What’s the Typical Use-Effectiveness Rate of Abstinence?

Heather Corinna

That question probably either sounds like a really important one or a really stupid one, depending on your view. But I want the answer regardless, and am seriously tired of waiting for it. So I went ahead and asked it myself.

Heather Corinna asks:

What’s the typical use effectiveness rate for abstinence? All I can find anywhere, even at organizations that teach abstinence, or say it’s the only effective method of contraception, is the perfect use rate. How well does it really work for people in real life? Why doesn’t anyone have that information on this method when we do for every other method?

Heather Corinna replies:

That question probably either sounds like a really important one or a really stupid one, depending on your view. But I want the answer regardless, and am seriously tired of waiting for it. That’s why I went ahead and asked it myself.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

As an organization that provides information on all methods of contraception and other aspects of sexual decision-making, we include talking about abstinence (or celibacy, or not having certain kinds of sex, terminology we prefer because they’re more clear) as a method. We are supportive of our users who choose to be celibate, in whole or in part, as their method of birth control, just as we’re supportive of our users choosing any other method of contraception. We know full well that there is no one best method of contraception for all people and would never suggest that there is.

For every other method, we provide perfect and typical use rates of effectiveness. Those are two pieces of information, combined with additional info on each method, we provide for those making choices about contraception; two pieces of information that play a big part in most people’s decision-making process when choosing a method or methods.

That given, it really sucks that I can never provide a typical use rate for celibacy.

…or can’t I?

The people promoting abstinence clearly haven’t wanted to study effectiveness and failure of abstinence as a method of contraception so we can all know what the typical use rates are. They want to frame it as contraception, which is already problematic, because contraception is defined as things we actively do or use to prevent pregnancy, not as things we don’t do or avoid using: contraceptive reference books won’t show rates for abstinence because people not having sex don’t need contraception. But if you’re going to put it out there as a method of birth control, you have to also treat it like one when it comes to the kind of study we have for all other methods. Alas.

For all the promotion of abstinence, we still don’t have studied, published typical use rates for abstinence as a method: the rate that shows us, for every method of contraception, how frequently a method does and doesn’t result in pregnancy when used by people in daily life.

But that doesn’t mean we can’t get a good idea of what that rate is ourselves. This rate won’t be as sound as we could get with a specific study, but I think we can use plenty of data we have on abstinence, as well as on other methods and use of no method, to get a good idea of what typical use probably is.

Before I get started, let me explain what a typical use rate for any method is. This is confusing, even though it’s referenced all the time for methods. What “typical use” means is that a group of people, in a study, are asked what method they used in the last year. They reply that they used X method. Then they are asked about if a pregnancy or pregnancies occurred in the last year with that method. A rate is then figured from that data.

We call this typical use because this isn’t study done in a lab or in a way where we can have any idea of how well a given person was using that method: this is what people are reporting with uncontrolled use. Additionally, as you probably know, when someone says they use a given method, they don’t necessarily mean all the time or properly. Some people may say they use condoms, and yet only used them once or twice in the last year, only put them on halfway through intercourse or didn’t use them at all. Non-use, weird as it may seem, is factored into typical use for every contraceptive method’s rates. And yes, ease of use or comfort with using is obviously part of that equation: in other words, if a method is really tough to use or access, that’s going to be reflected in the typical use rate: it’s harder to use some methods perfectly than it is with others. For instance, the Depo-Provera injection has a near-identical perfect and typical use rate, because it’s pretty goof-proof. But the pill’s two rates have just over a 7% difference between them; condoms’ typical and use rates differ by around 11%: these methods are easily to mess up. We always have to consider how hard or easy a method is to use when looking at typical use rates, and the rate alone often tells us something about that.

Perfect use of abstinence, as a method of birth control, is, at most, not having any kind of sex at all in the year one is using this as a method, or, at least, not having ANY of the kinds of sex which can pose a risk of pregnancy. That’s genital intercourse and/or direct genital-to-genital contact between two (or more) people where one has a uterus and fallopian tubes and the other has testes.

Perfect use isn’t only having anal sex, nor is it mostly not having vaginal intercourse, but having it every once in a while. There is no technical virginity at play when we’re talking about abstinence per the prevention of pregnancy. Typical use of abstinence, per the definition of abstinence, can only mean that you’re not abstaining completely in that same year. While with most other methods, what’s typical use and what’s perfect can be a bit blurry sometimes: with abstinence from the standpoint of abstinence-as-contraception, it’s crystal clear. Using abstinence perfectly isn’t about what may or may not be part of your values around sex, it’s about biology, not psychology. As well, we’re not going to consider that condom use sometimes, but abstinence other times, should be factored into typical use rates, because adding a second method isn’t factored into typical use rates for any other methods.

