This is a fantastic video - I didn’t realize the data was so consistent from that long ago. Economists have found the same results in much more recent studies, as well:
Unmarried, continuously working women earning more than the same kind of men. Right about up to the age of 35, when the data drops off and men start to make more. The general theory is that this is due to women giving birth and dropping out of the workforce.
I got a bachelors in economics and have spent many hours researching the labor statistics about the wage gap. Really a great video find, here.
Assuming a constant rate of dance steps and musicals performed per year, 7.5 jazz hands will devalue to approximately 6.67 in the first year, making it a constant devaluation of 0.83/year.
I have a guess: Those intolerant economics types definitely appreciate your Theatre degree. But the students and professors in the theatre department aren’t as tolerant of your economics knowledge.
We mainly read from Judith Butler’s philosophic writings on this theory (SHE DOES NOT MAKE READING EASY), and we read the play “M Butterfly” which is a queer adaptation of Madame Butterfly. Original cast had John Lithgow as a man with ambiguous sexual attractions.
There might be a circumstantial explanation for this too. Women experience the world differently to men. Warning: Massive generalizations ahead. Relative to men it’s not exactly like but somewhat resembles the way children experience the world. Specifically, they experience things as having been put there for them. Eg: if you ask small children why there are rivers, they’ll say “so that boats can float on them”.
That’s because, to them, things tend to have been made for them in some way or another. Men, by contrast, learn early in life that it’s up to them to perform and make things work. It’s not surprising therefore that they take greater interest in how things work. When you’re not under the pressure to perform, you have lost one major incentive to be interested in how things work.
Women of course go through that process as well. But because of gynocentrism/male disposability, men seem to be pushed further while women, even as adults, often enjoy a support network and a general societal attitude of care and empathy for their needs.
When the system works in your favor, you don’t need to know how it works nor would you likely care.
I’m actually surprised that the programming industry isn’t filled with women. I know plenty of smart women with ungodly organizational skills that document everything that happens in their lives. They would be absolutely amazing programmers but they have no interest at all even though the pay is substantial and companies bend over backwards to get female programmers. Instead they’re all struggling middle managers or work at The North Face. Somehow management is “in” for women these days, maybe because its seen as a sign of power or something.
his is a good question that economics may not have all the answers too. I would think there is a little bit of a catch 22 where women don’t join fields that are male dominated because they are male dominated.
There is also the notion that women enter fields focused on helping people (like nursing and social work) as opposed to more cutthroat industries like engineering or finance, because those things motivate them more than the potential money they could earn. This is also dangerous territory, but it is also possible that women are less concerned with careers that earn lots of money because they know they can get married to a man who is in a high paying career and just retire to have kids or have fun with their “Mrs” degree.
