Margaret Lyman touches on a very important and rarely discussed point with
respect to society's valuation of museums--the fact that we, the museum
professionals, too often undervalue our own work.  By doing so, WE
actually contribute to society's perceptions of museums as "nonessential."

I've been guilty of this, too.  I made all those excuses for accepting low
pay and patronizing treatment, including "I knew I wouldn't make a fortune
in this field" and "I really love the work and that's all that matters"
and "It's ok as long as I know I'm contributing to the greater good of
society."  I'm sure we've all beaten our heads against that brick wall.

It finally dawned on me that I was one of the problems.  Why should
society view museum work as a skilled profession that warrants respect (in
the form of tangible rewards, not mere words) when _I_ don't treat it that
way?

I've since made difficult choices in turning down positions that don't
offer a respectable level of compensation.  (Hey, I NEED to work!)  And
I've told them exactly why--that as a skilled professional my time and
expertise is WORTH more, that their institution should PAY more if they
want to hire the kind of person they claim to seek in their job
descriptions, that in return they move the institution into the
professional realm.  It took longer to find something, but I did.

Unfortunately, there are many trained museum staffers who are eager to
scoop up these low-payers.  I concur with Margaret's  "ethics versus
economics" and "symptom, not cause" assessment of why this is so.  We
_en_masse_ need to change this field from within and place real value on
our own work.  Only then will society follow suit.

Melanie Solomon
[log in to unmask]


P.S.  Sorry, I'll be out of town and unable to respond to comments for a
week...


Margaret Lyman wrote:
>Is it really an evil plot by a male dominated society to ensure the
>continued oppression of women & children under their dubious superiority,
>bound by the chains of traditional social roles?  I don't think so.
>
>Look at the gradual feminization of clerical work following the Civil
War.
>Like most museum work and other educational roles, it is generally
dependent
>on intellectual more than physical ability.  A traditionally male field
>until the war, workforce shortages allowed women to step in to clerical
>work, as an expanding economy opened more and new postitions to the men
they
>displaced.  Facility in the field was explained by the patience &
attention
>to detail that is "natural" to women.  While natural ability of
individuals
>played a part in it, a stronger motivation for hiring women was & is
their
>WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT LOWER WAGES.
>
>Similarly, the world of professional & semi-professional museum workers
was
>dominated by males until recently, and, with exceptions, men still
dominate
>the higher paying positions (not because they are men, but because the
>positions often require a higher level of education, and women are still
>playing catch up in the number of Phd's being earned).  The boom in
museum
>growth has also created a boom in entry level positions and positions in
>institutions which do not require educational degrees (even if they
really
>should), with commensurate salaries.  Women stepped in & started to
>numerically dominate the field.
>
>Having started at low wages, even a small increase in pay looks huge
>(believe me, I've been there).  Unaware or unmindful of the value of
their
>skills in the general workforce, staff, male or female, may be reluctant
to
>ask for more, preferring a job they love to a new car or a better house.
In
>turn, why should museums offer more when their is such a large workforce
>willing to work at low wages.  Those who cannot afford to make the trade
off
>either leave the field or never enter it.  Like it or not, fair or
unfair,
>women tend to stay.
>
>A balance of ethics vs. economics is a better explanation for generally
low
>but gradualy rising wages found in the museum world.  The growing female
>presence (real and perceived) in the field is a symptom, which may be
>related to social roles, etc., but it is not the cause of low wages.
>

...in response to what Sally Stanton said:
>>Museum professionals are underpaid and undervalued because what they do
>>is perceived as "soft", "nonessential", "nonprofit", "educational", and
>>that means "not all that important", in a society where the dollar is
>>almighty. Despite the fact that many women make more money than their
>>husbands, despite the fact that many women support families without any
>>help from a male breadwinner, despite the fact that most women now work
>>for a majority of their lives, Americans subconsciously cling to the
>>mystical ideal of the nuclear family and the male breadwinner.
>>Until this changes, the arts and humanities will continue to take second
>>place; museums will take a backseat to baseball stadiums, and museum
>>professionals will be paid ridiculously low salaries (just as teachers
>>were and in many cases still are) for work which pays well in other
>>institutions.