Okay, then. Here’s sound and relevant data we can look at to help provide the answer to this burning question of typical use:

1) The typical (and perfect) use rate for using no method at all when having intercourse and/or other direct genital-to-genital contact between opposite-sexed and fertile people is 10 – 20%. (AHRP, FWHC, Contraceptive Technology)

2) The typical use rate for using natural family planning without another method as a backup, which includes abstaining from direct genital-to-genital contact and intercourse during fertile times as well as tracking fertility in at least one of several ways, is 75 – 80% (Merck, AHRP, FWHC, Contraceptive Technology).

3) We know that most people, on the whole, have sex. And that the vast majority do and have always done so before or without marriage, and the majority, regardless of orientation, will have sex that poses a risk of pregnancy. The average age of first marriage right now in the states is 26-27. By ages 22-24, 92% of women have had vaginal intercourse (Mosher, Chandra, & Jones, 2005).

Abstaining from intercourse or other genital-to-genital contact before marriage is something very few people have ever done. “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” (Lawrence B. Finer, January/February 2007, Public Health Reports) found that even among women born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage. Using data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth, Finer found that by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex (intercourse), and 95% had done so before marriage.

It’s stating the obvious, but we also know that pregnancy being unwanted or untenable isn’t something that only happens to nonmarried or unmarried people. In the United States, over 30% of unintended pregnancies occur to married women (Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, Stanley K. Henshaw, Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 30, Number 1, January/February 1998). So, if abstinence is framed only as a method to use until marriage, and once married, those who chose to use abstinence both no longer abstain from sex and do not choose to use other methods of birth control, we can apply the typical use rate for using no method to married people who are not abstaining, but are also not using any other method.

4) For the first time in ten years, after consistent decreases since the 70’s, unintended pregnancy rates for teens are up. Abstinence-only got it’s start in the states in 1996, but only began to become as widespread as it did…umm, around 10 years ago. That may be coincidental, but probably not, especially since abstinence-only education programs not only state abstinence until marriage is the only acceptable choice, they often state that other methods of contraception are ineffective (which is a pretty wacky thing to do when your method has no published typical use rate), and other countries without these programs aren’t seeing this kind of increase. Experts on teen pregnancy, contraception and sexuality near-unilaterally agree that abstinence-only education likely has played a key role in this change.

5) Studies which have been done about those who pledge abstinence have found that those who pledge abstinence do not have intercourse at lower rates than those who do not pledge, nor do they have lower rates of pregnancy and STIs. Based on interviews with more than 20,000 young people who took virginity pledges, one study found that 88 percent of them broke their pledge and had sex before marriage (Brückner H, Bearman P. After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges. Journal of Adolescent Health 2005; Bearman PS, Brückner H. Promising the future: virginity pledges and first intercourse. American Journal of Sociology 2001). Bearman did also find that in his study, those who pledged often delayed vaginal intercourse, some for even as long as as 18 months. Now, for those who do NOT have any kind of sex which poses a pregnancy risk (important, as “sex” in this case doesn’t include anal intercourse) for one full year, abstinence would be 100% effective. However, that’s not typical according to studies as a whole.

A study by Janet Elise Rosenbaum, PhD, AM (Patient Teenagers? A Comparison of the Sexual Behavior of Virginity Pledgers and Matched Nonpledgers, PEDIATRICS Vol. 123 No. 1 January 2009) found that teens who pledge to abstain from sex have just as much sex as those who don’t, and that those who pledge not to have sex until marriage don’t wait longer to have sex than those who don’t make that pledge. Pledgers did not differ in lifetime sexual partners and age of first sex. Fewer pledgers than matched nonpledgers also used birth control and condoms in the past year and birth control at last sex. She also found that five years after the pledge, 82% of pledgers denied having ever pledged at all. Central to the information we’re looking for, on typical use in a year, “pledgers reported an average of 1.09 past-year vaginal sex partners, 0.11 fewer than nonpledgers.” In other words, on average, those who report using abstinence are not using abstinence perfectly each year.

Rosembaum’s study was fantastically done, by the way, with a far sounder and stricter methodology than the Bearman and Brückner studies. She even ensured, via 128 different factors, that her samples of those who pledged and those who didn’t had similar attitudes towards sexual activity to begin with.

Lastly, of the ten studies identified by the Heritage Foundation as providing proof that their respective programs reduced early sexual activity, nine of them failed to provide credible evidence that they delayed the initiation of sex or reduced the frequency of sex (“Do Abstinence-Only Programs Delay the Initiation of Sex Among Young People and Reduce Teen Pregnancy?,” Douglas Kirby, Ph.D, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy).

