How can women expect to be paid the same when they are less likely than men to do "useful" science degrees?

Question

Or rather, why is it that science is considered more "useful" than other areas? Why are we always dividing up things and creating hierarchies? Is a scientist more "useful" than a journalist? Is a CEO more "useful" than a teacher? Is water more "useful" than air? Is the color yellow more "useful" than the color orange?

Seems to me that whatever men are good at they deem "useful" and whatever women are good at is deemed "unimportant." This phenominon, ladies and gentlemen, is why feminism exists.

So what exactly is is that makes science more "useful" than other fields and can science exist effectively without these fields?

Answer 1

You draw a good point at many things being deemed "useful" without saying one is more important...

BUT-

Before you get in a certain Field it is easy to find how much each pays. The decision on what you want to do is up to you.

I'm a girl and it's never held me back. If you want to play the whole "Wahhh! I'm at a disadvantage, I'm a girl" card, that's your choice.

You can choose your own fate regardless of s*x. Quit analyzing things as to excuse yours

I have a very fulfilling life, thank you very much! I have spent almost 10 years in college, working towards the highest degree possible, while working field studies, and getting numerous promotions. I also raise 2 beautiful children!

I am very content with my life and spend hours everyday analyzing things of Scientific nature. I was actually following your question in it's entirety until you tried pulling the "Girl Card" ~ any more questions...?

Answer 2

Yes yes an yes. Water can be broken down to hydrogen an oxygen. A artist can stimulate your mind but can't produce cross continintal communication. A CEO leads thousands a teacher leads a handful. Teachers an artists are needed but there not what you consider as talented as the others.

Answer 3

I don't think it is a question of what men do being considered more useful, it is more that men are more likely than women to be drawn to higher status occupations.  Whether a job is more useful or not is not the only guarantee that it will be considered high status, nurses are as useful as doctors, but doctors have higher status.

However, in Russia, doctors have much lower status than they do in the west.  And in Russia a much higher proportion of doctors are women.  This is because men are more attracted to higher-status occupations.  Status matters less to most women than it does to most men.

Jobs that are mostly done by men are not always higher status.  Dustmen (garbage collectors) are mostly men in the UK for instance, but they don't have particularly high status.  Neither do road sweepers, who again tend to be mostly men.

And it isn't only men who consider that what women do is unimportant.  Many women are also contemptuously dismissive of the occupations followed mainly by women.  A British female cabinet minister a few years ago was complaining that too many women were becoming teachers, nurses, or hairdressers, when she thought they should become scientists and engineers.  She too put low value on occupations that attracted more women than men.

Teaching used to attract more men before its status declined.  It's decline in status is what led to fewer men wanting to be teachers.  Women are less concerned with status when it comes to choosing an occupation.

Women who stay at home with their children have the lowest status of all, yet some of us choose it because we want the satisfaction of being at home with our children, rather than having to wear ourselves out 'juggling'.  Other things matter more than status to women.

I think this is something that is always going to be the case, more men than women are going to be attracted by higher-status occupations, because it is a male characteristic which no amount of legislation can change.  Even when men enter predominantly female occupations, they usually rise to the top more quickly than women do.  I remember reading a few years ago that in the UK only 5% of nurses are men, but they hold 50% of the top jobs in nursing.

Answer 4

Great question Diva, Ill try to answer the last sentence of your question.

I think that what makes science fields be considered so "useful" if the fact that science is constantly supporting every aspect of our lives. Scientific research and development is what brings along innovative and unheard of technologies, like this "pixy dust" stuff they are working on that could revolutionize organ transplant/amputation etc. The stuff apparently just grows you new ones. Thats great as Ill need a new liver in about 15 years, hope it all works by then.

Anyway so as I've said, everything is in some way supported by science, either still or in the past as a form of whatevers development and testing.

I am a chef, I don't make alot of money and I use science all the time in my cooking. My field could not exist without science. I don't believe any field could exist with out scientific support (well except being a preacher or something). On a side note, I work with a few women who make my 15 years of experience look like a waste of time... they are phenomenal chefs who teach me new things all the time.

