~ archived since 2018 ~

feminist myth of women earning $0.72 to a man's $1 repeated in u.s. presidential debate

toptrool

October 17, 2012

1216 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://politicslive.cnn.com/Event/Second_Presidential_Debate_2

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	feminist myth of women earning $0.72 to a man's $1 repeated in u.s. presidential debate
Author	toptrool
Upvotes	1216
Comments	483
Date	October 17, 2012 1:43 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11lsrw/feminist_myth_of_women_earning_072_to_a_mans_1/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminist-myth-of-women-earning-072-to-a-mans-1.1011181 https://theredarchive.com/post/1011181

Comments

[–]BGoodRBCareful 136 points137 points138 points 13 years ago* (1305 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 1929 points1930 points1931 points 13 years ago* (1303 children) | Copy Link

A few more links on the issue:

The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors.

The Department of Labor recently funded a study that proved this and found the pay gap is caused by choices, not discrimination.

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

Women work (44/56)x100=78% as much time as men. Kind of explains the gap by itself doesn't it?

The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

Gender pay gap is not what activists claim

http://wwww.examiner.com/x-22884-Canada-Politics-Examiner~y2010m2d22-Gender-pay-gap-is-not-what-activists-claim

Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html

Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/22Sommers.html?_r=1&hp

The Wage Gap Myth

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_wage_gap_myth.html

Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap.html

The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa3pKN3XUKM&feature=youtu.be

Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/economy/06women.html?_r=2

Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/biggest-shock-fridays-payroll-report-sorry-men

Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Low

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/share-of-men-in-labor-force-at-all-time-low/?src=recg

Men earn 52% LESS than women for part time jobs

How to get this graph yourself from the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money-and-land-better-jobs-than-men-2010-9

Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study

www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedType=R

Female CEOs outearned men in 2009.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=10630664

Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men's wages.

www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That's 8% more than comparable men.

http://www.ksee24.com/news/local/Young-Women-Earn-More-159818705.html

Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

Young Women's Pay Exceeds Male Peers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html

The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/03/14/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men/

women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount.

http://www.womenintechnology.co.uk/news/young-women-earn-more-than-men--news-800761492

Young women now earn more than men in UK

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/2011/10/young-women-now-earn-more-than-men-in-uk/

The only chairwoman in the FTSE 100 index of biggest British companies, when asked about government efforts to force companies to make at least 25% of board member to be female said: "there's no real evidence to suggest women being on a board makes the companies any better – what we're doing here is forcing an experiment."

This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, Ph.D., examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0752118220071107?feedTy…

Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/15/optout.revolution/

This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).

Blaming men for women’s choices is unfair. In fact research shows most men have no problem with their wives outearning them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23413243

Research also shows most working dads would quit or take a pay cut to spend more time with kids if their spouses could support the family.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/06/13/dads.work/index.html

Research also shows that parents share workloads more when mothers allow men to be primary parents.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-equal-parenting_N.htm

ABC News: “Is the Wage Gap Women’s Choice? Research Suggests Career Decisions, Not Sex Bias, Are at Root of Pay Disparity”

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=797045&page=1&CMP=OTC-R

There is also the myth that women are kept out of certain more lucrative fields by sexism. The truth is that women stay away from math out of their own free choice

http://sify.com/news/women-stay-away-from-math-out-of-their-own-free-choice-news-scitech-kk1lubiiiee.html

Women In Science: No Discrimination, Says Cornell Study

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/women_science_no_discrimination_says_cornell_study-75984

Let’s be real about the lack of women in tech

http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-be-real-about-the-lack-of-women-in-tech-2010-10

EDIT: A few people have claimed that I put too many links here. Hamakua wrote a nice (and very short) response to that in this thread.

[–]purpledust 501 points502 points503 points 13 years ago* (185 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xinx 364 points365 points366 points 13 years ago (142 children) | Copy Link

[–]purpledust 209 points210 points211 points 13 years ago* (114 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]bookwench 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BassmanBiff 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]whitey_sorkin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zer_ 91 points92 points93 points 13 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 53 points54 points55 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zer_ 56 points57 points58 points 13 years ago* (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]6890 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

You're correct and I'll back you on that. My girlfriend was working a IT tech job. At the point when she quit she was doing the job of a new hire, plus two admin jobs at the same time (previously the work of 3 people) yet got paid less than temp hires doing only one of the tasks. The reason was that the company was struggling to retain people (surprise surprise) and was offering higher wages to new hire while maintaining their fuck-you-for-existing "maximum" 3% annual raise policy.

Over a few years that 3%, 3% 3% rarely adds up when the company used to start you at $15/hr and is offering new hires $19.50 or so.

What I'm truely interested in is how this will effect new hire bargaining. If a company is desperate to fill a position, and very few qualified applicants are available and all want a wage higher than your existing staff you'd have to raise everyone's salary which is a massive expense. Now, this is fair in its entirety but often not feasible for the smaller business owners. Disclaimer here though, I'm just thinking hypothetically. Big companies like Amazon and the like would no longer have to bargain on offers as everyone gets the same wage under law. Would this be good or bad for the workforce long run?

[–]meatsocket 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acousticfire 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JennyBeckman 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zer_ 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fkaginstrom 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrAmishJoe 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (63 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]purpledust 64 points65 points66 points 13 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]ycerovce 29 points30 points31 points 13 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]Unit4 24 points25 points26 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

I know a guy that has been working at a company for 9 years and manages their Support department (approximately 6 person department) for a company of about 100 employees. He gets less than most of the other employees, despite being there longer, having more knowledge and experience, working long hours, training new people, etc. He gets paid less because he doesn't have a college diploma, he dropped out of high school and got his GED, but never had time or money to pursue higher education because he had kids. Because new hires have diplomas, they pay them more, even though his experience is valued higher than the diploma.

It isn't that he doesn't make much money for someone with a GED, he is doing really well there, it is that he is working the same job he could have gotten with a bachelor's or master's in CompSci, but instead is put at a lower pay grade because he didn't actually go to school for his knowledge.

I don't think he can make a case, nor am I trying to make one really, just pointing out that pay rules are interesting.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThirdFloorGreg 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ycerovce 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]uber1337h4xx0r 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That would be an interesting potential future addition to the protected stuff. "Education discrimination".

It's hard to say who would support it, though.

The democrats would possibly support it based on the fact that it's discrimination against people with lower income (technically, anyway. I mean the way I see it, poorer people are less likely to afford college and would most likely have to be working while being in college, making it more difficult to graduate; that in addition to the fact that it'd be more difficult to afford a tutor if one was needed).

But on the other hand, republicans are more against the idea of education, so it seems to apply to them as well (democrats would be conflicted as they push for science and technology). Of course, this would mean they're supporting poorer people, something that's against the Republican mindset.

[–]InnocuousDiatribe 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gastronomicus 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rockchurch 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Parker_I 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]penguinv 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bobthereddituser 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhiteRaven42 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Schweppesale 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]zerostyle 38 points39 points40 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaSkunk 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]canneddirt 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kuresov 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Meles__meles 32 points33 points34 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]HelloMcFly 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seen_Unseen 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The beauty is that especially like the OP with plenty of time you will always find studies supporting whatever you feel like. You consider male to be stronger in this, I hire specifically pretty girls who are smooth talkers. Where I work it's pretty common to do such practice. Is is then also not surprising that the girls can be good negotiators just as well.

The whole gender discussion in the end will keep going on. While there are plenty of studies out there proving this is simply non-existent and often more a matter of choice politicians and lawyers have their hands full with it. Politicians trying to get the female votes, lawyers trying to get your wallet. What is worrisome though is the effects this could have. In Europe now a days we got regulations about how many female leaders we should have yet, they simply aren't available. This is not surprising but results in that less capable females are being put in positions where males might have done a better job. Due regulations though these companies are being crippled. Though I'm all for equal pay, in the end we aren't that different but for equal pay you also need to be equal. Often this is not the case.

[–]RileyWon 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AllDizzle 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think it totally depends on the situation.