Here are a few of the studies on abstinence (mostly on ab-only sex ed programs) and reports on them:

If you want to look at what’s published by those who strongly support not just abstinence, but abstinence being put forth as the only right method of birth control, I’ll give you a few links. I would, however, encourage you to consider that the studies above do this funny thing where they create and explain a methodology, something you’ll note tends to be conspicuously absent from the links below. You also may notice that some of them report things from other studies linked above which are dubious, incomplete or suggest the studies were incorrect without putting forth any sort of sound critique, or offering up their own controlled study.

I want to make a distinction between abstinence-only education and programs and abstinence used as a method of birth control. Because of the billions of dollars which have gone into ab-only education (more money than has ever gone into developing or honing any birth control method), and the breadth of what ab-only programs can impact, including STI rates and GLBT invisibility and discrimination, much of the study and reporting we have on abstinence is about abstinence-only education or pledge programs. By all means, some people choosing abstinence as a method are doing so via abstinence-only or abstinence-pledge programs. Some people are choosing abstinence based in moral or religious beliefs. But not everyone choosing to be celibate or abstain from sex that poses the risk of pregnancy is a member of any or all of those groups. There are also people who choose to be abstinent for other reasons and with different motivations, and they may well present very different outcomes.

But let’s get back to the main question at hand. Considering all that data, what is the typical use rate for abstinence at preventing pregnancy?

At first glance, the rates for natural family planning/periodic abstinence may look plausible as the typical use rate for abstinence. However, FAM/NFP is a method all by itself of which abstinence is only one part. Someone who was using abstinence as a sole method isn’t using NFP/FAM: if they’re not doing any kind of fertility awareness, they’re only using abstinence. If they are doing any kind of fertility awareness, they’re using NFP/FAM, not abstinence. Using NFP and FAM, includes, and is centered around calculating fertility in some way: either by the calendar method, or more efficiently, with daily tracking of cervical mucus and/or basal temperatures, then fertility predictions based on charting one or both over time. That’s not part of how abstinence is defined.

However, in that method there is a shared motivation to those using abstinence, which is the motivation to abstain from sex, even though it’s not a constant. I don’t think that typical use rate is irrelevant, because motivation isn’t irrelevant in typical use, and NFP rates do give us some information on abstinence: but it’s also only part of the picture.

Given the study we have on abstinence shows us the amount of sex and lifetime partners had appears to be no less than those who don’t report using abstinence as a method, we can presume that when it comes to figuring out the typical use rates, we’re not considering a group of people whose sex lives — when it comes to having sex, and to frequency of sex — are that different than we’d find when considering any other group. In other words, if someone who is using abstinence doesn’t use it perfectly, but typically, meaning they did not abstain from sex or the kinds of sex which have the potential to create a pregnancy, and we are ONLY considering abstinence as a sole method, not other methods they may use (which would then be about rates for combining methods), then they may be the same, practically speaking, as those who do not use any method at all.

It may be sound and accurate to state that the typical use rate for abstinence as a sole method is probably the same as the typical use rate for no method: 10-20%. However, I’m not willing to dismiss that intention of use, and motivation to use, is a factor in the use of any method, including abstinence. I also can’t dismiss that rates for NFP, while they involve a built-in backup method abstinence alone does not, do also take some abstinence into account. Using abstinence sometimes in a year, but not all the time or for the whole of a year, is consistent with the studies we have on abstinence, and what I hear from young people who have been using it as a method or taken a pledge.

My theory is that the typical use rate for abstinence is the average of the typical use rate for using no method at all, and the typical use rate for periodic abstinence, which lands us at a rate of 42.5 – 50%. I may be overly generous in that estimate, but I don’t think so. If you think I am, and want to play it as safe as possible, then you’ll want to consider it to be the 10-20% figure, instead. (I’d also be really interested in reading your own comments on this, and seeing your own theories.)

Even with that potentially generous estimate of 42.5 – 50%, abstinence has the lowest effectiveness rate in typical use of all methods. That’s important information for people considering any method to have, especially if this method is touted as being foolproof by someone who says condoms, with around an 85% typical use rate, are said to never or only infrequently be effective.

