I get the argument, really: "sexism isn't an issue because [variable] is a much bigger contributor to the discrepancy." I even have a hard time not buying into it. It's tempting for me to believe that, given similar circumstances, a man and a woman would be treated equally. Unfortunately, "a bigger contributor" isn't the same as the only contributor. Yes: time out of work is a huge confound in performance measures for career growth, and it tends to hit women disproportionately. Why does it hit women so much harder than men, even in this day and age? I'm reminded of an essay in the Atlantic* from March which said:
In my set, no husband tells his wife that it is her womanly duty to stay home and nurse the child. Instead, both parents together weigh the evidence and then make a rational, informed decision that she should do so. Then other, logical decisions follow" -- Hanna Rosin (2009)As one commenter on the ABA Journal article pointed out, time out of the office is only part of the picture. Assumptions that working moms won't be up for the same types of projects as working dads are still prevalent. Dau-Schmidt even tells the ABA Journal that "gender was secondary, and much less important, than whether they had interrupted their careers to do child care". That's not equivalent to the headline used: "Many Women Lawyers w/ Kids Do as Well as Men".
*Hat-tip to Laurenhat for pointing out a Pandagon.net essay referencing Rosin.
Find out the day's topic before you read: follow diffblog on Twitter! Diffblog also available on LiveJournal.
Difference Blog Reader Poll
0 comments:
Post a Comment