Two equal people in every way I'd say is not okay.

however there are many factors to why I'd want to pay Jim more than Bob. Jim might have more experience, he might work faster, he might be more willing to take direction, he might be willing to go the extra mile, he might have simply gone to me and masterfully described why his work and life situation deserve more pay (Maybe jim has a new born and I have extra money I'm willing to pay my workers).

While Jim and Bob might in the end produce the work I want by the deadline, Jim could just be more pleasant to work with because he's easier to give direction to.

If Bob feels he should be paid just as much, he should come talk to me and we can discuss why he should or should not be paid just as much.

[–]dstam 30 points31 points32 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]KiratheKillerSparkle 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LordVassogo 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SDcowboy82 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Yserbius 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ophwack 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ophwack 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobthereddituser 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Unit4 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pugovitz 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LWdkw 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Lwdkw, those gender breakdowns are very misleading because they're not broken down or weighted by years of experience. It's obvious from the other graphs that salaries range from 60k to 130k. Supposing that women are more recent entrants into the game development industry, their salaries could very well be higher than men's but this is obscured by the poor data presentation. Don't plan out your own career based on this stuff, unless you really want to miss out on your earning potential. Get some better data.

This shoddy journalism is probably someone's idea of "helping" women by making them look like oppressed victims, but what they're really doing is steering women away from lucrative professions. It would be really sad if some women saw this kind of report, got pissed off, and became a nurse instead of a software engineer.

[–]MusicalXena 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I applaud the compilation of source material here; thank you for posting this, shady8x.

I am perfectly willing to admit that statistics can be misleading (especially with faulty analysis tacked on to further distort said statistics). However, because of one friend's experience I can attest that pay inequality based solely on gender DOES still occur. In her situation, the employer actually told her to her face that she made less per hour entirely because she was a female.

One case, of course, does not entirely change the playing field. However, her situation makes me wonder how much this kind of discrimination happens but goes unreported by people who desperately need the money. Anti-discrimination laws serve the dual purpose of punishment and prevention. Wouldn't it still be worth passing The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? (This is a genuine question, by the way. I wish I had more time for checking out the links above, but I have a test to study for tonight.)

[–]TheAtomicOption 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm ambivalent on that act because, as I understand them, neither the pre LLFPA precedent set by SOTA nor the post LLFPA law are quite right.

The statute of limitations is intended to ensure that people don't ignore perceived wrong doing and allow it (and its potentially expensive legal consequences) to fester. In setting rules the balancing force to that is to make sure that people can sue after they discover a wrong, even if the wrong has existed for a long time.

Before LLFPA, employees needed to sue within 180 days of being hired, and if they didn't find out that they had received a discriminatory salary fast enough, they were out of luck. However the LLFPA effectively removes that limitation since it resets with each paycheck, so people are allowed to let the problem fester and then surprise the employer with a much more expensive lawsuit years down the road.

Obviously neither of these situations are good. Ideally the clock should start when the employee discovers that they're not receiving a fair wage, but determining that moment with sufficient certainty would be hard in court. I'm not really sure what the solution should be. I'm not sure there is a good one.

[–]hikelsey 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]medlurk 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Hmm, this is an interesting compilation of links to be sure, but they're all really articles not studies and I'm quite sure I can find just as long a list of articles saying the pay gaps are real. Do you have any actual studies to show for it?

By contrast here's one regarding physican salaries which I find to be a good metric because the training and qualifications are very much standardized so in theory the male and female candidates should have no disparities: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22692173 "Male gender was associated with higher salary (+$13,399; P = .001) even after adjustment in the final model for specialty, academic rank, leadership positions, publications, and research time. Peters-Belson analysis (use of coefficients derived from regression model for men applied to women) indicated that the expected mean salary for women, if they retained their other measured characteristics but their gender was male, would be $12,194 higher than observed."

They controlled also for hours worked, marital and parental status, and race.

Another similar study showed that starting salaries were lower for females going into residencies with the exact same qualifications as males.

Many people do speculate that the wage difference might actually come from the lack of willingness of females to negotiate aggressively for higher salaries for fear of violating cultural norms of being agreeable and non-confrontational.

[–]Thymos 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]medlurk 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]abhikavi 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 235 points236 points237 points 13 years ago (193 children) | Copy Link

As an economist who doesn't my technical "facts" from news outlets but rather from peer-reviewed renowned journals, I find this a bit light...

First I should mention that I don't know about this 77%, but the gender gap is a well documented, based on HOURLY pay (so amount of time you work per year is irrelevant) and similar qualifications.

For instance: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117457?seq=2 (The AER is one of the most reputable economic journals in the world.)

Even so, imagining that women would earn the same as similarly qualified men, you should ask yourself if this voluntary choice is indeed something good for society. (There are a lot of instances of rational choices from individuals leading to sub-optimal outcome at the society level.) In particular:

why do women choose less well paid occupations?
why do they choose to opt out of tech and science studies?

Let me just tell you that it could well be a self-fulfilling circle that women do not attempt studies that would lead to a job in which they would not be paid well, which in turns justifies that they are less well prepared and hence less well-paid.

Please don't take your facts from news outlets (who probably do not hire Economics PhD laureates to write their columns), but instead trust the academic literature: the gender gap does exist.

[–]LurkMoarBro 121 points122 points123 points 13 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]0rganizedCha0s 68 points69 points70 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Here's an article that suggests a gender gap is still very much a problem in the sciences: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474

A basic summary of the article: Science faculty at research-oriented universities were given a resume of potential lab managers and were asked to rate the applicant on the basis of their competence, one's own willingness to hire and mentor this applicant, and one's own estimation of a deserving starting salary. The resumes given were identical except half were presented with the name "Jennifer" and the other half were "John." In each category, "Jennifer" was rated significantly less than "John," even by female faculty. This, in my opinion, is a huge indication that there is a cultural/societal bias against women employees, particularly in science.

In regards to pay, "John" was offered a beginning average salary of $30,328 while "Jennifer" was offered $26,508. Think the pay gap is a "feminist myth?" THINK AGAIN!

(Also, there is no need to qualify this proven pay gap as a FEMINIST myth.)

[–]penguinv 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]robotman707 33 points34 points35 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]eketros 48 points49 points50 points 13 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Even so, imagining that women would earn the same as similarly qualified men, you should ask yourself if this voluntary choice is indeed something good for society. (There are a lot of instances of rational choices from individuals leading to sub-optimal outcome at the society level.) In particular:

why do women choose less well paid occupations?

You know, this whole thing could be framed in the opposite way. Why do men choose to live less balanced lives? What sort of social pressure exists that makes men feel forced to optimize pay over quality of life?

In that case, it is the men who are disadvantaged. The strong social pressure for them to be "providers", or for them to measure their value based on their paycheque, leads them to make career decisions that put wages ahead of everything else.

[–]apintofplain 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]doublenegative0 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]shdwfeather 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimWebb 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]penguinv 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]therogueleikn 56 points57 points58 points 13 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]orczilla 39 points40 points41 points 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

It's not that motherhood should be awarded - it's a question of it not being penalized. Consider this: we all have a mother. Society (all living things save a few) require mothers to continue to exist.

So what to do? As a society, we should all share the burden of motherhood so we can continue to exist. I would argue that should include daycare and other such benefits precisely to allow mothers to continue to be productive members of society in whichever way they choose, rather than punishing the creatures among us who decide for whatever reason to help perpetuate the human species.

I make less money than my wife, a doctor, will make. So what to do then? Should I go back to school to study medicine? If she has the wherewithal to accomplish such a feat, why penalize her when we have kids? if I could, I would have the kids - in reality, that would be the smart choice, but of course I'm not a seahorse so I can't.

[–]szthesquid 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]szthesquid 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No, in that respect, it's not fair. However, no one else can expect to take months off work and continue to get paid and still have a job when they get back. How is that fair?

But more importantly, like I said in another comment, it makes more sense to me for the government to pay for parental leave. Mothers are absolutely working hard, but not for their employer. Raising kids does have a benefit for the country, though, and so it makes sense to me to shift the payment from the company to the government. Don't change any numbers, just the source.

As a business owner I imagine I would be very frustrated having to pay an employee who is not producing anything for my company.

Analogy time! Let's say the guy who's supposed to be sorting inventory and stocking shelves is instead spending his time in the back writing code for a program for another company. Yes, he's working, but he's not working for me. Why would I want to pay him for that?