For the record, I know that some people have a beef with abstinence being assigned a 100% perfect use rating, arguing that even in perfect use, all other methods fail. I don’t share that beef. The complaints about that claim are usually a) that we have no studies to show that (I disagree: we have plenty of study to show how pregnancy happens, so can know clearly that with no sex, it won’t), b) that plenty of people don’t understand what perfect use of abstinence even means (yes, but plenty of people don’t know that for all methods), and c) that we know full well abstinence fails (true, but in typical use, since perfect use means not having sex, so unless you’re counting Mary and Jesus, who we’re told abstinence failed in perfect use, it’s 100% in perfect use). The reason all other methods fail even with perfect use is that those perfect use rates still include people who are having genital intercourse: perfect use for those methods does not require or account for a lack of any intercourse whatsoever.

When I’m doing a contraception consult with someone, be that online or in-person, a tactic I often suggest when choosing a method is for people to figure that as someone who is getting good education on using a method with me, but also has a harried life like anyone else where we’ll goof things sometimes, they’ll probably wind up with an effectiveness rate somewhere between perfect and typical use. So, for example, if we were taking about the pill, used alone, I’d ask them to think about if 96% effectiveness (the average between perfect and typical use), was a rate they felt comfortable with. If it wasn’t, then I’d bring up both other methods which are more effective as well as how combining more than one method can increase effectiveness. For example, even with just typical use for both, adding condoms to the pill would net them 98.8% protection.

So, I’d pose the same proposition to anyone considering abstinence as their sole method. If perfect use is 100%, and typical use is, in fact, 45-50%, then we’re talking about an average between them of 72.5-75% effectiveness at preventing pregnancy. Are you okay with those levels of protection/risk? If so, okay: I’m not going to say that’s not okay for someone who tells me that’s a level of protection they’re okay with, just like I wouldn’t for any other method. (But if, for instance, I see someone at one of the clinics or other sites I do consultations for, or on the site, who is saying they’re okay with it, but either keeps having pregnancies they don’t want, or keeps freaking out worrying about pregnancy all the time, I am going to suggest they rethink, since it seems clear they’re really not okay with it, after all.)

If you’re not okay with that level of protection against unwanted pregnancy, and want a higher one, then just like with the consideration of any other method you have two choices: you can either choose a more effective method, or you can combine abstinence with a second method. In practice, what the latter would mean is that if there are times you choose not to abstain, and you want to prevent unwanted pregnancy at those times, that you use a second method of contraception, like a condom, a pill, a ring, an injection, withdrawal or natural family planning.

I also want to share an observation about celibacy as a method that I’ve made over the decade-and-change I’ve been doing my job. What I’ve observed is that celibacy seems to be more effective at preventing pregnancy for those who choose it without making pledges to g-d some other authority figure, or making a big to-do about it and without feeling that it is their only right, moral, or religiously-sanctioned contraceptive choice to make. If a study was done which compared those making abstinence pledges until marriage versus those people choosing celibacy for now, without those kinds of conditions, I think we’d find the latter group had lower rates of pregnancy and more positive sexual outcomes. I don’t think we’d see, as we did in the Rosenbaum study, the latter group outright denying they had chosen to be celibate, either. The people I’ve spoken with in work and in life who just choose not to have sex, or certain kinds of sex, as a way to prevent pregnancy (or just because they don’t want to have those kinds of sex), and do so feeling they’d be supported if they chose a different method, seem to be pretty relaxed about it, and not at all ashamed or defensive around that choice. They also don’t seem to make that choice out of fear.

In other words, I think if the folks pushing abstinence so freaking hard would stop pushing and shoving the way they do, and would treat it like any other method, giving every method the respect and plausibility they give it, doing studies on it like the kind done with other method, including providing some studied typical use rate, not only would the typical use rate of abstinence likely be higher in time than I theorize it is now, the rate of unwanted pregnancy — something they say they really want — would also start declining again, the way it was before the advent of abstinence programs. There are other potential bonuses with that change of approach: for instance, treating abstinence differently would support more folks who want to decline sex for any number of reasons in doing so better, would likely help get our STI rates down, would result in less shame and fear (which never helps with sound decision-making, sexual or otherwise), would address people who can’t get married at all or just don’t want to, and a whole plethora of positive outcomes. If what many abstinence-proponents tend to say they want — lower STI and unwanted pregnancy rates and happier, healthier people — isn’t a pile of hooey to mask a religious or political agenda, they’ll hop right on board with that.

But I expect to be waiting as long for that to happen as I expect to continue waiting for them to give me a typical use rate.

P.S. Should you read this and strongly disagree with my theory, thinking abstinence as a method is far more effective in typical use, I encourage you to lobby abstinence organizations to do some actual study on typical use of abstinence as a method. I would far rather have sound data from study on typical use to post here, too. The only reason I’m doing this the way that I am if that I’ve got no other options, and I don’t find “?” an acceptable permanent answer for an effectiveness rate for any method of contraception. Especially one that’s gotten billions of our tax dollars, so goodness knows they can certainly afford to do the studies.

