This house believes that a woman's place is at work—concluding remarks
Concluding remarks for the ten day online debate at The Economist

Francesca Romana Correale

Article Highlights

  • Women do not have a defined place in society--one size does not fit all

    Tweet This

  • A vote against "a woman's place is at work" is a vote for a woman's right to choose

    Tweet This

  • Employment data shows that women earn equal pay for equal work

    Tweet This

This is a debate about a woman's "place" in society. I maintain that women do not have an assigned place. Women are various. One size does not fit all. Linda Basch, by contrast, maintains that women "belong in the workplace". It is in the workplace, she says, that women "develop their full potential as productive and self-reliant human beings". A vote for the motion is a vote for a uniform standard for how women should live their lives; a vote against is a vote for women's right to choose.

Astonishingly, the moderator, Barbara Beck, has attempted to revise the motion in mid-debate. She writes,

"In fact the motion was meant ironically, echoing the old saw that "a woman's place is in the home" but turning it on its head. It was not intended to be taken literally, but to suggest that times had changed and that for most women being part of the workforce has become the norm—and a good thing too."

Had I been asked to oppose the anodyne resolution, "Times have changed and it's a good thing women are working", I would never have done so. Who would? Ms Beck was no doubt taken by surprise when Ms Basch missed the irony and defended the motion as proposed. I was not surprised, because I have spent many years studying the organised women's movement. Women staying home with children is not on its list of accepted practices, to put it mildly.

"...there is little evidence of systematic discrimination against women in the American workplace today."--Christina Hoff Sommers

Ms Basch claims that I ignore the fact that most women today simply do not have the economic option to stay at home. I never ignored this reality, but it is not relevant to the motion on the table. We are not debating whether most women have the opportunity to stay at home—I am fully aware that most women (and men) face serious economic constraints. Instead, we are determining whether women who do chose home over paid employment are making a respectable and worthy decision. Ms Basch suggests they are not. I say they are.

There is more that divides us. Ms Basch says that "countless rigorously controlled studies" have "demonstrated" that women continue to suffer bias. I have no doubt that, even today, women continue to encounter some prejudice, and that even well-meaning employers may harbour "subtle" or "hidden" biases. But it is not enough to uncover hidden bias in a laboratory experiment. What has to be shown is that bias is a significant force holding women back. As I keep saying, when serious researchers look at actual employment data and factor in details not accounted for in laboratory settings, such as the number of hours worked per week, they find that women are earning equal pay for equal work—bias recedes as a significant explanatory factor.

There are many examples of these studies, but I'll limit myself to two. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a congressionally mandated study of gender bias in academic science, performed by the National Science Foundation (NSF). For years, gender equity activists had claimed massive bias against women in fields such as maths, physics and engineering. (And they made their case by citing many of the same sources listed in Ms Basch's endnotes.) But when the NSF tested the claim, it found that women scientists, at critical junctures such as hiring, tenure decisions and promotion, had fared "as well or better than men". Consider the case of pharmacists. Almost half of all pharmacists are female, yet as a group they earn only 85% of what their male counterparts earn. Why should that be? After all, male and female pharmacists are doing the same job with roughly identical educations. There must be hidden bias. Well, according to the 2009 National Pharmacist Workforce Survey, male pharmacists work on average 2.4 hours more per week, have more job experience, and more of them own their own stores. Do Ms Basch, the moderator and the two featured experts find it unfair that male pharmacists who work longer hours and have more experience are paid more? There may be exceptions, but most workplace pay gaps and glass ceilings vanish when accounting for these legitimate factors.

Ms Basch claims that I ignore "basic facts about the lives of women". Here are two facts that are basic and true. First, there is little evidence of systematic discrimination against women in the American workplace today. Second, there is lots of evidence that women and men generally strike different balances between home and work, with women more strongly attracted to homemaking. Ms Basch might not approve, but millions of women choose to stay at home with their children. That choice should not be written off as benighted or anti-social.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at AEI

Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author

 

Christina Hoff
Sommers
  • Christina Hoff Sommers, a former philosophy professor who taught ethics, is probably best known for her critique of late-twentieth-century feminism. She is also known for her extensive writings, among them Who Stole Feminism? (Touchstone Books, 1995), The War Against Boys (Touchstone Books, 2001), One Nation Under Therapy (St. Martin's Press, 2005), and The Science on Women and Science (AEI Press, 2009). Her textbook, Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life, a bestseller in college ethics, is currently in its ninth edition. Her new book Freedom Feminism—Its Surprising History and Why it Matters Today will be published in spring 2013 by AEI Press. A new and revised version of The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies Are Harming our Young Men will be out in August 2013 (Simon and Schuster).


    Follow Christina Hoff Sommers on Twitter.
  • Phone: 2028627180
    Email: sommers22@gmail.com
  • Assistant Info

    Name: Caroline Kitchens
    Phone: 2028625820
    Email: Caroline.Kitchens@aei.org

What's new on AEI

image The Census Bureau and Obamacare: Dumb decision? Yes. Conspiracy? No.
image A 'three-state solution' for Middle East peace
image Give the CBO long-range tools
image The coming collapse of India's communists
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
    MON
  • 22
    TUE
  • 23
    WED
  • 24
    THU
  • 25
    FRI
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled today.
No events scheduled this day.