[–]yedaysofold 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JennyBeckman 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I upvoted you but I disagree with your blanket statement and I'll admit I only have anecdotal evidence. Being out of the workforce for a year doesn't always put you behind; it depends on the work you do and how you spend your time away from it. Nothing much changed in the weeks of my maternity leave (though I admit there is a difference between the couple of months I was allotted and the year you mentioned). I was able to get back to full speed my first week back. I did generally leave by 6 most nights but so did most of my coworkers and I spent more time at work actually working. I was rewarded for my efforts with a promotion and pay rise. I was still paid less than my male counterparts.

Now, I measure my accomplishments against myself so I was pleased to be earning more but it is slightly irksome to know that a change of genitalia would qualify me for a few cents more an hour. I was told it was illegal for coworkers to discuss pay rate for this very reason and that I didn't know what other qualifications the other people had. Yeah, because we only talked salaries and didn't compare resumés, right? Our qualifications were similar in every way applicable to our jobs. I will grant that it might not have been gender discrimination; there could've been other factors that I was unaware of and that had nothing to do with our actual work.

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]FireAtASeaParks 36 points37 points38 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

We're actually studying some of this in my sociology of gender class right now.

The answer to the former has to do more about job flexibility: less well-paid occupations are more likely to be flexible with hours, demands, etc. because of the presumption that while women are expected to work, they also have to go home and take care of the kids, etc. Well-paid positions are reserved for those who "merit" it: men who put in a zillion hours a week. Bonus points if they have a family support. A woman will not get the same treatment as a man in this position; they will instead face stigma regarding their "unwomanly" choice to work instead of fulfilling her maternal instincts and desires (not my words -this is from last week's lecture). Unmarried and childless women are, for the most part, treated like unmarried and childless men nowadays, but even then it was a long time before this came to pass because of the "what the hell is wrong with you and why aren't you in the kitchen" response that was given to women prior to recent times. But then again, there is an existing pressure for men to eventually settle down and start a family because that's when a man "really becomes" a man. Plus you wouldn't want that added concern from your colleagues and supervisors wondering about your reasons for choosing to stay a bachelor because you know what "that" means.

The latter question addresses gendered stereotypes that have existed since pretty much the dawn of civilization. There have been a lot of "studies" that claim that boys are better at maths and hard sciences while girls are better at English. I call them "studies" because they try to prove that, via the nature side of nature vs. nurture, boys are just better mentally equipped to handle math and science. Nurture, however, is the clear winner here. While discouragements for girls who go into math and science have lessened, they do still exist. The number of boys in AP science and math classes still outstrip the number of girls. Not to mention that, years later for them, when the time comes to choose career over starting a family due to fertility issues that arise for them down the road, women will often opt for starting a family over pursuing their career because they've been conditioned to believe that having a family is more important than having a career which then just widens the gender gap for the more prestigious occupations and positions across the board since they then drop out of the running. This then goes back to the previous question -when women then make their return to the job market, they'll go for something easy that leaves then able and available to fulfill their own and society's own expectations and desires for them.

TL;DR - Present society makes women think that they can have their cake and eat it too, but the cake is a lie.

[–]penguinv 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

On the topic of nature vs nurture in the sciences.

I've seen women self-segregate pretty late in their academic careers. My engineering program 10 years ago started with two generic years that split off into mechanical eng., electrical eng., chemical eng., material eng., ... after. Each of those branched off into specializations in the final years. The first year had a gender ratio of 1/5.

At every point, women consistently showed different interests than men, skewing the gender ratio for some classes to extremes (one woman amongst 30 men, or no women at all), and evening it out closer to 50/50 in others. For example, women clearly flocked to chemical engineering and medical applications, while men dominated mechanical, electrical, comp sci.

In these situations, I find it very hard to argue that it's due to societal pressure (i.e. nurture), because we're talking about the already small group of women who chose to go into engineering anyway, and your choice of specialization depends mostly on what you find yourself to be interested in and good at as you go through the program. I also find it hard to imagine that this could be explained away by female students simply choosing to 'stick together'... you have to assume they base their choice of career specialization on more than just peer pressure.

[–]LaurenCoffee 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"Societal pressure" is not really what the nurture argument is about. Its more about the ideas we get in our heads as children about what it means to be male and what it means to be female. By the point you're describing (picking engineer classes) this cultural work has already been done and both parties are guilty of it.

For example, if a threat to the system (ie. male/female hierarchy) can be perceived as a threat to the individual (female and her femininity) than this system will be perpetuated by the individual. In this instance a female who learns early on in life what her interests SHOULD be will spend more time doing these things and develop an interest for and knowledge about them. If she were to do "boy" things and get good at them it would threaten her femininity, or validation as a "good" female, to her peers and so the female learns to perpetuate the very system that degrades her (which later on in life translates to the devaluing of "feminine" careers/work and = lower salaries.)

[–]scranston 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThiaTheYounger 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think this you have a very important point. Often people point out that women make their own choices that lead to them being paid less. But those choices are influenced by the society they live in. After thinking about my own youth and talking with other female STEM students, I have come to the conclusion that from when we were young, we were all in different ways pushed away from science and mathematics. We had all been encouraged, often unintentionally, to focus more on caring positions and actions then on exploring, science and carriere. When young girls show interest in 'boy' things they often aren't taken seriously and not accepted in the 'club'. So most of us became friends with boys that were outcasts in high school: they didn't turn us away and they could admit to being interested in the same things as us.

[–]downvoted_by_lefties 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]hilosplit 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]spacemanspiff30 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]masterm 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]penguinv 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]monumentclub 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]penguinv 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]spacemanspiff30 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

but the gender gap is a well documented, based on HOURLY pay (so amount of time you work per year is irrelevant) and similar qualifications.

So you don't believe someone working more hours, gaining more experience, and likely gaining promotions and raises faster due to increased experience, is going to to have any effect on hourly pay rates?

Perhaps you should consider changing careers.

Please don't take your facts from news outlets (who probably do not hire Economics PhD laureates to write their columns), but instead trust the academic literature: the gender gap does exist.

The study most of these news articles are responding to is a study done by the Bureau of Labor in the US. There are a few other studies in there, but how about you dismiss these sources based on the primary source they are referencing, rather than the news article itself?

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Deratrius 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LaurenCoffee 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So you don't believe someone working more hours, gaining more experience, and likely gaining promotions and raises faster due to increased experience, is going to to have any effect on hourly pay rates?

Of course someone working more hours and gaining more experience will increase their wages but the pay gap isn't about the simple fact of "who works more hours." It's about the inequalities between male and female accessibility to excel. It's about the privilege of being able to work more hours when, for example, the burden of motherhood is placed solely (and unequally) on the mother and not the father--to the detriment of her career and not his.

The OECD (2002) found that women work fewer hours because in the present circumstances the "responsibilities for child-rearing and other unpaid household work are still unequally shared among partners."

But even in cases where the female is not a mother and works just as many hours as her male counterpart, she is earning less. Also from the same source above: "However, numerous studies indicate that variables such as hours worked account for only part of the gender pay gap and that the pay gap shrinks but does not disappear after controlling for all human capital variable which are known to affect pay."

[–]Justsaynotololcatz 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Many women choose to "opt out" of science studies because it isn't an avenue that's ever given to them as children. Go to the toy section of your local outlet mall and you will finding sparkling shoes, cleaning sets, pink vacuums, and tea sets as the options for little girls. While little boys get all the cool science sets, doctor sets, etc. Women are taught from birth (especially in certain parts of the US) that these fields aren't suitable for their minds. It's absolutely fucking ridiculous and fills me with a new kind of rage. The gender roles pushed on women by society are part of the reason you do not see them in those fields. Then there's the misogynist attitudes of men in those fields. Ex. When I was a Senior in high school in AP Biology, I was the only girl in a class full of boys. I spent the entire year listening to those pretentious bastards tell me that women were stupid, I was going to fail the AP exam, I needed to go back to the kitchen, etc. WTF would I choose a field where I would have to be around assholes like that on a regular basis? I LOVE science, but I did not pursue higher education in that content because I like to keep the level of douchebaggery in my life to a minimum. (BTW they should have spent less time mocking me and more time paying attention, because I was the only one who scored well enough to get college credit, sweet justice ;p).

