The study reveals, not-shockingly, but ironically, that the true cost of motherhood for low-skilled and high-skilled women is comparable, given the social status of each. Motherhood, like womanhood comes in a second class box, but still a box!
Specifically, the study asserts that:
- "Low-skilled women don’t get very big raises, and having kids does little to change that.The so-called wage trajectories (think of a line graph showing a worker’s wages growing over time) of low-skilled women are much flatter than those of high-skilled women. Having children didn’t change those trajectories very much.
- For high-skilled women, kids spell the end of raises. High-skilled women have steep wage trajectories. Those trajectories flatten out almost precisely at the moment they have children.
- Low-skilled women don’t seem to make their lost wages back. Ten years after having children, low-skilled women have wages that are six percent lower than their counterparts.
- High-skilled women don’t make that money back, either. Ten years after having children, high-skilled women have wages that are 24 percent lower than their counterparts.
Becoming a mother, not a father, seems to make a huge difference in this gender unequal America. Why? Because even now men still are untouched by this disparity. According to the study becoming a father does not have an effect on the man's wages. Do women really have it as good as they think we do, or is this all part of the Matrix created by men to keep women in our place? Hidden misogyny, or overt? Thoughts?