The Cost of Gender
By Jaime Harker & Theresa Starkey
The cost of gender is largely invisible in the mainstream and rarely discussed in the media, but one’s gender frequently comes with a real cost–not only in terms of money. Gender causes stress, limits access, creates barriers to advancement, and prevents opportunities from materializing. Some of these losses and barriers you can see, but sometimes you don’t know about other possibilities because they are never shown to you.
We inherit, in Western cultures like the United States, a binary gender system at birth. It is presented as a ‘natural’ system, one that defines femininity and masculinity in specific, essentialist ways, and insists that all people are exclusively defined as one or the other. The gender binary, of course, isn’t natural; it is a gendered ideology, one that is raced, classed, and grounded in nationalism and cultural specificity. Though this gender system manifests differently in particular nations, regions, hemispheres, and languages, the language we use to describe gender suggests that it is fixed, unchanging, and an objective description of a natural, God-given order.
To talk about the gender system as an ideology is not to ignore the body; it is, rather, to see how our understanding of the body is mediated by this ideology. Biologists, for example, quantify gender variance: there is a huge disparity of size and appearance of what we term “sex characteristics,” variance that we obscure when we talk about “two genders.” There are also a statistically significant number of babies who are intersex, who are born with XXY or XYY chromosomes, or whose sex is not easily determined; this condition is often “corrected” surgically based on appearance, not chromosomes. Extensive plastic surgery, hormones, and other body modifications are often performed on those with XX chromosomes to be more “feminine” or those with XY chromosomes to be more “masculine.” We frequently discipline the body to match our ideological expectations, rather than acknowledging the huge range of gender variance in our “natural” state.
We are encouraged to understand ourselves through the binary system and internalize those ideologies. We know the social script of gender that we are expected to perform, and we know the consequences of not adhering to that script. We are interpellated as male or female; Louis Althusser defined interpellation as the moment the state, through its pervasive ideology, names you as a particular identity. When, for example, a policeman says “Hey you!” and you turn in response, you have been interpellated by the state.
We are interpellated by the gender binary system from our earliest moments. All of us can name some moments where we were interpellated by the gender system. Just in the office, we share these examples: Kevin’s mother bought him a Barbie to practice brushing hair, and when he enjoyed that present, his father tried to counteract it by buying him a shotgun that was taller than he was. When Theresa went to the playground with her short hair, pants, and Star Wars shirt, the other girls and boys said to her, “You aren’t a girl! You are a boy!” She had to claim she was a girl, when really she enjoyed that androgynous freedom before it was labeled. Jaime was forced to wear a skirt to her weekly church youth meeting on Wednesday, so she replaced her jeans with a wraparound skirt but kept her tube socks, tennis shoes, and t-shirt exactly the same, scandalizing the church ladies. There are countless moments like these, a repetition of gendered interpellation that forms a seemingly inescapable web. Whether we are punished for not conforming or starved by conforming all too well, all of us pay the price of being in such an inflexible ideological system, one which strives to define the terms and limit the conversation.
Can we imagine a world beyond this gender binary system? As Riki Williams argues in the ground-breaking anthology, Genderqueer, transgressing the conventions of the gender binary provides “a hint of another kind of person we might have been if only we didn’t inhabit a world where every one of eight billion human beings must fit themselves into one of only two genders” (13). The costs of masculine, feminine, trans, and genderqueer are multiple and various, but they all stem from the same system. How do we account for these costs? What are their long-term effects? How do we make them visible and how do we lessen them?
The articles below are by no means exhaustive, but they serve as case studies that reveal the hidden cost of gender. Before we can imagine a world outside the ideology of the gender binary, we need to see and account for the costs of the system we occupy. We hope to continue this exploration throughout the coming academic year.
The Wage Gap
Karen Kate Kellum (Psychology) & Fouzia Awan (Economics)
A pay gap is simply a difference in earnings between two or more groups of people. Pay gaps based on gender, race, and ethnicity are well documented. Recent reports indicate women in the USA earn approximately 82% of that of men. While this gap narrowed over the last two decades of the 20th century (up from about 62%), progress stalled during the first two decades of the 21st.
