Gay men earn less. But not lesbians.

I couldn't find the article (I found only the abstract. The full article is available to subscribers only), so maybe you can answer this question, Lisa: were the employers aware of the sexual orientation of their prospective employees? To prove discrimination, there has to be evidence that employers had knowledge of sexual orientation and then acted on their perceptions of how it would affect the employees' work.

you may need to register to link to the release: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/534597/?sc=lwhr.

but i don't think the authors were trying to prove employer intent; they merely speculated. what they did do was document census data about the income of men and women who happened to be hetero or gay.

that said, if there were to be a class-action lawsuit by gays alleging systematic underpayment, they could cite this study, i suppose. what say you, employment blawgers?

This is what I got from the blog:

“…attitudes toward lesbians could affect them, lesbians may benefit from…” “Employers may disapprove of gay lifestyles…” “Employers also may…” “If employers consider…” “Employers also may…” “…the employers may…” “Gay men also may experience…” “…customers may not want…” “Finally, discrimination may occur…” “The authors theorize…”

There a LOT of supposition going on in that "study".

I thought studies were supposed to answer questions with hard data, not sit around and state what the case MIGHT be.

This is not science...

To Clay: That lack of a hard-and-fast conclusion is precisely BECAUSE this was a scientific study. The scientific method dictates that there is a hypothesis that is tested, the scientists collect facts about phenomenon, and then the scientists offer a conclusion that can be crafted from those facts. That conclusion is then tested further, as a new hypothesis.

The facts of this case are not supposition; they are the result of statistical study. Therefore, the only thhing that is know for certain are the statistics. For example, the quoted result that 18.4 percent of lesbians have kids, while 49.4% of straight women do is a fact.

The suppositions are then related to CAUSE, and the study's authors are careful not to commit to a possible cause for the discrepancy until there is more clear-cut data to support a conclusion. Therefore, the new question is WHY do lesbians have such a lower incidence of childbearing? Now new studies can be crafted to more specifically study that phenomenon.

To popslashgirl: "...study's authors are careful not to commit to a possible cause..."

The authors of the study should not be speculating on a cause at all. They should not be suggesting ANY reasons at all - that is not part of the study. I sorry to say that I believe that prejudice exists today, and the results of the study do not surprise me.

However, they authors have NO business suggesting possible causes for the results. If they have theories on why this disparity exists, perhaps they should solicit funding to study the causes.

Mrs. Cullen is already taking the mere suggestions of the causes for the disparity as fact as evidenced by her comments:

“So employers stereotype lesbians as being more committed to the job and not as likely to have kids. But why should gay men earn less? Three reasons, say the authors: bias by employers, bias by customers and fear of AIDS.”

“I mean, really? Are employers so stupid? They still think the most productive and thus worthy of highest compensation is the married, hetero male? Friends--I give up.”

The reasons for the disparity of not investigated or studied. They are mere suggestions of the authors of the study, but people will take them as the main point of the study.

I say again: This is not science. The science showed that a disparity exists. The reasons for that disparity are not stuidied, so the authors of the study have no business suggesting ANY causes for them without studying them.

P.S. - thank you popslashgirl for keeping the discussion civil - too many people go straight for the insults. I hope my comments have been as civil as yours.

:)

Also to popslashgirl:

I can't help myself, but to your comment, "Therefore, the new question is WHY do lesbians have such a lower incidence of childbearing?"

I do have one theory: Lesbians do not enjoy the "company" of men. The last time I checked, it still takes both a man and a woman to make a baby, and women alone can't do it themselves.

P.S. - can I subscribe to an RSS feed if that study gets funded????

It was so funny reading this today. I'm gay, HIV+, and have a partner. My situation is a little different than this post; I'm a grad student in science so am kind of halfway between being a student and having a real job.

