sensation”, the mass media puts more emphasis on these people than on the non-radials amongst those who support the closing of the gender wage gap. Due to this, the people who claim “the gender wage gap is a myth” end up commonly seeing articles talking about the gap and how one of the most important things that must be done to do so is “obviously, smash the patriarchy. Smash. Smash. Smash” (Vagianos, The Huffington Post). Then they say “This is the kind of adversary I am arguing against?” and place everyone who speaks for the closure of the gap within the same box of madmen and madwomen. 

Of course, there is also the fact that both sides are clearly wrong on several aspects. As stated before, those who support the idea of the gender wage gap often ignore the several points that can lead to such a difference without noting why that may be the case. However, the points that those who oppose the concept of the gap are also wrong in that aspect in many cases. Most, if not all occupations that are physically taxing, such as movers and factory workers, tend to earn rather low wages in general, usually only a few dollars above minimum wage. More money comes in through careers that require skills, such as doctors, airline pilots, and marketing managers. These do not require much physical activity, and instead require a set of skills to be learned and honed. Most of these, in fact, are not unattractive for those of typical and classic female mindsets according to society today, even if one ignores the fact that many women are breaking the social boundary between the genders in recent times. Considering this, we do indeed see a bit of sexism right off the bat, as we notice how gender roles have been attributed to the sexes. Even if we put into account the need for many women to go on maternity leave or to take care of their children, despite this not being the case most of the time in spite of what many researchers may claim, female workers rarely need to leave work to take care of their children during working hours or anything of the like. There is indeed no way of confirming any sexism statistically in this situation, due to the fact that one cannot simply calculate the logistics and numerically quantify the degree of discrimination that may exist in the society of today. However, it is easy to see that many people see women as being unfit to work in professional careers, and instead are fit for more supportive roles such as a bank accountant or pharmacist. In fact, when given completely identical resumes except for some having male names and others having female names written on them, Yale research shows that researchers were more likely to choose the male to be hired. In fact, those with male names were offered higher salaries and were offered mentoring, whereas female resumes were often not. The reasoning behind this was apparently due to “competency”, despite the resumes literally being identical save for the gender-attributed names (Bill Hathaway, YaleNews). Interestingly enough, we also see in some studies that women tend to do fine once they have been hired and put into a position of power. According to a study done by the National Academy of Sciences, although fewer percentages of women were nominated for at least one award in biology, chemistry, and mathematics among tenured faculty, but women did better than men in that regard in electrical engineering, physics, and civil engineering (Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty, 319).  After all, after they are hired, they have a chance to prove their worth and their ability to show their skill. At that point, it Is not about the employer making guesses and assumptions about one’s skill level.

So what does this all tell us? We’ve seen that increasing the gender wage gap is a good thing, that it is mistakenly generalized in many cases, and that there is definitely some sexism that goes into hiring women for professional careers, but not in keeping them around after they’ve already been hired. A trend that can be noticed is that sexism is often not the case for careers that require very little professional training. This is why at low-paying careers, such as most fast food restaurants and the like, one can see an equal amount of female and male workers. With those out of the way, the professional careers can be split into three categories: those that are “feminine” according to society, those targeting a certain gender as an audience, and those that are not. Workers at restaurants, for example, can be considered “feminine” due to cooking being something that is commonly attributed to being a “woman’s job” in the past. Modeling and actors are professional careers that are not considered “feminine”, but they have a specific audience. Female models, for example, are made to be attractive to males, and male model are often made to be attractive to females. However, those not on that list, such as scientists, pilots, and many others, rarely have females workers in them. This is the case due to the mindset that still lingers on that women are less capable than men, and the sexism that many seek to be the cause of the gender wage gap. It does not exist in most careers, but it does for those of this category. Not only that, but with so few females in such roles, it is hard for a young female student to find a role model in such a place. As such, they tend to obtain role models in other careers, and the vicious cycle continues. With few females in those careers in the present, fewer females will be in those careers in the future. There is no biological disadvantage they have in the case of becoming a doctor or pilot that one can find, is there? What about a general preference that keeps them from becoming one of such careers? Other than the lack of role models as stated before, there is no such disadvantage or preference, and as such the logic used by disbelievers cannot be applied to the careers in this category.

Considering all this, it is a complete mistake for an economist or politician to think “Oh, women are suffering in the workplace. We need to make programs to help women earn more”. After all, men hold the fear that if women get more pay, men will get less (Cohen, 682). Rather than gathering more enemies for the closure of the gender wage gap, the correct option is to make it easier for women to get into those professional careers that are hard for them to get into. Such can be done in several ways. For example, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be enforced harsher than it currently is. Those laws prohibit wage discrimination and discrimination in employment based on sex, among other things, respectively. Yet, despite their existence, sexism is commonly found in companies or the like, yet no legal matters are taken in many cases. This is because some find it unnecessary, and others find it to be of little consequence. At worst, breaking these laws results in a small fine, which most people would not be able to ignore, but employers generally are able to without much problem. Increasing the penalty would fix this issue, although raising it too high could result in people abusing the system. While some may think “If this is about gender roles, just leave it be! Gender roles are crumbling by the day, so this issue should fix itself after time passes”, such issues could take hundreds of years to get over. Furthermore, as stated before, fixing this problem would lead to a newly empowered economy. Considering that the problematic occupations in this argument are the professional careers, this is even more so. After all, the economy largely runs on those of such careers, and they are ones that are based on skill. Whereas having an incompetent worker in Burger King or an unattractive model is of very little consequence, if at all, an incompetent doctor or pilot being the only ones available for service in a time of need can ruin a person or even a company. What if a CEO needs surgery, but there are only unprofessional or idiotic surgeons available at the time? If only there were more skilled surgeons to fill the growing demand! At the present day, there is a constant need for more surgeons, doctors, and the like, so why leave empty spots to dry? When the people are crying over the lack of available jobs, why not help some of the people get the ability to try some of the open positions? In its present state, the United States has so many job openings that could be filled by female workers, who do not enter such careers. This is not because the careers are unattractive to females, or because the government has a system that is biased for the sake of males. Instead, it is because the system sits by and allows discrimination to be a thing in some careers, and some careers only. The misfortune is simply amplified by the fact that the careers in question are the more important careers.