That being said, I recently found out that I, a woman with a Master's degree and three years of experience, am paid less money than the man who had the job before me who only had his bachelors and was a graduate right out of college with no experience (also he did a shitty job). I don't know enough about the 'gender gap' to make a claim one way or the other, but it is certainly evident in my current situation.

Finally I chose to pursue education, a field in which I will never make a lot of money. This doesn't mean I'm less "well prepared" than men. I just elected to work in a service field because I strongly feel the only way to improve the current state of the world is by helping create an educated population. The fact that I'm paid shit, has nothing to do with me at all. So I think it's a big assumption to say women are less well prepared therefore less well-paid. They may simply be more likely to choose jobs that are non-profit, public service fields like teaching.

[–]PotatoDUDE 33 points34 points35 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]penguinv 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]PotatoDUDE 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]slainte99 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]tootingmyownhorn 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]akuta 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]payperplanes 52 points53 points54 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]ensiferous 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]elfinito77 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

The assumption in the US still very much favors men towards the work-oriented choices, and women toward the family-oriented. (and if you do not align with that assumption...as it seems your parents did....it may not be as "fair" as you perceive.)

This assumption does not just drive the individual choices at home -- it drives employer attitudes, and general employment expectations of women -- and how employers react once they find out a woman is pregnant or trying. (particularly with the US's mandatory maternity leave -- but no mandatory Paternity leave).

Speaking as 35 yo, who worked in a large Long Island manufacturing company and witnessed it first-hand, and now an attorney with many female NY City lawyer-friends that are facing similar issues now as many begin to start families --- as well as a having a wife facing these expectations and challenges in the hyper-competitive NY City design world.

[–]callthebankshot 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ensiferous 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]habes42 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]teen_riot 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Vodiodoh 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]2_da_resQ 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]merrymaker 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 57 points58 points59 points 13 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]Casparilla 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]sirkazuo 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

This is more discrimination against singles without kids than anything. I've noticed the exact same thing in my own career.

Consistently, married co-workers and those with kids get special treatment on that account. Kid's sick? Sure take the day off. First day of kid's school? Sure come in a few hours late. Have to pick up the kids from school? Sure go ahead and leave a little early today. And of course you need a "more reasonable" salary, you've got a family to support after all.

Meanwhile the single folks are not given the same consideration at all, and in many cases I end up having to work later to cover for the people that had to leave early etc. due to their kids.

Realistically though, new hires tend to always make more than long standing employees. Even my dad, white, middle class, civil engineer male (so, stacked pretty high on the wage discrimination pile) has complained numerous times about new hires straight out of college making more than him. It's very easy for an employer to keep you at your same salary level while market rates rise.

These days it absolutely doesn't pay to stick around, no employer's got your back and there are no more life-long jobs. Stick around a few years, get your experience, wrap things up and move on when you're able to find a better salary and better benefits. Employers will do it to you if it makes economic sense, no reason to handicap yourself for them.

[–]shady8x 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]skysinsane 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Casparilla 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]skysinsane 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]vertabrett 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pneuma8828 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rareas 28 points29 points30 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Roughcaster 50 points51 points52 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Some dude just pasted this in an argument with me, I found some things you might want to deal with. I'll post my reply in its entirety so keep in mind it wasn't made to be directed at you:

"That's a pretty impressive-looking copypasta, but only about half have anything to do with pay discrimination. And since this thread's based on a US debate, I'll be ignoring the citations regarding the UK.

Also kinda funny since some of the sources you posted contradict your point. You cite: this, but did you even read it? First paragraph: "Women earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2010, up from 76 cents in 2000. [...] The fact remains, however, that men still earn more in almost every U.S. occupation."

And from this (which was presented disingenuously and doesn't support your point at all): In fact, women workers as a whole earn just 79 as much as men, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "

You sure showed me. A quick glance would show the source I posted originally takes into account everything these articles are saying, so this doesn't really disprove anything.

Also, most of these articles seem to be linking back to the same set of sources. I know it looks impressive to bring 30 citations to the table, when you dig through them, it's just a bunch of different sites commenting on the same few sets of statistics. Did you think I'd be too daunted by a wall of text to bother checking them or something?

To bring this back again, even when measuring for the factors these articles list 41% of the wage gap is "unexplainable if not for gender discrimination"."

End quote. In case it got buried in there I'll post it again, but everyone interested should give this a read: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/04/16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hellscreamgold 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]binaryice 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jaysonw23 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notrub225 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]killyourego 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rareas 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]C0dyMac 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TreyBoudreau 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rareas 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact that the very notion is met with disbelief is 180° off from when I started corporate work in the mid 80s. It's pretty stunning. Back then it was, of course we pay women less, we

a)don't want them to encourage them to keep working, they should quit and stay at home

b)they aren't the primary caregivers and therefore it's only fair that men take more money home

c)it will make their relationship with their husbands difficult if she earns more than him

Also, I have not seen in other organizations repeated what was happening at my first corporate job, the very week I started. I thought, boy, the women in this place are really stuck up. Turns out, management had announced that there was going to be one and only one promotion of a women to VP (ok, full disclosure, this place was pretty messed up (extended family run), there were 15 VPs for 150 employees). So the 4 women (maybe 5, but one really didn't have a chance) in a knockdown drag out backstabbing cat fight for this one and only forever and ever position. It was mad. It was such incompetent management, but no one said, hey, can you do that? It was oh, we are doing you ladies such a favor letting one of you move up. You should be grateful.

I learned an MBA's worth of how not to manage at that place.

[–]Bagelstein 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rareas 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bombadildo1 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skuntledyne 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bbeach88 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IWannaLose4lbs 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]all_space238 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ICanBeAnyone 230 points231 points232 points 13 years ago (181 children) | Copy Link

[–]SageInTheSuburbs 245 points246 points247 points 13 years ago (114 children) | Copy Link

Your comment in as opinion piece, "...some of the very reasons for behaving differently in the work place might stem from inequality factors themselves (glass ceiling, for example)."

This is under one of the sources of your wiki link:

The unexplained portion of the pay gap is often interpreted as the result of discrimination. In this view, once differences between men and women in the relevant determinants of wages are taken into account, any remaining difference in pay must be due to discrimination. But this explanation may be too simplistic. To the extent that discrimination affects women’s educational, job, and family choices, the "unexplained" differential will understate the true effect of discrimination. And, to the extent that an analyst cannot adequately measure all the determinants of wages using available data, there may be significant unmeasured labor market skills that differ between men and women. For instance, if women’s labor market experience is less likely to be continuous (for example, due to childbearing), then just controlling for years of work may not fully control for the differential effects of experience on male and female wages. In this case, the "unexplained" differential will overstate the true effect of discrimination, because it includes the effect of relevant unmeasured factors that influence the relative productivity of male and female employees.

[–]chiropter 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago* (107 children) | Copy Link

For instance, if women’s labor market experience is less likely to be continuous (for example, due to childbearing), then just controlling for years of work may not fully control for the differential effects of experience on male and female wages.

Have to say, as a male, this itself is discriminatory, as well as punitive to families- women are punished for taking time off work, in employability, experience, seniority, etc.

Edit: In lieu of replying individually, I just want to say that it's not fair to women if they are punished for taking time off work to take care of a newborn. Neither is it fair to men if they do that. It reduces their earnings and it reduces their family's earning power. It hurts society if these people then find it difficult to reenter the labor force or if they find employment that does not maximally utilize the productive potential they had before leaving. The answer is some form of maternity and paternity leave protection.

Edit2: and I also want to add that we all benefit from paternity/maternity leave because we all have parents. Additionally, many of us will also be parents. And we all have an interest in a productive economy where people are not employed below potential because they took time off to care for a newborn.

[–]CPlusPlusDeveloper 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It might be discriminatory, but it's not like there's a gaggle of evil executives mulling their beard and saying "Let's punish women for caring for children."