There are a host of identifiable factors that contribute to gendered pay gaps, including occupation, education, experience, productivity, division of family labor, and risk tolerance. Researchers find “unexplainable” differences in pay potentially attributable to discrimination, even when controlling for such factors.
Our governments can, and have started to, implement legislation that protects employees seeking pay equity and policies that reduce gender stereotypes in career and education choices. Pay transparency interventions involve prohibiting employers from asking about salary history during the hiring process and from retaliating against employees who seek or share salary information. Currently, only 22 states have such protections. Forty-nine states have Equal Pay protections, with Mississippi being the only outlier.
Our employers can take proactive steps to address pay gaps. This includes conducting frequent pay audits, implementing practices that promote transparency in pay, and providing family-friendly workplaces (e.g., child and elder care, and after-school activities).
We can also contribute to pay equity. We can engage with supportive networks, advocate for effective public and employer policies, and help new employees negotiate equitable pay when starting a job.
Sources:
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789-865. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20160995
Collischon, M. (2020). Trends in the gender wage gap in the US. A replication study of Blau and Kahn (journal of economic literature 2017). International Journal for Re-Views in Empirical Economics, 4(2020-2), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.18718/81781.17
https://blog.dol.gov/2023/03/14/5-fast-facts-the-gender-wage-gap#:~:text=Stats.,of%20what%20men%20are%20paid.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/03/01/gender-pay-gap-facts/
The Pink Tax
Kevin Cozart (Gender Studies)
In addition to the Wage Gap that already harms women’s financial well-being, women are also subject to the “pink tax,” one of the most visible and quantifiable costs of gender. “Pink tax” is the term that refers to the added cost that mostly women have to pay for items and services that 1) are marketed towards women that often do the same job as products targeted to men but cost men less or that women have to use more often or 2) that women are required to spend money on that men don’t have to. Examples of the former are shampoos, body wash, or razors targeting women. The latter are things like “feminine hygiene” products.
According to an article on Bankrate.com, “pink tax” became the term of choice for this phenomenon “when the Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995 passed in California, prohibiting price discrimination on services.” Per the California Senate Committee on Judiciary and Senate Select Committee on Women, Work & Families in 2020, “Californian women pay an average of about $2,381 more, for the same goods and services, than men per year. That can add up to about $188,000 in pink tax throughout a woman’s life.” The impact of the “pink tax” is only exacerbated in times of significant inflation.
Another example of the Pink Tax is the traditionally gender-based cost of hair treatment services where women’s haircuts cost more than men’s. There has been a recent movement to eliminate this tax as more progressive stylists have moved to a time-based fee system rather than a gender-based one. While this is a step in the right direction, more needs to be done to eliminate the "pink tax" entirely.
Sources:
https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/pink-tax-how-women-pay-more/
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8a42df04-8b6d-4949-b20b-6f40a326db9e/the-pink-tax---how-gender-based-pricing-hurts-women-s-buying-power.pdf
https://www.healthline.com/health/the-real-cost-of-pink-tax#The-pink-tax
Changing Women's Property Rights
Anne Klingen (Outreach)
Throughout history, women have faced numerous challenges when it comes to their rights. The United States has seen significant transformations in women's property rights over time, reflecting the changing dynamics of society and legal frameworks. I would like to explore the historical progression of those rights in the United States and highlight a few milestones.
From the founding of the U.S. colonies to the beginning of the 19th century, women continued to have limited rights under the British common law Doctrine of Coverture, in which a married women’s legal existence was subsumed by her husband, meaning her property, her earnings, and her ability to act freely were all subject to her husband’s authority. However, the mid-19th century witnessed a variety of social movements such as abolition and suffrage. In 1848, the Seneca Falls Convention marked a crucial turning point by advocating for equal rights for women. This advocacy paved the way for legislative reforms that aimed at improving gender equality. New York's Married Women's Property Act of 1848 granted women the right to control their own assets, separate from their husbands. Many states followed New York’s example and passed legislation between 1848 and the early 20th century allowing for further advancements in women's property rights, such as married women owning separate real estate and managing their finances without interference from their husbands and protecting the inheritance rights of widows.
