Gender wage gap in stark detail

[pmbryant]

http://pmbryant.typepad.com/b_and_b/2005/04/the_gender_wage.html

The Census Bureau released a study in May 2004 entitled "Evidence From Census 2000 About Earnings by Detailed Occupation for Men and Women." On page 12, it states:

Fifteen of the 20 listed occupations for men appear on the list for women, and in all cases, the female median is less than that for men. In fact, the occupation third on the list for women makes the same as the occupation last on the list for men ($67,000). A similar pattern is shown for the lowest-paid occupations (Table 6). Sixteen occupations appear on both lists, and in all cases but one ... women make less than men in the same occupation.

In only 11 out of 422 detailed occupations with 10,000 or more year-round full-time workers did the Census Bureau find that female median earnings were statistically indistinguishable from male median earnings.

Among the highest-paid occupations: women physicians and surgeons earn 63% of what men do; women dentists, 62%; women judges, magistrates, and other judicial workers, 57%; women actuaries, 70%; women economists, 82%; women chemical engineers, 80%; women chief executives, 63%.

Among the lowest-paid occupations: women dishwashers earn 86% of what men do; women farmers and ranchers, 60%; women cooks, 88%; women maids and housekeeping cleaners, 79%; women teacher assistants, 75%.

Take this Census data, across 411 out of 422 detailed occupations, combine it with the GAO study that controls for numerous independent variables, and the existence of a wage gap that is not "easily explained away" is readily apparent.

Unfortunately, discrimination, both the overt kind and the more subtle, social-pressure, kind, cannot be measured via studies like these. No one admits to purposefully paying women less for equivalent work. (After all, it is technically against the law these days.) So those who seek to deny the significance of discrimination continue waving their hands and inventing more and more excuses for the huge amounts of data that demonstrate the large pay differential between men and women.

The full post is at my blog, for anyone interested: http://pmbryant.typepad.com/b_and_b/2005/04/the_gender_wage.html

--Peter

[WildClarySage]

1. oh now wait a minute, surely the girlies just won't take on the

scary hard dangerous and icky jobs the men folks have to do. Isn't that the only reason any "wage gap" exists? :sarcasm:

[Hello_Kitty]

2. LOL!

And dontcha know we gals only need money for makeup and gewgaws. We don't need to, oh you know, support ourselves or families or anything. Nope, all we gotta do is get ourselves purtied up so one of them better paid breadwinners will come along and take care of us...

[highlonesome]

3. wow.

You know, our civilization runs off the backs of the people who do those types of jobs and your choice to make light of the risks and discomforts they endure every day that we benefit from is indeed in very poor taste. It is possible to make a substantive argument for your views on the earnings gap without dicounting those people as disposable. Further, it is my opinion that that sort of attitude is what drives many away from voting Democrat and supporting conservative candidates who at least pay lip service to the fact that those folks work awfully hard.

I work in a tech park that focuses on biotechnology. There's a new building going up adjacent to where I work that will be a research facility focusing on breast cancer. Last year, when they were hauling up some of the steel with a crane, a girder broke loose and fell to the ground crushing and killing one of the construction workers. When that research center is completed I doubt very much his name will be mentioned for the sacrifices he and his co-workers made to further scientific knowledge, though in fact their efforts are as indispensible as those of every scientist in the building.

Our civilization runs off the backs of those people.

[pmbryant]

4. Misinterpretation

I don't see anyone in this thread doing what you describe: "discounting those people as disposable".

The comment you are replying to is mocking the notion that women are not willing and/or able to do such dangerous jobs.

--Peter

[highlonesome]

5. really?

Ability? Who knows?

But how many women do you know who are willing to do those jobs? I don't know many. And in fact I'd say that the choice to do those jobs is a significant factor in the earnings gap.

I mean if you break down jobs in terms of education required -- which is a common part of the analysis -- these jobs require the same level of education as many others. However, in order to get anyone to do them, they have to be paid commensurate with the risk involved.

But given the fact that the equal pay act has been in effect over 40 years now, what do you propose -- in all seriousness -- should be done to narrow the earnings gap?

[highlonesome]

6. Fair Pay Act

Are you familiar with the proposed Fair Pay Act? What do you think of it?

[highlonesome]

7. link

text of the fair pay act

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s841.html

[pmbryant]

8. That choice has nothing to do with the pay gap

And in fact I'd say that the choice to do those jobs is a significant factor in the earnings gap.