Take my field, software development. Let's say you're in a team of developers for Google Toaster. One person takes a year off work. In that time there's tremendous amount of code and complexity that is added. Now when you come back you're naturally behind some of your peers who have had an extra 12 months field experience with the product.

Say the lead developer leaves shortly after you get back. Who is Google going to put in charge of the all-important Toaster product which is just about to enter Beta? Yeah, maybe they should take a stand for women and babies and put the person who just came back from leave in charge.

But the reality is at that point she knows far less than a lot of the other developers. When bug reports start coming in and management starts wanting to add new features to Google Toaster ("can we make it multi-task as a blender"), someone who's been out of the loop for a year is a lot less likely to be on top of these things.

And at the end a lot of people's jobs and a lot of investors' money is riding on the success of Google Toaster. The market is highly competitive (Apple's slated to release iOven near the same date, and rumor is it will have toasting capability built-in), and even a couple of missteps could cost the project everything.

So all of this sounds nice in theory. But the vast majority of companies and teams are operating on a razor thin edge and they simply can't risk it.

[–]chiropter 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]CPlusPlusDeveloper 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If you're working in Finland or Germany you're probably working for a national giant that's been around for 100+ years, like Eriksson or Siemens. Companies that have been around for more than a century by their nature probably have less competitive pressure than young ones (after all they survived longer).

In contrast American markets tend to be much more competitive. Look at the average age of large American corporations vs Europeans. Survival is much more an issue for both American firms and workers. This is evidenced by the US's higher rate of turnover both among workers and corporations.

Anyone who's worked in both Europe and the US will tell you that the philosophy of work-life balance tends to be different on different sides of the Atlantic. It's not just maternity leave, Europeans also enjoy shorter work weeks, more vacation time, less overtime, less stress and more job security. On the downside they pay have more stagnant and less competitive markets, which drags on growth and productivity.

Importing European work practices simply won't work in America in isolation. The two have very different approaches to capitalism, (both of which have their pros and cons), and to get the European work culture the US would have to adopt European style monopolistic national giants.

[–]Werewolfdad 47 points48 points49 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Werewolfdad 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]champyg 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]champyg 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (45 children) | Copy Link

I think you misread my post. I'm saying women should be punished for having children. Well the family should be...

Having a child should not be supported by the government, it should be a choice when you have the financial means and stability to do so. A mother being away from work for a year drops in skill, ability, knowledge and what not for her job, not to mention unless stay-at-home-dad there will be multiple unforeseen "Oops gotta stay home" days. That is less desirable from any POV.

Personally I'm against the whole "Both parents take 10 year educations, get pregnant in their thirties, send child from year 1-2 to kindergarden so they can work". If you get a child, one parent should be home as much as possible, fuck this "have your cake and eat it too" bullshit. I don't care if it's the man or woman that stays home, but one should.

[–]chiropter 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]Guvante 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HyperactiveJudge 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]aezeldafan 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MindStalker 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Disposable_Face 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]unridiculous 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Source? To quote this comprehensive research report by the American Association of University Women:

After accounting for college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours worked, workplace flexibility, experience, educational attainment, enrollment status, GPA, institution selectivity, age, race/ethnicity, region, marital status, and number of children, a 5 percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation was still unexplained. A similar analysis of full-time workers 10 years after college graduation found a 12 percent unexplained difference in earnings. Other researchers have also found that the gender pay gap is not fully accounted for by women’s and men’s choices. 8,9

The report goes on to highlight a number of other considerations. For instance:

Mothers seeking employment are less likely to receive offers and are given lower salaries, while no such "penalty" is observed for fathers.
The pay gap within races (i.e. white, black, latino/latina and asian) varies considerably and varies further when minority women are compared to white men.
The pay gap is pronounced among biological scientists, financial managers and lawyers.

[–]Disposable_Face 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Disposable_Face 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LWdkw 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]praetor 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Honztastic 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ICanBeAnyone 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EventH0R1Z0N 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]foxh8er 68 points69 points70 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EventH0R1Z0N 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HateGrowan 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]whatapieceofjunk 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Moonlitnight 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ultimape 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thromney_Away 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bobthereddituser 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

Part of the reason for the wage gap is decades of women being considered "less than" their male counterparts, and that includes being considered "less qualified". A business owner isn't actively thinking "I could pay this woman less", but they ARE thinking "oh, all women just want to get married and have kids, she'll probably leave in a couple of years, besides, I bet she'll spend all her time online planning her wedding - better hire this guy" It's a subconscious and ingrained form of discrimination that is very very hard to fight. And when they do hire a woman (and some of this is dependent on the career field too), they're often placed lower on the salary scale because there is an ingrained expectation that we'll be taking time off to have kids, that we'll need to leave early to make dinner for the family, or come in late so we can take the kids to school. It becomes a static notion that we have kids and will continue to have kids, regardless of who we are as people and our actual life choices, and we're paid and hired based on this. Is it overt? Of course not - it's not legal to ask a woman if she's planning on taking time off to have kids. But when you have a qualified man, and a qualified woman at the table - which one is the employer going to assume is going to quit in 5 years to stay home with the babies?

[–]TheAtomicOption 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Nice username. It'd probably be appropriate on me too. :/

I think one of the big things people miss is that "women have babies" is a true statement and even though many women are spending less time raising kids and more time working, it still is rightfully a factor in the hiring decision. Employers, especially in higher paying office jobs, often want someone who will stick with the company for 5+ years, and there is a risk that a woman will want to quit earlier than that to have children.

You can't legislate this away either. In fact legislation has made it worse because an employer can't legally ask "do you think it's likely that you'll want to have children in the next 5 years?" anymore, so the employer find it safer to assume the answer is yes and hire a man instead. My dad is almost retired and has done many interviews over his career. He wants to hire women and in his profession they usually pay women more to attract them (so that the employee demographics look better during a lawsuit), but he still has to find out if they're going to be reliable. He can't ask this question so the best he can do is try to be friendly and talk to them about home life and hobbies and stuff until they (hopefully) mention not wanting children on their own.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobthereddituser 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I understand what you're trying to say, but saying that we've "been lied to" isn't exactly true. A career is important to some women. And a lot of women don't have a choice, as a single mother - they HAVE to own both sides of it. I think the issue isn't that women have been lied to, but that our priorities as a society are out of whack. I do think the pay inequalities are largely related to our society (and how we view the family life), and not our government, but at the same time - it's easier to try to turn the tide of social inequalities by pushing legislation. It's worked in the past, and it's something that we have to leverage what we have to make change.

I really do believe that it has a negative consequence on everyone, but it's skewed negative for women. Men have the consequence of not being taken seriously if they want to stay home, and often (again, due to pay inequalities and employers not valuing their female workforce as much as their male) they can't because financially she can't support him as often as he can support her. But that really only impacts men who have or are going to have a family. A single male with no kids sees no negative impact to their lives from this. But as a woman who isn't having kids, and never will have kids - it's rather frustrating to know that i'm suffering under the same assumptions by my employer that they're laying over every woman in the office. Or that they lay these assumptions at all.

The thing is - if it's an hourly job, and they're making the same hourly rate (based on non-gender based judgments), then they're going to make the wage that corresponds to the hours they work. And if they're salary - well, you make a job salary when you trust your workforce to complete the work needed in whatever time frame. I work in a salary position. I sometimes work from 8-11pm, on top of my day hours, or on weekends. And there are plenty of parents in my office that use those hours to come in late, or leave early, to balance family life - but they get their work done so I personally don't' care how many hours they work. But I shouldn't get paid less than the guy behind me that uses the flexible hours - he shouldn't get paid less than me either for taking advantage of that work-life balance option. As salaried employees - since they offer that option, we should be free to take advantage of it without consequence.

[–]TheAtomicOption 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I could tell an employer whatever I want - does that mean they're going to believe me? And honestly, isn't it just a little shitty that I have to disclose my decision to have kids in the hopes to not be paid less than my male counterparts, when the assumption from your statement is that they wouldn't have to do the same thing. How is that an "equal right"? Also, BC does have a failure rate, and it's expensive - thanks to the new healthcare laws we can finally get them for free, but it's amazing to me how many people are against that. The Romney admin would want to make sure we have to pay a hefty fee to prevent a child, and have no recourse (abortion) if we either a) couldn't afford it or b) it failed. We hold the bag in that case - yes, men are expected to provide a small amount of money (seriously, child support is nothing compared to the actual cost of raising a kid) but in most cases it's women that are expected to raise the kid alone, provide for all of their needs AND hold down a job while doing it.

