Why Jordan Peterson is wrong about the gender pay gap
There was a debate recently between Channel 4 journalist Cathy Newman and notorious psychology professor (and lobster lover) Jordan Peterson, and the internet had a lot to say about it. Specifically, trolls crowed over the supposed irrationality of Cathy Newman – who was slanderous, and obnoxious to the reasonable, calm, and controlled Jordan Peterson. Peterson had heroically put up with terrible ‘so what you’re saying’ inferences that Newman made from his vague and ill-defined statements (he’s almost as heroic as that journalist who received death threats, you know her name, Cathy Newman?). But rather than critique Newman’s debating credentials, let’s analyse what Peterson said about the gender pay gap.
The central thrust of his argument is that the gender pay gap exists for “multiple reasons”, and that the “claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong”, arguing that multi-varied analysis paints a more nuanced picture. He does admit to prejudice existing (which you’d think would undermine his argument), but crusades against the belief that it’s the major factor. Instead, Peterson mentions that age, occupation, and personality-type need to be considered. This is a standard retort whenever someone points out women make 77 cents to the dollar, exploiting the lack of nuance in that statement.
Peterson mentions that age, occupation, and personality-type need to be considered
In the broadest sense, Peterson has a point as when the pay gap is broken down into the explained and unexplained pay gap, the explained gap accounting for the multiple variants. What’s left is an unexplained pay gap, and there’s debate as to what factors drive this. Bias against women is one, but so is ethnicity, child-rearing, and unpaid labour. Men are said to simply choose to work longer hours, but this ignores the fact that women bear the brunt of unpaid labour, especially in familial care and housework – the scaffolding of an unconscious patriarchal mindset that enforces such gender roles.
When fictitious and identical resumes were sent out, women with a child had worse chances in getting a job, but men were more likely to get the job and receive a higher starting salary. This is not only attributable to women working reduced hours – both by choice or obligation, but also a “motherhood penalty” that childless women, and all men, don’t encounter.
The explained pay gap doesn’t eliminate sexist undertones. Peterson mentioned women choose lower paying careers, but gaps still exists within most industries, including 66% lower earnings for female financial specialists, and 71% smaller incomes for female doctors (when age, education, race and hours were controlled). Even within female dominated industries, women are paid less, and men disproportionately receive senior positions. And that’s not even broaching the influence of patriarchal expectations in career choices, or why those careers are paid less.
Men are said to simply choose to work longer hours, but this ignores the fact that women bear the brunt of unpaid labour, especially in familial care and housework
When looking at education, Chicago MBA graduates were analysed, and female MBA graduates began employment with a small wage gap that grew over time. Women are also less likely to graduate from STEM degree subjects and enter STEM fields which pay more, and have lower gender pay disparities. There’s also a disparity within age groups, which grows as people get older. By far the most damning studies showed that when identical resumes or performance reports, which differed only by gender, were given to employers/managers, female names were less likely to receive job offers, or equal salaries and bonuses.
The debate creates a smokescreen that misses the point – people that deny the gender pay gap rail against the unmeritocratic ‘equality of outcome’ mindset implied, as equal opportunity does exist as shown by gender discrimination being illegal. Women simply choose lower paying jobs, or to not get graduate degrees. But this is wrong. There isn’t equality of opportunity when identical resumes are less likely to receive a job offer due to their gender. Unfortunately, Peterson is wrong; even analysing multiple variables shows it’s still all about gender.
Comments (8)
The title of the article is Why Peterson is wrong which the author articulates as….
“The central thrust of his argument is that the gender pay gap exists for “multiple reasons”, and that the “claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong”
Then author goes on to say…
“In the broadest sense, Peterson has a point as when the pay gap is broken down into the explained and unexplained pay gap, the explained gap accounting for the multiple variants..”
I am not sure I could effectively and honestly argue that someone is wrong, yet has a point to make as the author has tried to? At best, this author should state that perhaps Peterson has not fully explained the wage gender gap?
Perhaps, like I, Peterson sees the potential to do damage to a society by spouting hurtful and misleading statistics such as indicating that women make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes can do?
This statistic is malevolent and, unless spoken by someone completely ignorant, is being used to fuel misunderstanding and greater division.
‘Men are said to simply choose to work longer hours, but this ignores the fact that women bear the brunt of unpaid labour, especially in familial care and housework’
unpaid labour? if the man is bringing in most of the money, who is paying for the mortgage, car and putting food on the table? If they choose to split up she will be entitled to half his assets. I’d hardly call it unpaid.
“The debate creates a smokescreen that misses the point”
Well, I suppose the complex nature of such subjects does create a smokescreen for those who do not want to analyze the relevant statistics. We all know the far left holds an ideology that will be damned if it’s going to let complex statistical analysis get in it’s way.
There are many things that Peterson and I don’t see eye-to-eye on, but this article is utter dross
Dear Matthew,
If you are so lucky to have a child on the future, we will be expecting to read all about your experience on lactating the baby. Also let us know how all that unpaid house chores make you feel unapreciated by society, we will be expecting to make an inspection on your domestic performance before handing you your social services check.
Regards.
Astounding you wrote a whole article based on the interview and didn’t mention once one of the interview’s most central talking points- that women are more agreeable than men and more agreeable people get paid less.
Nothing paints Peterson in a better light when every attack against him is toothless.
The author displays that he is brainwashed to believe ideological shite as soon as he suggests a woman remaining in the home to raise a child is the fault of patriarchy. Frankly I find those so quick to invoke this word as laughable as those who cite bible passages as if these win them arguments, too.
It is easy to laugh about lobsters, but it is also as hypocritical as it gets to spend decades invoking the fact that we are essentially animals, and throwing this in the face of religious and political conservatives when it comes to sex and sexuality, but then throw a tantrum at the suggestion that roles and choices made between the sexes may arise in biology. You know? As they do in other species.
Sex does play a role in getting a job, etc. but that’s not sex itself. You have to realize man and woman are different in many ways. Let me give you two things to consider: 1. there are good chance a woman would take a paternity leave for a hugely long time during time of employment. 2. Male would much more like work overtime, and travel less limitations. If I am an employer, I would seriously consider that. Two identical resume, I would certainly choose the male.
As I said, the two sexes are not equal in contributing in work places. Why the hell they have to be equal? The women themselves don’t even sensible ask to be equal, it is those activists who assume they wanted to be equal.
Just stop this bullshit, grow some brain.