My boss knows I'm + and knows I am partnered. One would think someone in science would be open-minded, or would at least be smart enough not to be outwardly biased. Unfortunately I regularly get to hear gay jokes (the most repeatable one here is: my boss was telling me I didn't need to add protease inhibitors to my experiment because I could just spit in the tube...and he knew that I was on meds for HIV). Though he has never told me I can't take time off for doc appointments he certainly does his best to make me uncomfortable about taking any time off for health reasons. When I started he pulled me into his office and told me, in a mock sort of whine, that he didn't have any sympathy for my 'condition' and wouldn't send me home for a nap because I was sick. This was totally random...not in response to, say, my having taken time off for health reasons.

I should add that no one, not my boss or anyone on my advisory committee, has ever complained to me about my productivity. Quite the opposite, actually.

Even where you least expect it there are bosses who are biased.

Article reprints cost $32. I'm curious about how the study was done, but not that curious.

In cases of discrimination, intent must be taken into account. Can an employer discriminate against a gay employee if the employer doesn't know the employee is gay?

popslashgirl is correct: "The scientific method dictates that there is a hypothesis that is tested, the scientists collect facts about phenomenon, and then the scientists offer a conclusion that can be crafted from those facts."

But the study just proposes theories to be studied. It seems designed to grab headlines.

Oh and Clay...I agree with you mostly, but take issue (slightly) with this statement:

"However, they authors have NO business suggesting possible causes for the results."

I think it depends on how the authors go about discussing possible causes. In my field it is fairly common for authors of a study to spend a few paragraphs describing a model that could account for the results of their study. Obviously one has to be explicitly clear that this is only a model that must be tested and does not necessarily describe what is actually happening. As long as those caveats are made perfectly clear I think such conjecture serves as a useful jumping-off point for further study. But yeah, I agree with your main point (correct me if I'm totally misrepresenting you) in that one should never overinterpret the data.

Money isn't everything. If you are a gay male, be happy with that. Is making more money really worth pretending to be straight? As long as you have a job, that is all that matters. The love that you have for your partner will be more tha enough to make up for any financial instability. Be free and live your life!

Great to hear that this kind of bias still exists! One can only hope for the return of the good old days

Clay,

In a research paper, editors and reviewers call upon authors to provide some theoretical reasons for why their finding occurred, even though causality may not have been explicitly tested by the researchers. They do this because it guides where subsequent research should go. That is, future research can then test the theories proposed by the authors. It is, in fact, the heart of science to propose theories based on one's empirical findings so that these theories may be tested by later research. For example, scientists could date fossils and determine that they seem to occur in certain layers of the earth's crust. Why these fossils appear in a particular order or layer in the crust, however, could not be explicitly tested, so scientists derived a theory to explain it. Thus, we have the Theory of Evolution.

The ultimate problem here is that the blog editor posted the study's theoretical speculations as though these were hard and fast conclusions. They are not. They are merely trying to get people to think about why these pay differences may exist. Now all we need to do is test their hypotheses to see if they're right.

I have worked and have known many gays. Let's face it, gays are more emotional than other men, therefore it is more difficult for them to keep a long term job or any close relationship. Stop all the excuses. Doesn't anybody take responsibility for their actions anymore. I am so tired of the excuses.

"Stop all the excuses. Doesn't anybody take responsibility for their actions anymore. I am so tired of the excuses."

Why should gay men take responsibility for their actions? They are constantly targeted and mistreated by society. They need to get special treatment just like any other group that is being discriminated against. All gay men should get together and start filing class-action lawsuits against major corporations. They should them pool their winnings together and start their own political party. This would teach Americans that homosexuals will not be treated as second-class citizens.

clay, popslashgirl, dp, matt--thanks for the enlightening and above all civil comments. i am deeply impressed with our above-the-fray discussion on a potentially hot-button topic (up until these last couple, anyway). now if only our employers could listen with as unbiased an ear...

DP, I think everyone has had rude and insensitive bosses or other people in their lives. I've had bosses who questioned why I was taking sick days, berated me for taking it, and made jokes at my expense for any number of reasons: my height, my weight, what I ate for lunch. In high school kids would taunt me for any number of reasons: bad haircut, out of fashion clothes, bad skin.