Thanks to Dr. Logan Levkoff for letting me toss these ideas at her and for her helpful input!

Analysis Economic Justice

New Pennsylvania Bill Is Just One Step Toward Helping Survivors of Economic Abuse

Annamarya Scaccia

The legislation would allow victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking to terminate their lease early or request locks be changed if they have "a reasonable fear" that they will continue to be harmed while living in their unit.

Domestic violence survivors often face a number of barriers that prevent them from leaving abusive situations. But a new bill awaiting action in the Pennsylvania legislature would let survivors in the state break their rental lease without financial repercussions—potentially allowing them to avoid penalties to their credit and rental history that could make getting back on their feet more challenging. Still, the bill is just one of several policy improvements necessary to help survivors escape abusive situations.

Right now in Pennsylvania, landlords can take action against survivors who break their lease as a means of escape. That could mean a lien against the survivor or an eviction on their credit report. The legislation, HB 1051, introduced by Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery County), would allow victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking to terminate their lease early or request locks be changed if they have “a reasonable fear” that they will continue to be harmed while living in their unit. The bipartisan bill, which would amend the state’s Landlord and Tenant Act, requires survivors to give at least 30 days’ notice of their intent to be released from the lease.

Research shows survivors often return to or delay leaving abusive relationships because they either can’t afford to live independently or have little to no access to financial resources. In fact, a significant portion of homeless women have cited domestic violence as the leading cause of homelessness.

“As a society, we get mad at survivors when they don’t leave,” Kim Pentico, economic justice program director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), told Rewire. “You know what, her name’s on this lease … That’s going to impact her ability to get and stay safe elsewhere.”

“This is one less thing that’s going to follow her in a negative way,” she added.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Pennsylvania landlords have raised concerns about the law over liability and rights of other tenants, said Ellen Kramer, deputy director of program services at the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which submitted a letter in support of the bill to the state House of Representatives. Lawmakers have considered amendments to the bill—like requiring “proof of abuse” from the courts or a victim’s advocate—that would heed landlord demands while still attempting to protect survivors.

But when you ask a survivor to go to the police or hospital to obtain proof of abuse, “it may put her in a more dangerous position,” Kramer told Rewire, noting that concessions that benefit landlords shift the bill from being victim-centered.

“It’s a delicate balancing act,” she said.

The Urban Affairs Committee voted HB 1051 out of committee on May 17. The legislation was laid on the table on June 23, but has yet to come up for a floor vote. Whether the bill will move forward is uncertain, but proponents say that they have support at the highest levels of government in Pennsylvania.

“We have a strong advocate in Governor Wolf,” Kramer told Rewire.

Financial Abuse in Its Many Forms

Economic violence is a significant characteristic of domestic violence, advocates say. An abuser will often control finances in the home, forcing their victim to hand over their paycheck and not allow them access to bank accounts, credit cards, and other pecuniary resources. Many abusers will also forbid their partner from going to school or having a job. If the victim does work or is a student, the abuser may then harass them on campus or at their place of employment until they withdraw or quit—if they’re not fired.

Abusers may also rack up debt, ruin their partner’s credit score, and cancel lines of credit and insurance policies in order to exact power and control over their victim. Most offenders will also take money or property away from their partner without permission.

“Financial abuse is so multifaceted,” Pentico told Rewire.

Pentico relayed the story of one survivor whose abuser smashed her cell phone because it would put her in financial dire straits. As Pentico told it, the abuser stole her mobile phone, which was under a two-year contract, and broke it knowing that the victim could not afford a new handset. The survivor was then left with a choice of paying for a bill on a phone she could no longer use or not paying the bill at all and being turned into collections, which would jeopardize her ability to rent her own apartment or switch to a new carrier. “Things she can’t do because he smashed her smartphone,” Pentico said.

“Now the general public [could] see that as, ‘It’s a phone, get over it,'” she told Rewire. “Smashing that phone in a two-year contract has such ripple effects on her financial world and on her ability to get and stay safe.”

In fact, members of the public who have not experienced domestic abuse may overlook financial abuse or minimize it. A 2009 national poll from the Allstate Foundation—the philanthropic arm of the Illinois-based insurance company—revealed that nearly 70 percent of Americans do not associate financial abuse with domestic violence, even though it’s an all-too-common tactic among abusers: Economic violence happens in 98 percent of abusive relationships, according to the NNEDV.

