Mises
Many media outlets emphasize discrimination as the leading barrier to women’s achievements, capturing widespread attention despite empirical evidence that suggests otherwise. Proposed solutions often include gender quotas, anti-discrimination laws, and other interventions aimed at addressing institutional sexism. Yet policy-makers remain puzzled by the underrepresentation of women in certain fields and the persistence of the alleged “gender pay gap.”
This disconnect arises because public policy in many Western nations focuses on achieving equal outcomes without fully accounting for varying preferences. Professional and income differences between men and women are more closely aligned with average differences in interests than with systematic bias. For instance, it’s expected that men are more prevalent in physically-demanding roles, such as lumberjacking. These distinct preferences shape career choices and should not automatically be seen as problematic.
Furthermore, the call to end occupational segregation is often aimed selectively at male-dominated, high-paying fields. Few voices challenge the predominance of women in professions like human resources or veterinary science. Instead, advocacy for gender diversity intensifies only when high-status, male-dominated fields are in question. For example, few push for more female sanitation engineers because the role—while male-dominated—is not high-income. While it’s a commendable goal to encourage women in prestigious fields, it may not align with the broader interests and preferences guiding their career choices.
Research also underscores these preferences, particularly in STEM fields. In a study on women’s participation in STEM majors, researchers found that female students’ interest—not their receptivity to grades—was the primary factor affecting retention. Adjusting grading standards wasn’t suggested, as retention rates were unrelated to ability. Further, a similar paper shows that women prefer abstract subjects and prioritize work-life balance more than their male counterparts. Likewise, another study found that women who do graduate in STEM fields are less likely than men to pursue careers in those areas, preferring roles with shorter hours and flexible schedules.
Income disparities also appear tied more to caregiving responsibilities than to discrimination. A 2023 study by Valentin Bolotnyy and Natalia Emanuel that the gender pay gap is largely influenced by women’s caregiving roles and the inflexible structures of many workplaces. This misalignment, rather than intentional bias, limits women’s earnings.
Numerous studies challenge the pervasive idea of anti-female discrimination, presenting companies as rational actors. Historically, men are more likely to negotiate higher wages, which can increase a company’s wage bill. This wage dynamic has led to a gender layoff gap, which actually disadvantages men—a finding confirmed in a recent economic study.
Moreover, bias against female applicants has decreased significantly in the past decade, while a preference for female candidates has risen in traditionally female-dominated fields. Notably, women researchers are now more likely to be hired even when male candidates have more publications. Were similar claims made about male interview success, they would likely face accusations of sexism.
Contrary to the mainstream narrative, women are thriving professionally and underrepresentation in certain fields is more reflective of preferences than discrimination. While discrimination certainly exists, emerging data indicate it’s more likely affecting men than women in specific contexts.
Originally Posted at https://mises.org/
NHC
sgtreport
