Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The law was about employer discrimination, which rarely happens because it is already illegal. Now, if the wage gap exists because women with children are facing challenges balancing work and familiy life (because their husbands don't take their responsabilities according to your view BTW), it is still not discrimination.
Well, I don't think it's employer discrimination, tho, I'm sure someone can come along and provide evidence to the contrary if there is any. Second, there is no IF to the wage gap. It exists. Third, IRT who generally takes primary responsibility for the home/children...it's not a matter of my view.
"Married men worldwide report doing less housework than unmarried cohabiting men, according to an international study of 17,636 men and women in 28 countries. Findings are published in the September issue of the Journal of Family Issues."
I'm not the publishing author of that article. Nor am I the author of these...
I do think these inequities result from gender roles = discrimination, just not on the part of the employer. Again, I'm leaving a disclaimer to be proven wrong.
Quote:
I am sure you disagree but, it is not discrimination, social, legal or otherwise.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act addressed a legitimate problem in the law. Most components of The Paycheck Fairness Act are unneeded and seem to be little more than politically symbolic in nature.
There is no doubt that Lilly Ledbetter was the victim of discrimination. A jury found as much. The problem arose when a court determined that she failed to meet the deadline for filing a discrimination suit. Previously, the statute of limitations began when the discrimination first occurred, even if the plaintiff was unaware that they were being discriminated against. The Lilly Ledbetter Act specifies that the allowable time to file begins when the plaintiff first becomes aware of being discriminated against. Passage of this act is of potential benefit to us all. From the standpoint of recognizing and defining discrimination, the system worked for Ledbetter. She ran into a legal technicality which was corrected by the Act which bears her name.
While it is obvious that a pay gap exists between women and men, that gap isn't a result of discrimination by or of anyone. It reflects the different choices women tend to make in regards to employment. It is undoubtedly true that the employment choices made by women are often the result of their commitment to domestic matters, but the government has no proper place in trying to enact "social engineering" programs to compensate for it's citizens personal choices in regard to those domestic matters.
Many feminist supporters of various "comparable worth" proposals want to artificially inflate the value of jobs which tend to be held by women. This is based upon the premise that those jobs pay less... precisely... because they are female-dominated. However, from a rational perspective, there are two primary factors which determine the "value" of a given job. The first is the number of individuals capable of doing that job. The second is the number of individuals willing to do that job. Overtime hours, irregular shifts, long commutes, dangerous conditions, etc. make a job more valuable because fewer people choose to do them. Men are more likely to choose a job purely for its compensation, even if it means dealing with some of those undesirable factors.
The only legitimate assessment of fairness in compensation is that of equal pay for equal work: one which compares two workers with the same education, same amount of continuous employment, same job duties, same job responsibilities, and the same working conditions. In those instances, actual discrimination is very uncommon. When it does happen, the remedies are already in place.
This issue has been bandied about for donkey's years. The simple truth is that the main reason some women are paid less than their male counterparts is because they accept lesser pay for the trade-off of having the freedom to take more time off for family and personal days. And a higher percentage of women than men are content to accept more freedom and less stress in lieu of high pay. Men are usually more willing to work their butts off on the fast-track to promotions and higher pay than women, who, since they don't identify themselves with their jobs like men do, are content to stay mired in the same rung on the corporate or company ladder.
This is pretty much correct. I am a manager who makes decisions on pay and benefits, and we have never paid a woman less than a man for the same job. But on an aggregate basis, women more than men tend to take jobs that leave them more time to spend with their families. Women also are more likely to have more extended absences from the labor force during their careers, and this impacts on earnings. There's nothing wrong with this. It's a choice but it comes with a price.
The idea that the wage gap between men and women is wholly or even mostly attributable to discrimination based on gender is simply incorrect, IMO.
Well, I don't think it's employer discrimination, tho, I'm sure someone can come along and provide evidence to the contrary if there is any. Second, there is no IF to the wage gap. It exists. Third, IRT who generally takes primary responsibility for the home/children...it's not a matter of my view.
"Married men worldwide report doing less housework than unmarried cohabiting men, according to an international study of 17,636 men and women in 28 countries. Findings are published in the September issue of the Journal of Family Issues."
I'm not the publishing author of that article. Nor am I the author of these...
I do think these inequities result from gender roles = discrimination, just not on the part of the employer. Again, I'm leaving a disclaimer to be proven wrong.