Why people fail to make this connection can be attributed, in part, to the lack of legal remedy for financial abuse, said Carol Tracy, executive director of the Women’s Law Project, a public interest law center in Pennsylvania. A survivor can press criminal charges or seek a civil protection order when there’s physical abuse, but the country’s legal justice system has no equivalent for economic or emotional violence, whether the victim is married to their abuser or not, she said.

Some advocates, in lieu of recourse through the courts, have teamed up with foundations to give survivors individual tools to use in economically abusive situations. In 2005, the NNEDV partnered with the Allstate Foundation to develop a curriculum that would teach survivors about financial abuse and financial safety. Through the program, survivors are taught about financial safety planning including individual development accounts, IRA, microlending credit repair, and credit building services.

State coalitions can receive grant funding to develop or improve economic justice programs for survivors, as well as conduct economic empowerment and curriculum trainings with local domestic violence groups. In 2013—the most recent year for which data is available—the foundation awarded $1 million to state domestic violence coalitions in grants that ranged from $50,000 to $100,000 to help support their economic justice work.

So far, according to Pentico, the curriculum has performed “really great” among domestic violence coalitions and its clients. Survivors say they are better informed about economic justice and feel more empowered about their own skills and abilities, which has allowed them to make sounder financial decisions.

This, in turn, has allowed them to escape abuse and stay safe, she said.

“We for a long time chose to see money and finances as sort of this frivolous piece of the safety puzzle,” Pentico told Rewire. “It really is, for many, the piece of the puzzle.”

Public Policy as a Means of Economic Justice

Still, advocates say that public policy, particularly disparate workplace conditions, plays an enormous role in furthering financial abuse. The populations who are more likely to be victims of domestic violence—women, especially trans women and those of color—are also the groups more likely to be underemployed or unemployed. A 2015 LGBT Health & Human Services Network survey, for example, found that 28 percent of working-age transgender women were unemployed and out of school.

“That’s where [economic abuse] gets complicated,” Tracy told Rewire. “Some of it is the fault of the abuser, and some of it is the public policy failures that just don’t value women’s participation in the workforce.”

Victims working low-wage jobs often cannot save enough to leave an abusive situation, advocates say. What they do make goes toward paying bills, basic living needs, and their share of housing expenses—plus child-care costs if they have kids. In the end, they’re not left with much to live on—that is, if their abuser hasn’t taken away access to their own earnings.

“The ability to plan your future, the ability to get away from [abuse], that takes financial resources,” Tracy told Rewire. “It’s just so much harder when you don’t have them and when you’re frightened, and you’re frightened for yourself and your kids.”

Public labor policy can also inhibit a survivor’s ability to escape. This year, five states, Washington, D.C., and 24 jurisdictions will have passed or enacted paid sick leave legislation, according to A Better Balance, a family and work legal center in New York City. As of April, only one of those states—California—also passed a state paid family leave insurance law, which guarantees employees receive pay while on leave due to pregnancy, disability, or serious health issues. (New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, and New York have passed similar laws.) Without access to paid leave, Tracy said, survivors often cannot “exercise one’s rights” to file a civil protection order, attend court hearings, or access housing services or any other resource needed to escape violence.

Furthermore, only a handful of state laws protect workers from discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy or familial status (North Carolina, on the other hand, recently passed a draconian state law that permits wide-sweeping bias in public and the workplace). There is no specific federal law that protects LGBTQ workers, but the U.S. Employment Opportunity Commission has clarified that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Still, that doesn’t necessarily translate into practice. For example, the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 26 percent of transgender people were let go or fired because of anti-trans bias, while 50 percent of transgender workers reported on-the-job harassment. Research shows transgender people are at a higher risk of being fired because of their trans identity, which would make it harder for them to leave an abusive relationship.

“When issues like that intersect with domestic violence, it’s devastating,” Tracy told Rewire. “Frequently it makes it harder, if not impossible, for [victims] to leave battering situations.”

For many survivors, their freedom from abuse also depends on access to public benefits. Programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the child and dependent care credit, and earned income tax credit give low-income survivors access to the money and resources needed to be on stable economic ground. One example: According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where a family of three has one full-time nonsalary worker earning $10 an hour, SNAP can increase their take-home income by up to 20 percent.

These programs are “hugely important” in helping lift survivors and their families out of poverty and offset the financial inequality they face, Pentico said.

“When we can put cash in their pocket, then they may have the ability to then put a deposit someplace or to buy a bus ticket to get to family,” she told Rewire.