And no, i'm more frustrated. My best friend is in a spot now where she had a kid with her husband, and 6 months after he was born, her husband decided that he didn't want to be tied down anymore (coincidentally this came after he finally scored a good job after she barely kept his unemployed ass afloat for 8 years). He pays child support sporadically (in her state they have to go a full 6 months behind, he keeps himself at about 5 months and is late all the time), ignores his kid unless he wants to use his status as a "good father" to his advantage, and otherwise just goes about his merry way. Thanks to his new job he has tons of spending money, while my friend is left holding the bag on the house they bought, all the credit cards they had, and their son. I'm helping her through the bankruptcy proceedings because she is down to no other choices. And this is hardly an isolated case - this happens all the time. So pardon me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "strict liability" to pay child support to pay for THEIR CHILD. Condoms work dude - use them. Don't rely on the woman to provide the BC if you want to be in control of your own life.

[–]evenmoretiredoflibs 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobthereddituser 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]profane_existence 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]GreyReanimator 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

When you were made the offer did you take it or ask for more? Him? Which one of you was hired first?(If he was hired first and didn't question the pay he was offered and people usually do that, perhaps they decided that they were overpaying) Did they know that the two of you were seeing each other?(If you were hired first, perhaps they so him more favorably do to associating him with the work you have done or negatively if he was hired first) Was there a big project starting when he was hired?(Perhaps they needed someone quickly when he was hired but had much more time and applicants when you were being hired) There could be plenty of reasons. I am not psychic so I don't know what it was.

Also there are few companies that do in fact discriminate not enough to create the wage gap that activists claim to exist but it does occasionally happen.

[–]profane_existence 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

We were hired in the same sweep, met on the job and only found out about the discrepancy when we moved in together. I agree with most of the findings listed above, and as a feminist i catch all kinds of hell for it. I agree that if someone spends less time at their job that they should make less money, this seems pretty damn obvious to me. But this should be reflected regardless of sex - perhaps men should fight for equal mat leave and compensation by contrast?

But in a world of the yearly salary, it seems that employers have already taken into account possible decisions i could make as concrete evidence of future performance - and this reflects in my compensation. I have no children, I work hard and I love my career - but I'm paid like someone who is half in the office, half in the kitchen. And its acceptable because I'm a women. The wage gap is deceiving, but we are a long way from equality in the work place ( i say this as a women in the tech industry ).

Edits: apparently they pay me less because i can't fucking spell.

Edit 2: in order answer two very good questions and to be fair to my place of employment where i really enjoy my job, and where since April the playing field has been relatively level. When I started the discrepancy was much greater and i was given a (very) significant pay increase over the last two years, I believe in an attempt to rectify this situation (i was the only person on the team to receive such, from what i gather) - because I am quite good at my job. The fact is though it took almost two years to get (almost) to a point where others in the same role and position started.

[–]necropantser 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BGoodRBCareful 29 points30 points31 points 13 years ago (134 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 238 points239 points240 points 13 years ago (92 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]phillies26 74 points75 points76 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 27 points28 points29 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]captainJmorgan 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Disposable_Face 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_clever_funny_name 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]The__Erlking 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]penguinv 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Dranosh 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]trogdor3222 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aquahat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]will4274 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]i7omahawki 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Dracron 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]skysinsane 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]ucanttouchmongo 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 40 points41 points42 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TimothyDRiel 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SdstcChpmnk 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]smulgubbar 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]a_clever_funny_name 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Actually, that's exactly what the links address

So here's a summary of the 77% statistic:

The 77% statistic comes from the census, which found that if you took all the money earned by women who worked at least 50 weeks out of the year, and compared it to the money that was earned by all the men who worked at least 50 weeks out of the year, the women collectively earned 77% of what the men earned.

However, certain fields, like teaching, were not included, and predominantly female, so a big chunk of the women's money pile (and a smaller portion of the men's money pile) was not included because of a technicality over what the census considers full time. So, the 77% statistic stems from a very limited understanding of data the census collects.

If you compare weekly wages, the gap shrinks, and if you only compare men and women working in the same field, it shrinks more, and if you account for the fact that men work longer hours than women, it shrinks more, and on and on and on it shrinks as you struggle to find an apple to compare your apple to instead of an orange.

And by the time you find your apples (men and women working in the same field with comparable conditions), you find that the gender gap has actually shrunk to a very minor gap, a gap small enough to be considered a statistical aberration, a gap the fluctuates from field to field, a gap that occasionally favors women over men.

The ENTIRE POINT of the links was that when you compare men and women working the same jobs, the gender pay gap is far smaller than 77/100 and can favor women or men depending on the field, a point you either missed or ignored.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Comeh 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]R3cognizer 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Especially when considering geographic location, or so I've read. Like, on the east or west coast where there are a lot of urban areas and high-skill jobs requiring a higher education, men and women tend to make almost the same; but in other areas, the difference is much more pronounced.

And as someone who was born female, is now male, and is working in a very male-dominated career (software engineer), I can't even begin to describe the difference. My salary was never really that much different from anybody else who had a comparable education to mine (as far as I'm aware); it's mostly just the attitude that people have toward women in my field. A lot of people in my field don't like hiring women because either these guys think women are much more "emotionally unstable" and may not be able to take the stress as well (stereotypical bullshit, but I have to admit, the female hormones did make me a huge cry-baby when I got nervous, angry, or frustrated), or because it takes a fairly large investment of time and effort to train someone to do my job and they hate it when the women they hire and just finished training decide to take an extended leave of absence for maternity leave just as she was starting to really get productive and caught up to speed with everyone else.

So now that I'm male, I'm suddenly twice as desirable as I was before. I understand the frustration hiring managers in my field must feel, I really do, but it still just doesn't seem fair.

[–]Comeh 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mindfeck 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]agarybuseychristmas 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]therogueleikn 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rattler3 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]callthebankshot 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoxNihilii 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]miss_thang 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rareas 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Txmedic 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobandgeorge 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]elfinito77 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BGoodRBCareful 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kesakitan 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]koy5 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kesakitan 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]carbonnanotube 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]fatboycasey 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notcaptainkirk 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Waywardcross 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]oconnellc 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrantNexus 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ryants 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hellscreamgold 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't the pay gap measured by women getting paid less on average per hour?

People always assume much like you did, that the wage gap is adjusted for certain factors like hours worked(Some years back I assumed the same), but it is not. The wage gap is a comparison between the total amount that all men make from full time work and the total amount that all women make from full time work.

But come on, people can't seriously be complaining that women deserve equal pay for working 78% of the hours.

You would be surprised about how many people make the same assumption that you did. Others believe there is a wage gap that is much much smaller but still defend the 72/80 cents for a dollar even though they know it to be false because politics is about sound bites and that one is both easy to say and accepted by so many people already.

[–]Kuresov 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You'd be surprised what kind of methodology goes into studies, depending on whom they're sponsored or run by. It can really be quite ridiculous.

For example, one of our newspapers has a column where they look at this sort of thing (messing with statistics to prove a point even if the statistics don't really support it- not specialized for any particular field). This one happened to be about the wage gap issue. On the surface, it compared men and women in the same industry in the same job, and found that men on average earned more.

However, as they detailed, when you look at the source data for this particular study you'll find that the women in question were new or recent graduates with little previous experience, and the men they picked generally had 10+ years of experience as well as additional specialized training in their field.

Just an interesting tidbit, I thought. If you're looking at any sort of research, you can't really take the conclusions at face value without having a serious look at the design of their study or the source data. It isn't relevant to this thread, but the kind of ridiculousness that comes out of some global warming studies is actually incredulous. Like, literally ignoring and omitting data that doesn't support the conclusion they're looking to make. It's insane.

No references because I'm tired and studying for an exam. If you really want I'll see if I can dig something up on the weekend.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mjolle 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]splicegrl 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's assume that the figure is correct and women earn less than men by x%, whatever that happens to be. What do we do about it?