This is incorrect, as the Census Bureau study I cited in the original post shows:

Women are paid less than men in 411 out of the 422 major occupations. Women in "high risk" occupations are paid less than men in those same occupations. Women in "safer" occupations are paid less than men in those same occupations.

As the the Fair Pay Act, I think it is an excellent idea and goes a long way toward making sure that the notion of equal pay for equal work is actually enforceable.

--Peter

[highlonesome]

9. pay

I have some questions:

1. When you say they're paid less, does that mean person A makes $20 per hour and person B makes $25 per hour or does that mean they both make the same hourly wage, but one works more hours?

2. When you say that of the 411 ocupations that women are paid less, how are those occupations compared? For example do they compare waiters to waitresses or simply call it "food service" taking in every employee from Wendy's to the CIA trained chef in Manhattan?

3. How are high risk occupations defined. For example is one loosely defined as "building trades" which would encompass everyone from painters and carpenters to steel workers or are they broken down more specifically?

4. In your opinion, does the Fair Pay Act constitute socialism?

[pmbryant]

10. Census Bureau + 2003 GAO study

1. When you say they're paid less, does that mean person A makes $20 per hour and person B makes $25 per hour or does that mean they both make the same hourly wage, but one works more hours?

The Census Bureau study compares reported earnings of individuals. A comprehensive GAO study from 2003 (discussed here, controls for total hours worked, experience, educations, and much more, and still find an "unexplained" pay gap between men and women of 20% in the year 2000.

These two studies together compellingly demonstrate that women are paid less than men for the same work. In other words, women earn less than men for the same amount of work. According to the data in these studies, this holds across virtually every occupation and industry of the economy.

2. When you say that of the 411 ocupations that women are paid less, how are those occupations compared? For example do they compare waiters to waitresses or simply call it "food service" taking in every employee from Wendy's to the CIA trained chef in Manhattan?

The Census Bureau study is linked to in my blog post linked from the original post above. But I recall that the occupations are moderately specific: i.e., fast food service is distinguished from "cooks" is distinguished from "waitpersons". Meanwhile, are you implying that women are typically unskilled labor while men are skilled labor? Otherwise, I see no relevance to the distinction you make.

3. How are high risk occupations defined. For example is one loosely defined as "building trades" which would encompass everyone from painters and carpenters to steel workers or are they broken down more specifically?

I don't recall that it made any such definition. I inferred that since the gap exists in virtually every occupation, it exists in both ones you might consider "high risk" and in ones you might consider "low risk".

4. In your opinion, does the Fair Pay Act constitute socialism?

That certainly came out of nowhere. Absolutely not.

[highlonesome]

11. looking at the study

Some things to note:

On page 15 is a bar graph comparing years worked and hours worked between men and women. Average years in the workforce for men and women respectively: 16 years vs 12 years. Women's time in the workforce is 75% that of men's. Hours worked: men, 2147, women, 1675. Women then work on average 78% the hours men typically do.

Page 16. Percent of fulltime work. Men: 88, women: 67. That's 24% gap in fulltime work. Weeks per year not working: men, 1; women, 3. That's a 33% gap.

It seems to me that there's a pretty steady gap not only in earnings of around 20%, but also that it seems reflected in the highly relevant factors of years on the job and raw time spent doing it.

If you read that study, it seems to me that the single most recurring theme is that men and women see an earnings gap mainly based in life choices they make. The study doesn't seem to support the idea that discrimination is the main part of the gap as your take seems to suggest.

[pmbryant]

12. You need to read further

You're apparently referring to the GAO study.

The GAO study controlled for precisely these differences (years on job, experience, education, and more), yet still found a wage gap of 20%.

At least read the summary.

--Peter

[highlonesome]

13. I did

The main thrust of the summary seemed to be that choice appears to be the main factor.

Read slide number 14:

"According to some experts and literature, some women trade off higher earnings or career advancement for a flexible job.

> For example, a woman may choose a human resources job that requires less travel and time in the office than an online position in the company, but offers less opportunity for advancement and higher earnings

> For example, in medicine, a woman may choose family practice because it may be more accomodating to the home and family than the surgical specialty, which offers relatively higher earnings. Surgeons' work is generally less predictable because it may require treating emergencies at all hours."

Slide number 17:

"It is difficult to measure and quantify individual decisions and discrimination."