But these programs are under constant attack by conservative lawmakers. In March, the House Republicans approved a 2017 budget plan that would all but gut SNAP by more than $150 million over the next ten years. (Steep cuts already imposed on the food assistance program have led to as many as one million unemployed adults losing their benefits over the course of this year.) The House GOP budget would also strip nearly $500 billion from other social safety net programs including TANF, child-care assistance, and the earned income tax credit.

By slashing spending and imposing severe restrictions on public benefits, politicians are guaranteeing domestic violence survivors will remain stuck in a cycle of poverty, advocates say. They will stay tethered to their abuser because they will be unable to have enough money to live independently.

“When women leave in the middle of the night with the clothes on their back, kids tucked under their arms, come into shelter, and have no access to finances or resources, I can almost guarantee you she’s going to return,” Pentico told Rewire. “She has to return because she can’t afford not to.”

By contrast, advocates say that improving a survivor’s economic security largely depends on a state’s willingness to remedy what they see as public policy failures. Raising the minimum wage, mandating equal pay, enacting paid leave laws, and prohibiting employment discrimination—laws that benefit the entire working class—will make it much less likely that a survivor will have to choose between homelessness and abuse.

States can also pass proactive policies like the bill proposed in Pennsylvania, to make it easier for survivors to leave abusive situations in the first place. Last year, California enacted a law that similarly allows abuse survivors to terminate their lease without getting a restraining order or filing a police report permanent. Virginia also put in place an early lease-termination law for domestic violence survivors in 2013.

A “more equitable distribution of wealth is what we need, what we’re talking about,” Tracy told Rewire.

As Pentico put it, “When we can give [a survivor] access to finances that help her get and stay safe for longer, her ability to protect herself and her children significantly increases.”

Commentary Economic Justice

The Gender Wage Gap Is Not Women’s Fault, and Here’s the Report That Proves It

Kathleen Geier

The fact is, in every occupation and at every level, women earn less than men doing exactly the same work.

A new report confirms what millions of women already know: that women’s choices are not to blame for the gender wage gap. Instead, researchers at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the progressive think tank that issued the report, say that women’s unequal pay is driven by “discrimination, social norms, and other factors beyond women’s control.”

This finding—that the gender pay gap is caused by structural factors rather than women’s occupational choices—is surprisingly controversial. Indeed, in my years as a journalist covering women’s economic issues, the subject that has been most frustrating for me to write about has been the gender gap. (Full disclosure: I’ve worked as a consultant for EPI, though not on this particular report.) No other economic topic I’ve covered has been more widely misunderstood, or has been so outrageously distorted by misrepresentations, half-truths, and lies.

That’s because, for decades, conservatives have energetically promoted the myth that the gender pay gap does not exist. They’ve done such a bang-up job of it that denying the reality of the gap, like denying the reality of global warming, has become an article of faith on the right. Conservative think tanks like the Independent Women’s Forum and the American Enterprise Institute and right-wing writers at outlets like the Wall Street Journal, Breitbart, and the Daily Caller have denounced the gender pay gap as “a lie,” “not the real story,” “a fairy tale,” “a statistical delusion,” and “the myth that won’t die.” Sadly, it is not only right-wing propagandists who are gender wage gap denialists. Far more moderate types like Slate’s Hanna Rosin and the Atlantic’s Derek Thompson have also claimed that the gender wage gap statistic is misleading and exaggerates disparities in earnings.

According to the most recent figures available from the Census Bureau, for every dollar a man makes, a woman makes only 79 cents, a statistic that has barely budged in a decade. And that’s just the gap for women overall; for most women of color, it’s considerably larger. Black women earn only 61 percent of what non-Hispanic white men make, and Latinas earn only 55 percent as much. In a recent survey, U.S. women identified the pay gap as their biggest workplace concern. Yet gender wage gap denialists of a variety of political stripes contend that gender gap statistic—which measures the difference in median annual earnings between men and women who work full-time, year-round—is inaccurate because it does not compare the pay of men and women doing the same work. They argue that when researchers control for traits like experience, type of work, education, and the like, the gender gap evaporates like breath on a window. In short, the denialists frame the gender pay gap as the product not of sexist discrimination, but of women’s freely made choices.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The EPI study’s co-author, economist Elise Gould, said in an interview with Rewire that she and her colleagues realized the need for the new report when an earlier paper generated controversy on social media. That study had uncovered an “unadjusted”—meaning that it did not control for differences in workplace and personal characteristics—$4 an hour gender wage gap among recent college graduates. Gould said she found this pay disparity “astounding”: “You’re looking at two groups of people, men and women, with virtually the same amount of experience, and yet their wages are so different.” But critics on Twitter, she said, claimed that the wage gap simply reflected the fact that women were choosing lower-paid jobs. “So we wanted to take out this one idea of occupational choice and look at that,” Gould said.