Should the federal government come up with another agency that audits every single employer's payroll in the country and require explanation as to why a particular man earns more than a particular woman? Is the federal government going to approve or disapprove of salaries of all new hires going forward?

Lets say they even do that. Every company will come up with a specialized title for every employee and work around it. The only thing this will accomplish is increased cost for businesses to hire, increased taxes to pay for a new bureaucracy to manage this, and increased discontent at the workplace as everyone is measuring up their salary to each other.

We do have resources like Salary.com now so people can find out if they're under paid.

[–]sissymissy_winkwink 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soverycliche 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kodomachine 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]afausey 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]silentruh 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]murdog00 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]KaiserVonScheise 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Zippity70 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VeryWideDoucheNozzle 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Andrew_Pika 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pneuma8828 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rachel92491 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]oOPonyOo 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeftyRedMN 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeffhfromoxford 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thisispathetik 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jeffhfromoxford 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Keeperofthesecrets 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skinsfan55 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gullyvuhr 42 points43 points44 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ralphthellama 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]lateby30 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]lateby30 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]oconnellc 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]lateby30 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JesusSaidSo 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maniak47 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xzxzzx 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]liquorandkarate 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thisispathetik 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]dkl415 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dkl415 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ortizjoel21 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]astonishing1 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]smulgubbar 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem with the sources you're citing is that no one is concerned that men make more money than women,

But that is exactly what the wage gap everyone always talks about is. An un-adjusted comparison between the total amount that all men make at full time jobs and the total amount that all women make at full time jobs.

They're concerned that men make more per hour than women doing the exact same job.

My second link in the above comment is to a department of labor graph.

Women work (44/56)x100=78% as much time as men.

It shows that when we adjust for total hours worked, the wage gap disappears.

Now this doesn't mean that some companies aren't discriminating. I am certain that some are and we should stop them from doing so. However, this is not as widespread a problem as everyone quoting the wage gap try to claim.

[–]Fuck_Em_Bc 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hillsfar 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]timstolt 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Copperopolis 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link

[–]shady8x 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe society teaches women they aren't capable of being CEO because they have to take care of children.

I think societal norms have a great deal of influence on this. There is of course the part where women are expected to take care of children and men are expected to work and not be with their children.(which I talked a bit in the comment above by the way)

But it is much more than just that, have you ever seen a little boy fall? How about a little girl? A boy falls, usually people tell him to shake it off. If a girl falls, everyone runs over to try to help her and come her down etc... Women are taught that they are fragile and shouldn't over stress themselves, men are taught to rough it out. The end result is that more men are willing to work far more stressful, far more work intensive jobs, than women. This is why so many CEOs are male.

I fully agree that we need to change how children are raised and fight gender norms.

You seem to be implying that women are genetically predisposed to choose different career paths.

I have no idea where you got this from.

[–]Copperopolis 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pariyahdog 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Upvote for pointing out some possible flaws in OP's argument(re: genetics, CEO appointments).

Can you quote directly where OP says that women are more emotional, specifically? I didn't see it. What I did see is a large number of articles linked, that show that the wage gap argument isn't true.

What would it do to your point if it was found that more women really do choose not to become CEOs? My wife, for example. She was offered the CEO position of a company a couple of years back, and she turned it down. She didn't want the added stress that came with the position. So, yes, in some cases it really is by choice. Also, if you don't apply for a position, you don't get it, 100% of the time.

I think that you're trying to maintain the same tired argument that all men are just trying to keep women down.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AmuseDeath 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Thimble 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YourFavoriteHippo 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thisispathetik 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]inoise91 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]kurisuti 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]carbonnanotube 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]koy5 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In a sense, much of what you're saying in true. But your claims (and the claims made by much of what you cite) are largely uncritical, and some are downright stupid. I will explain. Let's start with the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/">CBS article</a>

It claims that "Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more" (such as garbage men and farmers) while women choose "relatively low-paying education and health care occupations." Sure, dangerous jobs should pay more. But is farming or garbage collecting really more dangerous than nursing? You think you're more likely to get stuck by a needle falling out of a garbage can, or wielded by at addict at an inner-city emergency centre or safe-injection site? And farming? In the Western world, farming is all mechanized. And it would pay nothing if we chose not to subsidize it.

There is nothing "natural" or "intrinsic" about these pay rates. And it seems plausible to me that the direction of causality could be reversed. Rather than men "choosing" these "naturally" better paid jobs, men have historically dominated these fields and we value "male" work more than female work (because it's male). It seems to me that nurses are paid relatively little not because nursing is easy or safe (it's difficult, exhausting, and often dangerous), but rather because historically nursing has been a female-dominated field. And historically, we've gotten away with paying women a lot less than men. (Note: I do agree that some of the jobs listed in the article, such as roofing/ iron and steel work, is more dangerous and should be paid more. But also note: the article claims that men are more likely to be pilots, and should be paid more because this is more "dangerous." Not only is this not a dangerous job, it would be just as dangerous for the flight attendants! Why aren't they paid at least as much as roofers or garbage collectors?)

The article also goes on to make a "few" more points, but which I actually think are really the same point over and over:

"Men are far more likely to take work in uncomfortable, isolated, and undesirable locations that pay more.Men work longer hours than women do... Men are more likely to take jobs that require work on weekends and evenings and therefore pay more.

Even within the same career category, men are more likely to pursue high-stress and higher-paid areas of specialization. For example, within the medical profession, men gravitate to relatively high-stress and high-paying areas of specialization, like surgery...

Despite all of the above, unmarried women who've never had a child actually earn more than unmarried men."

The reason I say that this is the same argument over and over, is because each claim (the claims are, as far as I am aware, TRUE) is being driven by the same causal variable. Specifically, women are capable of gestation, child birth, and nursing. So, any woman who chooses to have a child and nurse will have to take some time off. In the labour market or at the work place, this would disadvantage her relative to her male colleagues. When choosing who to make partner (lawyers/ business), who to give tenure to (academia), who to promote (other places), etc., of course the boss will pick the male who has not taken (and will not take) time off to breast feed.

Now, does a woman have to take time off after having a child? Does she have to breastfeed, and stay home for the first year -- or can the father do that? Well, in theory, a father could bottle feed the baby, and stay home to take care of young children. In fact, maybe that's his preference. Maybe he hates working weekends and holidays, maybe he would rather leave that up to him badass career-woman wife. Well, unfortunately for both of them, most jurisdictions in North America (particularly the USA) offer very little in the way of paternity leave. In fact, in some jurisdictions employers are not required to grant any paternity leave.

Furthermore, few North American jurisdictions (none, I think, with the exception of Quebec) offer universal childcare, or any kind of highly subsidized childcare plan. So even after the baby becomes the child and doesn't need a full-time parental figure 24/7, a care-taker has to be paid for, or one parent has to cut back their hours. And given that daddy didn't get paternity leave, and mommy has already lost that shot at the big promotion after taking eight months off to breastfeed and bond, guess who's officially switching to the non-partner track? That's right, mom.

In some sense, these are "choices." Think of the woman who never married or had kids. She makes more than her male colleagues! Lucky her! But unless she's fortunately enough to be a lesbian and to have a girlfriend popping out babies, she doesn't get to "make" a family. And for a lot of women, that's a shitty thing to have to choose (not for all women, I know - don't yell at me!!).

Yes, I am guilty of painting another picture of women as "victims." But, perhaps worse, I'm also painting a picture of men as victims. Women find themselves forced into a situation where they have to choose between families or working a lot of hours/weekends and getting promotions to make as much as or more than men. Men find themselves forced into a situation where they have to work a lot of hours/weekends and getting promotions to make enough money to support their families.

