deeply decline when having their bundle of joy.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?
No comments:
Post a Comment