In the mid-20th century, the resurgence of the feminist movement led to new reforms in women's property rights. In 1974, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibited discrimination based on sex in financial transactions, allowing women to open bank accounts, obtain credit cards, and commit to loans and mortgages without male co-signers.
Women's property rights in the US have undergone a significant transformation over the centuries, from being tied to their husbands to having control over their own assets. But more work can be done. The Bureau of Labor Statistics 2021 reports indicate that women earn $0.83 for every dollar a man makes. The 2018 Survey of Income and Program Participation by the US Census Bureau reports that 50% of women aged 55 to 66 have no personal retirement savings.
Sources:
Women, Property, and the Law in the Anglo-American World, 1630-1700
Moore, Lindsay R. Early American Studies; Philadelphia Vol. 14, Iss. 3, (Summer 2016): 537.
Married Women's Economic Rights Reform in State Legislatures and Courts, 1839–1920. Chatfield, Sara. Studies in American Political Development; Cambridge Vol. 32, Iss. 2, (Oct 2018): 236-256.
American women and the lingering implications of coverture. Hoff, J. The Social Science Journal 44 (2007) 41–55
Women's Health
Kenya Wolff (Teacher Education)
For far too long, there has been a lack of female representation and an underfunding of women’s health issues in medical research. This led to large gaps in knowledge about women’s health issues such as endometriosis, menopause, and reproductive health. For instance, there is five times more research on erectile dysfunction, which affects 19% of men, than on premenstrual syndrome, which impacts 90% of women. Access to birth control is a game-changer; women who report its use have improved their health (63%), completed their education (51%), or maintained or obtained a job (50%). Yet, a third of women report struggling with access and/or affordability of prescription birth control and therefore, have used birth control inconsistently as a result. Prescription birth control is used exclusively by women and thus its cost disproportionately impacts women, especially low-income and/or minority women.
In 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandated health insurance companies make birth control available without a co-pay, but this requirement has been under attack by anti-birth control politicians. Many states are also restricting and limiting sex education in schools and promoting abstinence-only programs. An HHS-funded analysis showed the more policies emphasize abstinence-only programs, the higher the incidence of teen pregnancies. In this new post-Roe versus Wade landscape, we need to be asking how we can build better systems to support women and the projected over 150,000 new babies who could be born annually. This new influx of births will no doubt disproportionately impact women from the high cost of prenatal & maternity care to childcare.
Sources:
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/why-do-we-still-not-know-what-causes-pms
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/facts-birth-control-coverage
https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(11)00906-8/fulltext
Motherhood Penalty and Why Eradicating It Benefits Us All
Lynn Wilkin (HR - Work Life Balance)
Many women work hard to grow both their careers and their families, and often during the same years: in fact, 70% of mothers also work for pay. A key challenge for these women is what sociologists call the motherhood penalty, which describes the fact that women’s pay decreases once they become mothers.
New findings from the Pew Research Center show that the gender pay gap, which has barely closed in the US over the past 20 years, is exacerbated by the motherhood penalty vs. what is known as the fatherhood wage premium. Upon becoming parents, fathers experience an increase in pay, while mothers are less likely to be hired, promoted, or paid equally.
Children and families, not just women, pay the price, and low- income women workers suffer the most from the motherhood penalty. High-income fathers receive the biggest bump in pay and confidence upon becoming parents, while low-wage women with children under 6 – whose salary is eaten up by child care – are hit hardest.
When we don’t support mothers in the workplace, our work suffers, too. Almost twice as many working Americans describe working moms as better listeners, calmer in crisis, more diplomatic, and better team players than any other peer group—all important qualities for a leader. Yet bias against mothers in the workplace is so pervasive that it even affects women without children, making the motherhood penalty a lose-lose proposition for women in general.
An analysis of parental-leave policies in the EU found that when childcare is “no longer considered the sole domain of women and more fathers take parental leave to stay at home and look after their children in their first year, the outcomes for gender equality include increased women’s labour-market participation, reduced gender pay gaps and increased men’s participation in household work.”
Ironically then, a key factor in mitigating the motherhood penalty may be in developing and promoting gender-equity policies not to women, but to men.