I guess it is difficult for me to address the sexist side of this issue as I tend to be amerced in a community where women are revered and have every bit as much "usefulness" if not more so than us men. I have also found that in the fields of science and mathematics women have made a real name for themselves. Here is a short list I found with a simple google search.

Maria Agnesi

Virginia Apgar

Elizabeth Arden

Elizabeth Blackwell

Elizabeth Britton

Rachel Carson

Anna Comnena

Marie Curie

Dian Fossey

Rosalind Franklin

Sophie Germain

Alessandra Giliani

Winifred Goldring

Jane Goodall  <---------love her!

Caroline Herschel

Hypatia of Alexandria

Sofia Kovalevskaya

Ada Lovelace (Augusta Byron, Countess of Lovelace)

Maria Mitchell

Florence Nightingale

Amalie Emmy Noether

Elena Cornaro Piscopia

Harriet Quimby

Charlotte Angas Scott

Alicia Stott

Mary Fairfax Somerville

Sarah Hackett Stevenson

Trota or Trotula

f***y Bullock Workman

Anyway, thank you for the brain stimulation at 6:30am. Im off to work.

Answer 5

First off I have a biology/chemistry double degree and I am a woman. When I become a physician, will I make the same as my male counterparts - probably NOT...so what is your answer to that ? So I have a science degree, I should expect to have the same salary as my male counterparts in my specialty but I probably won't. Why is science more useful than other degrees? I don't think it is, but in the big picture - if society were crumbling - would you rather have with you a doctor or a writer? A doctor can heal and take care of wounded in this scenario. That is why I think this exists. I personally, however, believe that humanities are just as important as hard sciences when society is thriving.

Answer 6

Elvis, don't downplay the importance of teachers in society. Teachers aren't just in the classroom and they come in all shapes and sizes.



Teaching is an important field that gets little respect for the work  done. Anyone can teach but not EVERYONE can be a good, inspiring, captivating teacher. A CEO doesn't inspire thousands, in fact most people who work under CEO's hate them. Very few in that position have been truly considered inspiring and respected by their coworkers. Teachers educate and inspire thousands in a lifetime. Teachers have the ability to reach out and touch, on average, close to 200 students a year, depending of course on the area you live in and what division of education you teach in.

To the poster, well I agree with most of what you said except this, "Seems to me that whatever men are good at they deem "useful" and whatever women are good at is deemed "unimportant." This phenominon, ladies and gentlemen, is why feminism exists."

That's too much of a generalization and assumes all men lack respect for women and the work they do.

Answer 7

It's not because of any area's *utility*, it is because of it's demand and supply, of course.  You're looking at this philosophically in a Platonic way, not in a calculated manner.

An engineer or an architect will always get paid more than your average teacher.  Many, many people have the skills and will to become teachers, and there are fitting demands for them.  However, *much* fewer people have the skills and will to become engineers and architects.

Things are constantly being built, always, which results in a constant demand.

We've got a steady and sizable influx of teachers and a demand -- while constant -- will nevertheless settle for putting a few extra students in a room, or hiring someone else a tad less qualified / experienced for lesser wages.

But so few people become engineers compared to the constant need for buildings and bridges that these people get paid so much more.

All in all, you're not necessarily looking at this wrong, you just need to realize the field in which you're talking about.  Economics, not moral philosophy.

Answer 8

Sexism is real, it's not just a matter of career choices.  Even a year out of college, at the same education and experience level, women are paid less than men for the same jobs.  It's not just whining, it's hard numbers.

And it's completely unfair.

Answer 9

My cousin (male) has a degree in physics that he's never been able to use. He went back to school to study computer science, and now he owns a custom software company.

The only "useful" jobs are the ones that are in high demand.

Answer 10

Good question.

Education isn't primarily about making money.  Education serves a far more important purpose than that.  I remember a time when we were discussing whether business schools even belonged in the university setting.  That's not education -  its career training.  They're not the same thing.

Since the Enron debacle Ethics courses have been added to accounting and business programmes.  Obviously they weren't as "useful" as they thought they were - they were lacking in education on a totally different level.

The hard sciences are notorious for the glass ceiling: these dinosaurs are slow to modernize.  Women's needs - and those of the family -  are ignored:

"Science sector plagued by institutionalised sexism"

http://www.management-issues.com/2006/8/...