"Because these factors are not readily measurable, interpreting any remaining earnings differences between men and women is problematic."

To be blunt, it appears that you've effectively misrepresented what the study actually says. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you indicate that according to the study that discrimination is a huge factor, while those who actually performed the study caution against this as a conclusion.

When you talk about correcting for the factors of time in and experience and that they've corrected for that, they indeed have. But the stickier problem is that their model can't then extrapolate on what effect those variables have on the next level. That is, one can correct for a 25% difference in hours spent on the job per year, but no statistical model can then extrapolate on how that would effect a promotional or salary decision based on that difference.

By that I mean if person A works 40 hours per week and person B works 50 hours per week typically, that is an objective fact that will readily effect the decision making of their manager. Who would you promote? Who would you give the bigger merit raise? The model can't account for that sort of depth.

[pmbryant]

14. Hand-waving versus data

Yes indeed you are wrong: I never indicated that this study claims that discrimination is a huge factor. You misrepresent my words by saying so. And you then have the nerve to suggest that I am misrepresenting the study.

This study shows that factors such as differences in hours worked, experience etc cannot account for the wage gap, contrary to your earlier statement, and to many statements by numerous people who seek to explain away the difference in pay between men and women as due to differences in hours worked or in time taken off to raise children. Those claims are contradicted by this study.

You can argue about the "next level" if you want. But this is a 20% gap. Across every sector of the economy and in virtually every occupation. That is a lot to explain away by second-order effects without even any data demonstrating them. The GAO clearly recognized that it had no clue how to explain the 20% remaining difference. It recongized that certain lifestyle choices (though not the ones mentioned above) could explain part of it, but it also recognized that discrimination could also explain part of it.

One of the paragraphs from my original post seems particularly apt here:

Unfortunately, discrimination, both the overt kind and the more subtle, social-pressure, kind, cannot be measured via studies like these. No one admits to purposefully paying women less for equivalent work. (After all, it is technically against the law these days.) So those who seek to deny the significance of discrimination continue waving their hands and inventing more and more excuses for the huge amounts of data that demonstrate the large pay differential between men and women.

--Peter

[highlonesome]

15. What you said

"So those who seek to deny the significance of discrimination continue waving their hands and inventing more and more excuses for the huge amounts of data that demonstrate the large pay differential between men and women."

So which is it? According to the study they caution against attributing the earnings difference primarily to discrimination and call making that judgement "problematic." They aren't denying discrimination as you say, they're calling it impossible to measure given the statistical model they use.

Next, you use the term "inventing" to describe any alternative or complementary variables to discrimination, which clearly this study acknowledges as both real and probably at least as significant as discrimination.

Also, the GAO never says that it has "no clue" as to why the gap exists. In fact, I thought they went to reasonable lengths to moderate their viewpoint and cite several possible explanations -- including, but not limited to -- discrimination. My view is that the manner in which you've presented the study is that these alternatives are nothing but "inventions" and that the only real conclusion that could be drawn is that the 20% gap exists primarily due to discrimination.

[lukasahero]

16. While the guys argue whether or not it exists (thanks for trying, Peter)

maybe we women can join the conversation and start discussing ideas as to what to do about it?

I would suggest that it is not "outright" deliberate discrimination alone (although I do believe it is part of the problem as men still largely rule the corporate roost and make the decisions to advance and promote) but also the "subtle" discriminations as Peter originally suggests that affect the choices women make and the way they approach a job offer or promotion possibility. My belief is that we need to change attitudes and expectations of both men AND women regarding work to see improvement.

First, women are not taught to expect too much. By that I mean, we are taught from a very early age and throughout our lives to be "gracious", "accomodating", not aggressive or demanding (that's not "ladylike"). We are not taught how to ask for something when we believe we deserve it. I heard a report on NPR about salary negotiations that said women will take whatever dollar figure is offered whereas men, knowing the rules of negotiation in the workplace, understand that every employer comes in at the lowest dollar figure they think they can get away with and fully expect the applicant to ask for more money. Women don't ask for it and as a result, don't get it. Men do.

As it happens, I was interviewing with 2 companies at the time and one had already offered me a job with a higher salary than the second one which is the one I wanted. Figuring (finally) that I had nothing to lose by asking, when the second company offered me a figure that was below the first, I simply told them I was interested in the job but that the dollar figure was too low. They came up - $8/hour! I was flabbergasted that without any further bickering from me, without hanging up on me because I was being so demanding they actually offered me more than I would have settled for!