An added benefit of adopting the flexible work options, child care support, and family leave that would support working mothers—and offering those programs to all employees—is that the percentage of women and people of color in management increases, with a larger impact than the most popular race-equity programs.
Now that’s a win-win-win.
Sources:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/labor-force-participation-of-mothers-and-fathers-little-changed-in-2021-remains-lower-than-in-2019.htm
https://www.aauw.org/issues/equity/motherhood/#:~:text=Hiring%20managers%20are%20less%20likely%20to%20hire%20mothers%20than%20women,penalty%20when%20they%20become%20dads.&text=The%20phenomenon%20by%20which%20women%27s%20pay%20decreases%20once%20they%20become%20mothers.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/01/the-enduring-grip-of-the-gender-pay-gap/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45048028.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aae9983bfc51b00c33658f73f0385045b&ab_segments=&origin=&initiator=&acceptTC=1
https://sites.utexas.edu/contemporaryfamilies/2021/11/02/breadwinning-mothers-brief-report
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/a-child-helps-your-career-if-youre-a-man.html
https://www.brighthorizons.com/-/media/BH-New/Newsroom/Media-Kit/MFI_2018_Report_FINAL.ashx
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/careers/motherhood-penalty-can-affect-women-who-never-even-have-child-n548511
https://eige.europa.eu/publications-resources/toolkits-guides/gender-equality-index-2019-report/parental-leave-policies
https://hbr.org/2022/09/the-surprising-benefits-of-work-life-support
The Cost of Sexual Violence
Shelli Poole (VIP: Survivor Support)
The cost of being a woman in our society is high due to the degree and pervasiveness of sexual violence, and for people of color, members of our LGBTQIA+ community, people with lower socioeconomic status, and differently-abled, the cost is even higher. Gender-based violence has been declared a public health crisis by the CDC, and it continues to be an issue on college campuses across the U.S. According to the CDC, over half of women have experienced sexual violence. The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (2021) stated that about 1 in 5 college women, and 1 in 16 college men, are assaulted every year. Also, approximately 23% of transgender, non-conforming (TQNC) students are assaulted. Sexual violence on college campuses has received increasing attention; therefore, efforts to raise awareness of these issues, prevent them, and to support survivors following an incident have also been developing. Sexual violence has long-term impacts psychologically, financially, socially, and physically, according to the National Sexual Assault Resource Center (2021). Some of the approaches to prevention have been bystander intervention, rape resistance programs for women, consent education for men, and addressing societal power differences in intimate relations on college campuses. Research is still ongoing to better understand how to address this public health crisis, but it is clear that until the roots of oppression are addressed, women and other people with lower levels of societal power will continue to be victimized. The root of sexual violence is power and control which is one person exerting power and control over another human being. Issues of power and identity also need to be further woven into the prevention education programming on college campuses to address this public health crisis.
A groundbreaking study on campus sexual assault by Hirsch and Kahn (2020) discusses the role of societal power in intimate relations. They found that different people have different levels of power depending on their gender, race, class or other identities; unequal power dynamics make consent more complicated. They stated that most social gatherings occur in fraternity houses, and in those settings, the men would have more power. This study also addressed how people of different identities are impacted by sexual violence in ways that have not historically been addressed in the campus sexual assault prevention literature. The Hirsch and Kahn (2020) research addresses the question of which groups are most vulnerable to sexual violence on a college campus, and for women and gender nonconforming students, the impact is significant. At the University of Mississippi, we need to promote social norms that prevent violence, address power inequities, and educate every student, faculty and staff member, and administrator on the impact of trauma, violence, and oppression.
Sources:
Beres, M. A., Treharne, G. J., Stojanov, Z. (2019). A whole campus approach to sexual violence:
The University of Otago model. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41 (6), 646-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1613298
Hirsch, J. S., Khan, S. (2020) Sexual citizens: a landmark study of sex, power, and assault on
campus. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
National Sexual Violence Resource Center. (2020, August). Making the connection: sexual
violence and oppression infographic. https://www.nsvrc.org/blogs/making-connection-
sexual-violence-and-oppression-infographic
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. (2021). Campus Sexual Violence. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence