VI. WHY CONSIDER MEN'S WORK?

Because it is there!
A better question is: Why would woman not want to think about all her options, taking every factor into account?
IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT THE MONEY
Consider the variety. The fun of having a lot of choices is in being able to custom-make your life, and suit yourself. If the ice-cream shop has only chocolate, strawberry and vanilla, you’ll make do and probably still enjoy the treat, but, once you know about jamocha almond fudge, it might be even more worth the cost and calories!
If we are not aware of all our options, ideally from a young age, we cannot begin to observe, visualize, and then prepare ourselves to take advantage of the whole range of choices. If, for the whole of our lives, we see only a narrow range of possibilities, we will adjust to them psychologically, and our lives will be narrower, smaller for it.
Women, with their particular instincts, are prone to thinking things like “I’m a mom (or hope to be), and I’m really interested in kids, so I’ll look at being a teacher” (child psychologist, day care worker), or, “I like helping people so I’ll be a nurse”.
Woman often gravitate to where they are most comfortable, to what they already do. Consider that every woman who is married with children spends her time nurturing, maintaining, facilitating, assisting and coordinating. If she selects employment that includes these same features, hers is not a life filled with as much contrast and scope as it might be if she were helping with homework and stir-frying dinner in the evening, engineering a dam or rebuilding an engine during the day. Why not consider something different? What if variety really is the spice of life?
There is another, more subtle benefit for us all in women taking non-traditional jobs. Women and men working together professionally is a positive thing. If men and women are dichotomized by their careers, our interactions with the opposite sex might be primarily romantic or domestic in nature. Working together gives women the opportunity to enjoy men as people and colleagues. So, in effect, we provide ourselves with a more interesting variety of co-workers. Further, as more women aspire to executive positions and other jobs traditionally filled by men within corporations, there will be less stereotyping of women in corporate roles of a support or assistance nature. While some might concern themselves that an increase in the numbers of men and women working together in more similar jobs would create more titillating and distracting work environments, I believe the opposite is true. As we grow more accustomed to viewing the opposite sex as capable, respectable coworkers, and as the support role of women diminishes, there will be less intrigue in the boardroom and the service bay. Besides, a gratifying and stimulating job might be as much activity and ego boost a girl needs before going home!
Consider the challenge. As soon as a woman decides to double, triple or quadruple the number of different jobs she’s willing to consider, she has the opportunity to be challenged in new ways. Once on the job, she may well approach a challenge in a new way, in a place where her perspective is a fresh one. Women who haven’t fully explored technical, mechanical or other aptitudes may find gratification in non-traditional jobs. Likewise, fascinating new territory awaits those inventive women who are problem solvers and natural leaders. For girls who prefer to work outdoors, or who like physical challenges, considering non-traditional occupations is a must.
Consider the benefits. Because Men’s Work has evolved in a context of the needs and expectations of breadwinners, there are often better health and retirement plans offered as part of the compensation package for these occupations. Financially-based benefits are more likely to be family-inclusive.
Consider the job security. Traditionally male-dominated occupations, with the support of labor unions and advanced human resources departments, often have a lot of employment protection and termination protocol built into their policies.
Consider the opportunities for advancement. Men’s Work is more likely to include the promotion feature. Many of the support roles women choose have less chance of putting them on the executive track. A woman should beware of the dead-end component, regardless of entry-level pay, if they want to end up in decision-making, leadership roles.
Consider the societal support. Governmental endorsement of diverse hiring has generally created an improved environment for women considering non-traditional jobs. A few women who have entered male-dominated professions have gone on to head companies that have benefited from public and private sector policies favoring the granting of jobs to a variety of contractors. Many large projects are municipal ones, with policies in place to support diversity in the hiring of private firms to do the work. As there are so few women-run engineering and computer science firms, for example, those that do exist are in great demand as sub-contractors by large male-run contracting firms seeking to meet a government agency’s guidelines. I know a woman who heads up her own engineering company, in great demand for complicated projects. She is not only a woman but also a minority woman. What she is not is an engineer! She’s just a very, very smart businesswoman.
Consider the alternative. The future does not look bright for “Woman’s Work”---that is, for the traditional occupations of women, if women continue to crowd these fields. Supply and demand will create a relative downward spiral in the value of these jobs, and the brunt of the consequence will be borne by the minority and poverty level women most inclined to view their choices as limited to service industries. Women as a population, especially in the blue-collar sector, need to branch into other fields so that they do not create an overabundance of workers in fields in which limited compensation is available.
NOW LETS TALK ABOUT THE MONEY
As I have discussed, Men’s Work pays better overall, for a number of reasons, most justifiable, some not. That’s way it is. This alone should be reason enough for many women, who really need or want to make as much money as possible in the time they have, to look hard at non-traditional employment.
WHY CAN’T WE WORK IT OUT SO WOMEN ARE PAID AS WELL AS MEN FOR THE KIND OF WORK THEY ALREADY DO?
If a woman works just as hard as a man, for just as many hours, in a job that requires just as much skill or risk, why shouldn’t the law require that she make just as much money?
In the 1990s the concept of ‘comparable worth’ was explored and began to become a focus, as affirmative action had been in the ‘80s, busing in the ‘70s. Some universities, hospitals and governmental agencies developed elaborate ratings systems that attempted to measure and assign value to features of each employed person, like years of schooling, skill, and responsibility. Proponents of the idea claimed that it was unfair that women should be victimized by low pay just because they’d been herded by our society into non-lucrative careers. They claimed that figuring out the comparable worth of each worker is necessary for society to meet its moral obligation to treat all people equally.
Determining the value of a person’s job, based on its features, would be a difficult and expensive prospect, fraught with much subjectivity and opportunity for ongoing controversy. The best and easiest way to determine the value of a job in a capitalistic system, is by the natural process of supply and demand. Even if some arbitrary ranking method could be developed, and wages for Women’s Work were thereby increased, the result could be detrimental for women. Companies would be forced to lay off workers and require more of existing workers in order to stay in business. Once again, the neediest segment of our society, uneducated female minority mothers, would risk the greatest loss.
Comparable worth laws have been voted on in Congress, but have never passed.
In Federal Court, comparable worth cases have generally been unsuccessful for the Plaintiffs. In one case in Colorado, nurses complained that they were paid less than tree trimmers and sign painters being paid by a hospital. The hospital prevailed. One Iowa university that actually did have a comparable worth grading system in force, was sued when they paid workers at their plant more than clerical workers of the same grade. They claimed they needed to because there were fewer plant workers than clerical workers available. The university won.
Accepting the efficiency of the marketplace and the principals of supply and demand, the best way for the value of Women’s Work to go up is to create its scarcity. This can only happen if women go into other careers, or quit working all together. The first solution is the most practical.