Thing is, I'm a straight white man who's really skinny. These people weren't discriminating against me. They were a-holes with some sort of issues, and they strike out at others because it makes them feel good. Sounds like that's your boss now.

But even though the actions are the same on the part of the bully, the specific taunts/mockery is different. But why can't I claim discrimination?

Anon,

I don't disagree with you at all. That is why I said that my boss is biased and why I did not say that I was being discriminated against.

In my mind if one is going to claim that one has been discriminated against, one has to show that something other than taunting has happened. If I felt that I was being evaluated, paid, etc. differently merely because of how my boss felt about my sexual orientation, I think it would be reasonable to say that I was being discriminated against. But I think proving that is a pretty tall order. So in the end I don't think either of us could claim discrimination.

That having been said, it is simply unacceptable for bosses to make the comments that have been made to you and me. It's one thing for high school kids or random people on the street to say stuff like that. Sometimes people are just jerks. But it seems to me that it is totally different when your boss, someone who has a pretty decent amount of power over you, says the same kind of things. At the very least it certainly isn't conducive to productivity. At some point it crosses the line from someone just being a rude SOB into being harassment.

Your post got me thinking...how much of this stuff does an employee have to take? I understand we're not in a perfect world. People, including bosses, are going to make stupid remarks from time to time. And I don't think a person should immediately start claiming discrimination or harassment. If one potentially inappropriate joke or comment = harassment I would bet we'd all be in trouble. But when the taunts or whatever by your employer become a regular occurence are we obliged to just deal with it?

Clay: In regards to your comment on lesbian mothers, your theory that lesbians do not enjoy the company of men sexually is a good one. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic.) But this is precisely an example of why we look for information in the course of research, process it, develop a new hypothesis, and test it further by looking for new information. The sexual orientation of the women involved simply doesn't logically equal the results, so there must be another cause.

Think about it--if lesbians don't like having sex with men, by definition, how can ANY of them be having children? Why isn't that 18% a 0%? But there are ways of getting pregnant that don't require having a long-term relationship with a man--fertility clinics come to mind, or one-night-stands, or even just the classic turkey baster and a willing guy. Not to mention women who had their children before they self-identified as lesbian, or victims of sexual assault.

So that explains how any lesbians get pregnant. But with all these possibilities, why don't lesbians have childbearing rates similar (or at least closer) to straight women? Do lesbians simply desire fewer children, independant of their sexual orientation? Is there a societal pressure to not have children--whether by straight society or gay society? Do the possible legal problems of gay parenting scare them off? Are lesbians more willing to use contraception or abortion to prevent unwanted pregnancies? You see how many ways the phenomenon can be explained, and only further study can narrow down the real reasons.

(For that matter, if straight women, by definition, are only having sex with men, why is that 49% not 100%? There's more to the numbers here than simple sexual behaviour, which is why it was such a fascinating stat for me. )

Clay: your comments have been civil, logical, and eloquent. It's always a pleasure debating with a person like that. :)

"I mean, really? Are employers so stupid? They still think the most productive and thus worthy of highest compensation is the married, hetero male?"
Lisa,
You referance the enlightning and civil comments. However, your closeing comments in the article are puzzeling. Note that businesses are about making money, and will hire the type of worker that will contribute to that goal, and will not hire or fire those workers that don't. Disclaimer:I am a highly productive, well compensated, married hetero.

Sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but this is old hat. The October 2003 Atlantic Monthly reported on a study by the University of Texas that found lesbians earn about 30% more than straight women. Factoring out other variables, the study wondered whether the higher earnings resulted from employers believing that lesbians will not stop working during their careers to raise children. Sound familiar?

The study found the opposite to be true for male gays -- they earn about 22% less than straight men. Within a percentage point of the new study's results.

"Measuring the Effect of Sexual Orientation on Income: Evidence of Discrimination?" Nathan Berg & Donald Lien.

Four years later, someone else comes out with the same results, almost word-for-word and datum for datum. ?????