This deferrment by women is promoted in society in so many ways - hey, THK made a point of saying something about it in her convention speech basically saying she looks forward to the day where smart women are considered an asset and not a bitch. "Uppity women" gets thrown around alot these days. The entire branch of the RW women's movement is built around trying to put women back in their place (don't be too smart, don't be too demanding, don't make men feel bad...) And then we wonder why women get paid less than men for the same jobs. (Sorry highlonesome, I'm not interested in discussing whether or not we do.)

We do get paid less. We do take time off to have kids and we do make different choices in our lives. We still deserve equitable pay. I am not a mother, I have made deliberate choices about my career and I still see less qualified men get hired at higher salaries than I do. I have found one means of taking control and evening that score but there have to be others. To blame that difference on my life choices is disingenuous.

More likely it is a combination of subtle discriminations that teach women we are not as deserving and teach men (or more accurately, corporate managers) that we won't fight back. Why pay top dollar when you don't have to? We have to teach ourselves and our daughters that we are WORTH as much as any man so we can start demanding we get paid as such. Corporate managers will only give us what we deserve when we ask for it.

Does anyone else have thoughts and ideas as to what we, as women, can do to change attitudes and as a result realities? This is not about blaming a cause, it's about taking control.

[highlonesome]

17. first off

I never once refuted the claim that the study shows that generally and statistically speaking women make less money than men. I know that's true. What we disagree on is why and to what degree the factors of free choice and discrimination play a role. I think the other thing we disagree on is what should be done about it.

I think it's also important to note that my personal politics are deeply influenced by libertarianism and a philosophy of stewardship of my society and my culture.

Now that said, I have to say that the issue of discrimination and choice at work hit home for me lately. Now I realize this is anecdotal, but please read with an open mind:

I'm a manager at a smallish biotech company that is currently undergoing a re-structuring. In other words most of us are fairly happy to still have a job! So in the re-structuring I've gone from running protein purification groups to working with outside contractors in a group where I'm the only man and reporting to a female boss (who I might add is quite brilliant).

The big problem with the new job is that it involves excessive amounts of travel, which is difficult for me because I'm the father of a 4 year old girl and you'll have to take this at face value: my wife and I take equal care of her through a division of labor that works well for us. So in the end while I'm away there won't be a hot home cooked meal on the table because I'm the one that does that (among other things) and my wife's work schedule doesn't allow it except on Fridays.

Now there's another manager in the group who's actually more qualified than me to take on these trips, but she doesn't have to. Why? According to my boss: "she's got a two year old at home to take care of and that's reality." But what is the reality and why does that matter? Should this be considered equal pay for equal work? I mean, we're both managers making nearly identical salaries (company policy), but I'm expected to put in many more hours and make many more sacrifices than she is. She was offered a choice. I was not. So in the end, who's getting the shaft here? First and foremost I'd say it's my daughter who cries on the phone every night when I call home.

So to me, there's a tradeoff there, and if I had my choice, I'd trade with the female manager who gets to go home to her daughter every night even if that means promotional or salary tradeoffs down the line. Which reveals a new question: which is more important, quality of life or amount of salary? To measure one's worth through the ability to bring home money also in a way damns one to be defined in those terms. If I have an envy of women today, it's an envy of the privelege of being valued inherently as a member of one's family and therefore a human being rather than as a farm animal is valued.

[lukasahero]

18. I'm not sure I understand the problem

If (if I'm reading your other posts correctly) you believe that women get paid less than men for the lifestyle choices they make, and you want to have the opportunity to make the same choice, then make it. Take a job of lesser responsibility and get paid less. Go home and take care of your daughter. That's a fine choice and women make it all the time. We also get paid less, appropriately so as you suggest, for making it.

I don't understand why you think you don't have that choice just because women want the opportunity to have that choice themselves? I don't have a daughter and I would be happy to travel for the extra bucks. But I don't control that situation. And that's really all I'm interested in discussing here - hence my not jumping into your argument with Peter and instead starting a new post that asks for ideas about to take back control of our situations and not penalize all for the choices of some.

[highlonesome]

19. life happens when you're planning other things

I understand your point, but here's the rub: my salary is the one that provides the mortgage payment, the groceries, the college fund and the utilities. Believe me, my wife and I have talked this to death and a big part of it is that she doesn't want to change the way she lives. Since there are no other biotech companies in the area, quitting for something else would involve a salary reduction of probably around 2/3 which means sell the house and end the college fund.

