The gender wage gap in Canada has grown steadily since 1981 and women’s human rights are slowly shrinking, according to a number of gender studies experts.

In a recent Globe and Mail article on the gender wage gap, Margaret Wente raises some interesting questions about the way we measure this disparity in Canada. She suggests that various labour reports and feminist activists are promoting their agenda with “a heaping cup of statistical abuse.”

I find it fascinating to watch people in extreme ideological and political positions attempt to harness statistics to make their point. That said, Ms. Wente (and those on her side of this argument) are not actually tampering with the numbers. Both sides are using nearly identical numbers to make two very different — and opposing — arguments.

Arguing Against the Gender Wage Gap

One example of statistical abuse Ms. Wente cites is the report that the gender wage gap in Canada is currently 70.5 cents. Meaning essentially that for every dollar a man earns, a woman earns just over 70 cents. Seems straightforward so far.

But there is an argument to be made that this is statistical abuse, and Ms. Wente goes on to make it. How can those numbers be manipulated?

To arrive at the 70.5 figure, the report compares full-time annual wages between men and women. It does not account for the fact that men, on average, work more hours in a year than women. Adjusting for that, the revised gender wage gap is 84 cents. When you factor in work experience and women’s preference for jobs in the public and social sectors, the gap shrinks again. Using these calculations, we find the gender wage gap in our country is a mere 93 cents.

Arguing For the Gender Wage Gap

Let’s juxtapose Ms. Wente’s (mathematically correct) argument with a recent article (subscription required) by leading feminist researchers on the economy.  Dr. Sylvia Fuller of UBC and Dr. Leah Vosko, the Canada Research Chair in Feminist Political Economy, have recently published an article using very similar statistics.

The difference is the lens used to interpret these statistics. While arguments against the existence of a gender wage gap suggest that we must control for different variables in our analysis, Drs. Fuller and Vosko see it differently. They suggest that the gap decrease when job characteristics are accounted for indicate that women are not only paid less but also experiencing discrimination and less choice.

How Can the Same Numbers Say Different Things?

Neither party disputes that the gender wage gap narrows when you control for the fact that more women work in public sector and social service jobs. The disparity occurs in how we interpret what that means. Does it mean that women:

• Consciously choose to work less/in lower-paying fields, and therefore choose to earn less?
• Are restricted from accessing higher paying/more profitable jobs, in addition to being paid less overall?

Both arguments rely on math that is sound. But one suggests that the gender wage gap is much less serious than the media would have us believe, while the other purports the opposite.

The problem is that statistical analysis is not an objective science. There will always be some inherent bias in your data, based on the way you view the world. Even honest statisticians can arrive at wildly different conclusions using the same datasets. The only thing we can do is to try to recognize our own biases and communicate our assumptions in the stories that we tell.

Need help telling your data story? Get in touch with us now.