Gould and her co-author Jessica Schieder highlight two important findings in their EPI report. One is that, even within occupations, and even after controlling for observable factors such as education and work experience, the gender wage gap remains stubbornly persistent. As Gould told me, “If you take a man and a woman sitting side by side in a cubicle, doing the same exact job with the same amount of experience and the same amount of education, on average, the man is still going to be paid more than the woman.”

The EPI report cites the work of Harvard economist Claudia Goldin, who looked at the relative weight in the overall wage gap of gender-based pay differences within occupations versus those between occupations. She found that while gender pay disparities between different occupations explain 32 percent of the gap, pay differences within the same occupation account for far more—68 percent, or more than twice as much. In other words, even if we saw equal numbers of men and women in every profession, two-thirds of the gender wage gap would still remain.

And yes, female-dominated professions pay less, but the reasons why are difficult to untangle. It’s a chicken-and-egg phenomenon, the EPI report explains, raising the question: Are women disproportionately nudged into low-status, low-wage occupations, or do these occupations pay low wages simply because it is women who are doing the work?

Historically, “women’s work” has always paid poorly. As scholars such as Paula England have shown, occupations that involve care work, for example, are associated with a wage penalty, even after controlling for other factors. But it’s not only care work that is systematically devalued. So, too, is work in other fields where women workers are a majority—even professions that were not initially dominated by women. The EPI study notes that when more women became park rangers, for example, overall pay in that occupation declined. Conversely, as computer programming became increasingly male-dominated, wages in that sector began to soar.

The second major point that Gould and Schieder emphasize is that a woman’s occupational choice does not occur in a vacuum. It is powerfully shaped by forces like discrimination and social norms. “By the time a woman earns her first dollar, her occupational choice is the culmination of years of education, guidance by mentors, parental expectations, hiring practices, and widespread norms and expectations about work/family balance,” Gould told Rewire. One study cited by Gould and Schieder found that in states where traditional attitudes about gender are more prevalent, girls tend to score higher in reading and lower in math, relative to boys. It’s one of many findings demonstrating that cultural attitudes wield a potent influence on women’s achievement. (Unfortunately, the EPI study does not address racism, xenophobia, or other types of bias that, like sexism, shape individuals’ work choices.)

Parental expectations also play a key role in shaping women’s occupational choices. Research reflected in the EPI study shows that parents are more likely to expect their sons to enter male-dominated science, technology, engineering, and math (often called STEM) fields, as opposed to their daughters. This expectation holds even when their daughters score just as well in math.

Another factor is the culture in male-dominated industries, which can be a huge turn-off to women, especially women of color. In one study of women working in science and technology, Latinas and Black women reported that they were often mistaken for janitors—something that none of the white women in the study had experienced. Another found that 52 percent of highly qualified women working in science and technology ended up leaving those fields, driven out by “hostile work environments and extreme job pressures.”

Among those pressures are excessively long hours, which make it difficult to balance careers with unpaid care work, for which women are disproportionately responsible. Goldin’s research, Gould said, shows that “in jobs that have more temporal flexibility instead of inflexibility and long hours, you do see a smaller gender wage gap.” Women pharmacists, for example, enjoy relatively high pay and a narrow wage gap, which Goldin has linked to flexible work schedules and a professional culture that enables work/life balance. By contrast, the gender pay gap is widest in highest-paying fields such as finance, which disproportionately reward those able to work brutally long hours and be on call 24/7.

Fortunately, remedies for the gender wage gap are at hand. Gould said that strong enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, greater wage transparency (which can be achieved through unions and collective bargaining), and more flexible workplace policies would all help to alleviate gender-based pay inequities. Additional solutions include raising the minimum wage, which would significantly boost the pay of the millions of women disproportionately concentrated in the low-wage sector, and enacting paid family leave, a policy that would be a boon for women struggling to combine work and family. All of these issues are looming increasingly large in our national politics.

But in order to advance these policies, it’s vital to debunk the right’s shameless, decades-long disinformation campaign about the gender gap. The fact is, in every occupation and at every level, women earn less than men doing exactly the same work. The right alleges that the official gender pay gap figure exaggerates the role of discrimination. But even statistics that adjust for occupation and other factors can, in the words of the EPI study, “radically understate the potential for gender discrimination to suppress women’s earnings.”

Contrary to conservatives’ claims, women did not choose to be paid consistently less than men for work that is every bit as valuable to society. But with the right set of policies, we can reverse the tide and bring about some measure of economic justice to the hard-working women of the United States.