I mean, I have a pretty lucrative resume that could land me a job somewhat easily somewhere else except for one thing: it would involve a substantial move which is something that my wife who was born and raised here is not willing to do. She's a dental assistant and her relatively lower salary mainly pays for her new car, her clothes and her entertainment.

But our story is somewhat more complicated. When we married she was told by her OBGYN that she wouldn't be able to get pregnant. Apparently he only knew half the story because three months later she was.

So my view is that most of this stuff goes back to social convention and expectation. My wife has an expectation that her husband will be primary breadwinner and that that's somehow more important than his parenting availability. My peer manager has the expectation that because she's a mother that she shouldn't have to travel (I mean realistically we could split it and neither would have all that much). My female boss shares her expectation. And of course there's my culturally driven acceptance of my role whether I like it or not.

[lukasahero]

20. I would think then

that you would welcome the idea of changing attitudes of both men and women regarding pay stature and societal and familial gender roles? I think both men and women should have the opportunity to make their own choices, and work them out within their own families, but having the choice is the point. Your personal relationship is restricting your options, society is restricting mine.

Please don't disallow the possiblity of change for the rest of us women because your wife's notion that you should provide for her while she dictates where and how you live and expects you to care for your daughter as well (um, if she's so traditional, why isn't she doing the cooking?) is frankly unreasonable.

Again, I have no children but I, like you, am judged by societal expectations of female and male - maybe she'll leave us to get pregnant, she doesn't 'have' to be the breadwinner, this guy has a family to 'support' (note, that expectation is not a family to "care for" and equally needs to be addressed because it's detrimental both ways).

But I can't "make" someone pay me more. While I can and have learned some ways of coaxing them to do so, many women don't have that option or knowledge or, like your wife, they've been taught not to expect too much of themselves. Nor can I "prove" that I am not going to have kids (although at 42 you'd think they'd get the idea it ain't happening). All I can do is try to come up with ideas about why the attitudes and expectations persist and how to change them.

Wouldn't that, rather than clinging to the old stereotypes, denials and blame games, free us both?

[highlonesome]

21. Absotively!

I absolutely support changing the notions of roles for men and women. And as far as my wife being traditional, funny thing is the fact of my breadwinning role seems to be the only thing she's traditional about. People often talk about the glass ceiling in the working world for women. The flipside of that coin is the glass gate that limits men's roles within their families. I mean, I care for my daughter not out of some ideal of equality, but because I find it a satisfying role to perform. Where some may find changing diapers or the other chores of childcare to be work, I find in each one of them an opportunity for establishing and maintaining a close relationship that'll be this close only temporarily. So I do the cooking for two reasons: like many Italian grandmothers, that's how I show affection for those I love and I too reject the notion of traditional stereotypes.

I think where you and I disagree is on the level of control women actually do have over their own lives. If you look at my story which I find to be typical, at each stage, women were offered a choice and freely made it. My choices at each stage have been more limited though I take responsibility for each one. I mean, I could in fact decide to unilaterally quit my job, sell the house, and make my daughter's education someone else's problem. That choice, however, could likely cause enough distress to my marriage that I'd end up in family court with a judge imputing the income I'm capable of earning -- and boom -- right back to where I was except as even less of a parent.

[lukasahero]

22. We do disagree

"at each stage, women were offered a choice and freely made it"

We are actually teaching young women in high school right now, today, not to be too smart because the "prince" won't like it. What "choice" does that leave women? You continue to perpetuate the negative stereotypes, attitudes and expectations even in your post. These are the attitudes I believe we need to address if men and women are truly going to be able to make real choices.

You earlier note that "life happens when you're making other plans" suggesting that you are in the position you're in now (having to earn the big bucks) because your wife got pregnant. Perhaps we could turn that around and note that many women are getting lower wages for the same reason. I do hope as a result that you support the right of reproductive choice. If we are going to "punish" people, both male and female, for the things that happen to them even if they're plans may have been different, we should at least keep the option of choosing what to do about that available to them. And perhaps, while we're at it, we could try to change the attitudes that devalue parental care of both mother and father so that no one is "punished" for choosing to have and care for a child.