I'll admit there's no perfect or quick fix. But looking at the data (for instance, comparing countries like Sweden/France to the USA or Canada) suggests that implementing certain social policies (such as child care programs, and making sure companies are obliged to offer paternity leave) could reduce the gendered gap in pay. <a href="http://www.http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/gender-income-gap.aspx">gendergapstats</a>

This wouldn't necessarily solve the problem 100%, but it would go a long way in reducing the negative impact that the interaction between capitalism and human biology has on gender relations, families, and individual happiness. Here is an interesting article that discusses the merits (and weaknesses) of my claims: <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296.html">WSJ</a>

Every day we read about new ways that science helps us overcome the limits of our bodies (in vitro fertilization, cancer treatments, FACE TRANSPLANTS - that shit cray). We no longer feel that we are constrained by biology. And yet we imagine that social and economic systems -- those things that we most obviously created -- act upon us with a kind of mechanical inevitability. But really, we can create the kind of economy and society that makes life better for all of us.

EDIT: Sorry for the shitty proof-reading/typos and failed hyperlinks. This is my first real attempt at reddit commenting. I'm just going to assume no one ever reads this and not fix it. You can figure out what the links are.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There should be a little blue link at the bottom of the text editor box which says 'formatting help'. It will provide examples on how to hyper-link properly.

Regarding the first paragraph or two, about how risk effects pay. I disagree.

Compare being a garbage man to nursing.

Healthcare pay is not low. I'm a man and I'm probably going to go into healthcare because the pay is good, both in Australia, where I live currently, and in the USA, where I'm from and may move back to at some point. The pay also grows quite well with experience.

Healthcare can be dangerous, but doesn't have to be. If you are a technician of some sort, perhaps in radiology or urology, you probably aren't going to be working with crackheads. These positions also tend to pay even better than being a basic nurse.

I would also argue the danger in health care is likely to be handled by a male healthcare worker. If you work as a nurse in an ER in a bad part of town, it could certainly get dangerous. But the moment that danger arises, the problem is likely to become the responsibility of who? A male security guard, a male police officer, or if neither of those are around, a male nurse or orderly is almost certain to be the one to step up and try to handle the situation.

The pay of a garbage man barely needs to be discussed, and the risk is quite high. I mean, the odds of getting a disease from being cut/poked with something sharp is probably about the same as it is for nurses. But other more practical injuries would be more likely.

I've been a kitchen worker for a few years now. In various positions. I've cut myself several times tossing the trash out, and I know exactly what is in those bags, and I don't do it nearly as often as a garbage man. Aside from the cuts and scrapes, you're bending and lifting heavy bins, jumping up onto the back of the truck, climbing into the high seats, etc.

That said, I agree men do those jobs because the fields have always been male dominated. But at the same time, I don't think women are particularly eager to step into the the niche roles that men fill, such as being garbage men, janitors, stressed out line cooks, etc. Where as I am happy to be a nurse, and wish I had gotten into the serving side of things instead of back of house.

[–]TotallyKafkaesque 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]scribbling_des 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Senros 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thisispathetik 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IndyDude11 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thebadrash 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chunes -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]firex726 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Trosso 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Acolyte666 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theseum 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mattnak50 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Abdullah-Oblongata 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]PandaDentist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthjusticeca 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]matt10796 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thelordofcheese -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]abhikavi 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelordofcheese 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]nbarnacle 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kirani 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]goldflakes 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sporkboy 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Broccoli_Tesla 68 points69 points70 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnoriginalMike 23 points24 points25 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points27 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetheist 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jvardrake 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]c0mputar 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rvm4488 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Knight_of_Malta 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]thetheist 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I think most people find your original comment irritatingly passive is the problem. You requested a raise that you deserved, but when they didn't give it to you, you accepted no raise and no promotion. Then, they want you to train people to do the job instead, and again you passively capitulate. You should be actively pursuing your own self interests, which obviously do not lie with this company.

If you had another job to switch to, you'd have your current employer over a barrel, just like they have you now. You could just leave, or you could force them to compensate you fairly. Instead of being proactive, your solution is to "wait for the busy season", which is the most passive way of dealing with this. Who knows what will happen by then? Maybe the people you're training will now have all the necessary expertise, and your threat to leave will have far less impact.

Regardless, when you go to your employer in the busy season, they'll again refuse your raise because they can remember all the times in the past when they mistreated you and you did nothing. You won't have another offer lined up, either, so your threat to quit has no fangs.

You're setting yourself up to once again get nothing, even in the busy season, and by the time you realize it, it will be too late, and you'll decide it's not worth it to quit your job.

TL;DR: Get your resume out there right now. Do not wait until tomorrow.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TheChosenOne570 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]The_Kratos 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]downvoted_by_lefties 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]all_you_need_to_know 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 42 points43 points44 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Darkling5499 11 points12 points13 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rensin 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Collective82 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mythin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]downvoted_by_lefties 34 points35 points36 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]SSJAmes 91 points92 points93 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]a77887 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SageInTheSuburbs 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]magor1988 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThenThereWasReddit 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When I first read this comment, yesterday, I thought "oh yes, that's true, good point." But now that I've thought on it, why exactly would either candidate want to go along with this lie? Couldn't Obama have said something like "Actually, under my administration we have witnessed shrinkage of the gender wage gap, according to blah blah studies." This makes Obama look like a champion for gender equality or just women, while simultaneously not offending really anyone else, right? He could still do his share of politicking, not debating that there WAS or IS a gender gap, but instead at least make it seem like a little magic has occurred, since he's been president, that has alleviated the issue.

Why is it better to continue pretending a problem, which offends people, still exists instead of saying "hey, you know that problem that you wanted resolved? I resolved it." This is something I don't understand...

[–]SSJAmes 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rztzz 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]downvoted_by_lefties 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RealQuickPoint 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RealQuickPoint 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RealQuickPoint 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pcarvious 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sonvincent 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sexancandy 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]toptrool[S] 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Quazz 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrianAllred 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was at a debate watching party with my college political organization last night when this question came up. I immediately had the chair woman pause the debate, stood up, and presented the facts to my entire organization on why the pay gap was a myth. I didn't have sources on me, and the people that wanted sources came up to me after my announcement (at the bar at that point, I wasn't going to watch the candidates answer a question based on this particular false premise), and I used my phone to find proof for my little speech.

The chair woman offered a chance for rebuttal, too, since the debate was already paused, but only a few people had questions, and no one really argued.

I would like to think I changed how a number of people view the "pay gap", and I have MR to thank for that. So thanks, everyone.

[–]kronox 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]toptrool[S] 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lisa__Simpson 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]downvoted_by_lefties 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lisa__Simpson 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nepene 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]smeissner 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurtu5 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lisa__Simpson 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BoringCode 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hur_Thur_Errwhur 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]plumplumps 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nlakes 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I realize this is purely anecdotal evidence, but my male coworkers and I have been complaining about this very issue in our workplace recently.

Everyone (8 people), except for our managers, makes the same hourly rate and have worked for the same amount of time for our company.

We are a nursery warehouse. We supply Home Depots with the plants they sell in their stores. It might surprise you to learn that it's a pretty physically demanding job. We supply a lot of stores in our region.

There are 4 guys and 4 ladies that have the same job title as me.

The guys are made to build and break down 150 lbs carts, unload and load trucks of product, and manually unload 2-3 eighteen wheelers worth of straw, as well as the normal job of separating and organizing said product.

Females are favored in that they count the product as it comes off the trucks, they water the plants from time to time, and are made to serve lunch to some regional clients of ours. That's it.

They make the same hourly rate as us guys.

Also, none of our company drivers are women. Ever. These are the guys who do backbreaking work compared to even what I do.

[–]ROX_Genghis 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Im sure discrimination happens and when it does it sucks but from my experience it has never happened. I have only experienced the opposite where a woman and I make the same and i do the harder more physically demanding part of the job while she bitches for more. The worst part is that we men do it so willingly. We will willingly help and do the harder stuff. We will willingly let the girl do the easier stuff and get absolutely no Thanks in return because it is expected. i didnt even have a problem with any of this till i saw how badly men are shitted on in society. From the portrayal of men as absolutely retarded father/Husband in televisions to the general distaste for anything that is considered manly including being hairy or dominant. Why are women and men blending into one homogenous androgynous bland metrosexual ignorant borderline individuals? I know thats not all their is out there but ill be damned if you could find anything else on the Mainstream or Mainstreet. The art of being a man or a woman (which doesnt necessarily have to do with gender) is being lost.

[–]Popular-Uprising- 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]harryrackham 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link