Library jobs and battle of the sexes

initial thoughts…
This is a favorite topic of mine.

The answer to the question seems to be very simple. It is so simple, yet it still seems to be taboo to discuss it. I’ve always wanted to scream out a simple answer to the question about this particular inequity in our field. I won’t do that today, but I will leave some hints for now. I might elaborate later.

• Earnings greatly vary by region. The differences could depend on rural/suburban/urban, in addition to a specific part of the country. Also, certain regions generally have a wider variety and greater number of libraries than others.
• Family structures.
• Re-entering the work force vs. complete career change (and the ages at which these occur).
• Availability to get library experience.
• Return on investment (for both the employer and the employee, as well as immediate vs. potential).
• The social structure of the workplace.
• It’s not about the money. It’s about the money.

I’m a man, and I entered my career in libraries fully accepting that it is not lucrative, and that I might eventually earn less than my peers in this field just because I’m me.

More thoughts

A follow-up…

• Family Structures

I’ll be up front here. In this field, I often feel like I’m surrounded mostly by married women. I really hate to say this, but… our past is still present. That is to say, I feel like the single-earner marriage and the stay-at-home mom (if applicable) are making a bit of a comeback, given recent changes in the economy in certain parts of the country. In some regions, these concepts never really went away.

• Re-entering the work force vs. complete career change (and the ages at which these occur).
• Availability to get library experience.

These two are closely connected, and they have a lot to do with the issue from the original post, which dealt more with non-professional library jobs. I’ve taken a look at various job postings for library assistant/technician positions lately (for information purposes), and what I’ve found is that it’s not the compensation that determines who will more likely apply for and get these jobs (especially the part-time ones). It’s really the hours. Many jobs are for 10-25 hours a week, with a required mix of days, evenings, and weekends at any point during the week. I can think of two groups of people who will most likely be working these jobs — and one group consists of LIS students.

To get back to the point a bit… when I was in library school, I noticed that the number of stay-at-home wives or moms whose youngest children were around middle-school age vastly outnumbered the number of men who had only themselves to depend on for financial support. I also noticed that many of the (few) men fell into one of two categories — those who were college or grad school graduates within the past few years, looking to truly start a first career; and those who had been firmly established in a career different from libraries, and was looking for a total career change (this includes retirees). Who is more likely going to be able to work that 10AM-2PM, Tues-Fri part-time circ desk position? The last time I checked, someone who works a 9-5, M-F (or even more than that) can’t do what Superman did in that one episode and be in two places at once.

• Return on investment (for both the employer and the employee, as well as immediate vs. potential).
• It’s not about the money. It’s about the money.

I completely agree with Anonymous Patron #2… men are perceived as flight risks — and for very good reason. I will admit it — I feel like I am a flight risk myself. (I’m one of the two youngest in my library, and one of only two men under 30.) However, I stay because I know that this is my career, and if I leave my current job, I may as well turn my back on librarianship as a career goal. It’s hard enough for men in this field who are not in professional positions to be taken seriously, especially those of us on the extreme younger end. A flight risk who follows through as expected provides a horrible return on investment for both employer and employee. I have set as my goal to remain in my place of employment for another 25-30 years, possibly in the same position, well past the point at which I hope to get the MLS. It’s not realistic, I know… but it setting such a goal prevents me from being seen as a flight risk. But to be realistic, one must be able to fully support oneself. I hate to say this (really, I do), but I challenge anyone to disprove that this applies to men in far more cases in general than it applies to women.

Which leads me to… the perception of “second incomes” within marriages (which I would define as the extra money that’s nice to have, and can raise socioeconomic class, social standing, and standard of living, but is not necessary to comfortably get by). Again, the past casts its shadow on the present. THIS is what I believe keeps compensation lower within the field — the notion that many (if not most) of the employees are not dependent on the money to fully support themselves, a notion that I feel is totally false. (I wonder what percentage of Wal-Mart’s employees who have health insurance get it through a spouse, and then complain about their company-mates who complain about the high cost of getting health insurance through the company.) This perception ultimately keeps men from staying in non-professional positions for long periods of time. (Again, a nod to Anon #2.) Back to return on investment… do women also tend to get better pay raises in non-professional library positions than their male counterparts?