The point is, this isn't the men's issues forum. Women have issues that we need to fix and this forum was set up to do so. Equitable pay is one of those issues and rather than debate with you over whether or not it exists, I would rather get on with the business of talking to people about what to do about it. You haven't as yet offered any solution to the problem but seem rather to be insistent on denying it and, as a result, perpetuating it - to your detriment and ours.

I don't blame men for the wage gap but it does exist for reasons that are partly out of our control and others that are not. Again, as this is the women's issues forum, my interest here is in discussing the attitudes that hold women back - what we are teaching young women about themselves and their role in society - and, upon finding the ones that we do have control over, discussing how to fix them. I'm sorry for your situation but please don't continue to be part of the problem that exaccerbates it by suggesting women have, in effect, "all the breaks".

[highlonesome]

23. one last request

You keep saying that I deny a wage gap exists. Could you please show me where I said that?

What are the negative stereotypes I portray of women?

Where did I say I was being punished?

Do you really think we're teaching young women not to be too smart in high school? I mean, they're acheiving at higher levels than boys across the board and on into college level. I'm not positive, but I think they also outnumber men at every level of undergrad and graduate school level -- especially in law and medicine. That doesn't seem to be symptomatic of teaching them to "not be too smart."

Where did I suggest that women have "all the breaks." I've pretty clearly portrayed it as a two sided coin. Women suffer from the glass ceiling and men suffer from the glass gate. Each one of those things contributes to the tradeoff in the other.

You know for a moment there, I thought you and I were going to have a fruitful discussion of this, but I have to say the somewhat curt response above sort of took me by surprise. On the upside, though, at least I never said any of the things you're accusing me of.

But anyway, sorry to invade the women's issues forum with a dissenting opinion. I guess I'll go over to the DU men's issues forum to talk about this stuff. Oh yeah. There isn't one.

[lukasahero]

24. My apologies

You're right, you don't deny a gap exists. You do suggest that it exists because women choose different types of work and lifestyle and therefore not really an issue that needs to be fixed. It's just the way it is based on the choices we make in life.

I did not suggest your were perpetuating negative stereotypes of women, I suggested your were perpetuating the "stereotypes, attitudes and expectaions" of gender roles in the workforce - women freely get to make choices at "every stage". I find this to be untrue and a continuation of the idea that women are solely responsible for their situation.

You note in your post that you find your situation to "be typical". I think that's a difficult point to prove and that's what I was referring to by the negative "stereotypes, attitudes and expectations". This is also what I was referring to when I used the phrase "women, in effect, "get all the breaks"". It sounded to me as if you were saying women get to choose whatever they want to do but you have a job to do.

I don't believe I ever said you said you were being punished. I use the word "punish" in quotes because it is my interpretation of what happens to people when they don't make as much money doing the same job as someone else because they have family responsibilities. You have throughout this thread with me made it clear that you don't like the fact that you are "expected" to work more hours and don't have the opportunity to participate in your daughter's life the way you would like to. That certainly seems to me that you think your situation is wrong. And I agree.

Regarding teaching young women not to be too smart, see page 17 and the story about the dragon, the prince and the princess.
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf

Regarding the men's forum, if you're interested in one, perhaps you could start one. That's how we came about having this one - someone with an interest in discussing women's rights and issues decided it was important to them and took the initiative to start it. You can do the same.

Now, if we're done defending ourselves, perhaps we could get back to the question of what women can do to reduce the wage gap...

[highlonesome]

25. I'm different from you....

...I think in that my politics is very libertarian. I think we all have many more avenues at our disposal than we think or know and that it is the work of most politicians to obscure these facts from us.

If you got the notion from my posting that I'd like to perpetuate stereotypes then I'm not getting myself across well enough. Though I thought I was doing my best.

I guess because of my libertarianism I see myself as responsible for my situation and though culture and social convention play a role in it, it is my choice as to what degree I allow them to play that role. I mostly consider my situation and work to find an opportunity I haven't yet considered.

But I also work to change attitudes toward parenting and family. Whenever I can, I leave work at lunchtime to grab a quick sandwich and take my daughter to pre-school. I've attended every single doctors appointment she's ever had. I've historically been the one to stay home with her when she's sick. As you can probably tell, my new work arrangement threatens to play havoc with the was I've handled my family life all the way through.

And sorry to say it because I know we disagree, but until more men start doing these things we'll have status quo and until more women start making work decisions in the same way men do...well status quo again.