You're sure I disagree with what, exactly?
I never said the gap does not exist reread the post.
You seem to believe that when an inequity in wages exist due to women role within the family it is discrimination. I disagree with that view.
Having a family and children is not an obligation, it is a choice.
Are we going to start paying people to raise their own children?
I never said the gap does not exist reread the post.
You seem to believe that when an inequity in wages exist due to women role within the family it is discrimination.
I suppose the term discrimination may be a stretch, but imo the consequences of gender roles are in the same league.
Quote:
I disagree with that view.
Having a family and children is not an obligation, it is a choice.
Are we going to start paying people to raise their own children?
Well, the default premise here is that men will indeed leave the bulk of household work to women, therefore women must make the choice to have a household or not. I think there are more choices than that. Either choose men that are more responsible, or perhaps convince whatever man a woman has involved herself with to become more responsible.
As far as paying people to raise children, that's the case, at least in part, for many. OTOH, historically, extended family were often involved in raising children. The nuclear family as we understand it (2 parents living with their children alone to raise them) hasn't been historically prevalent to the best of my knowledge. So, if not the extended family to lend a hand, then I guess a paid helper will be/is the norm. At least for the affluent by western standards.
Having a family and children is not an obligation, it is a choice.
True -- but you are still left with a situation where one gender -- generally -- is expected to choose between a successful career on the one hand and family and children on the other, while the other gender -- generally -- can have both without being admonished about the foolishness of wanting to "have it all". Moreover, while I agree that women should strive to choose husbands who will share in the housework and child care, I think it's a little unrealistic to expect women to be perfect predictors of someone else's future behavior. Some men seem very egalitarian when they are in their twenties, and life is easy and care-free; but change their tune when they get older, and when children enter the picture. Not all men are like this, but this happens a lot. What should women married to such men do? Divorce? It may be a reasonable solution, but being a single parent (I'm assuming a man who avoided housework and child care during the marriage will not be interested in custody after it's over) will hardly free her up to pursue a career.
This isn't actionable discrimination (speaking in legal terms here), but when Braunwyn mentioned "social discrimination", I believe she was referring to the double standard and different social expectations that play a role in the wage gap. The OP stated the issue in very general terms, and so I don't think there is any reason to limit the discussion to the legality of employment discrimination.
The Lilly Ledbetter Act addressed a legitimate problem in the law. Most components of The Paycheck Fairness Act are unneeded and seem to be little more than politically symbolic in nature.
There is no doubt that Lilly Ledbetter was the victim of discrimination. A jury found as much. The problem arose when a court determined that she failed to meet the deadline for filing a discrimination suit. Previously, the statute of limitations began when the discrimination first occurred, even if the plaintiff was unaware that they were being discriminated against. The Lilly Ledbetter Act specifies that the allowable time to file begins when the plaintiff first becomes aware of being discriminated against. Passage of this act is of potential benefit to us all. From the standpoint of recognizing and defining discrimination, the system worked for Ledbetter. She ran into a legal technicality which was corrected by the Act which bears her name.
Thanks! Could they not raise the statute of limitations instead of creating a new law?
I suppose the term discrimination may be a stretch, but imo the consequences of gender roles are in the same league.
Whether the consequences are in the same league or not does not mean the causes are the same. You should not call it discrimination, because it is not.
Well, the default premise here is that men will indeed leave the bulk of household work to women, therefore women must make the choice to have a household or not. I think there are more choices than that. Either choose men that are more responsible, or perhaps convince whatever man a woman has involved herself with to become more responsible.
No man can legally force a woman in this country to do household work if she does not want to. The word choice is key here.
As far as paying people to raise children, that's the case, at least in part, for many. OTOH, historically, extended family were often involved in raising children. The nuclear family as we understand it (2 parents living with their children alone to raise them) hasn't been historically prevalent to the best of my knowledge. So, if not the extended family to lend a hand, then I guess a paid helper will be/is the norm. At least for the affluent by western standards.
Come on! Child care workers got to make a buck too
In the end, I will tell you that I am all for men getting more involved in the household work. But passing bad laws like this one is not going to help in that regard.
True -- but you are still left with a situation where one gender -- generally -- is expected to choose between a successful career on the one hand and family and children on the other, while the other gender -- generally -- can have both without being admonished about the foolishness of wanting to "have it all". Moreover, while I agree that women should strive to choose husbands who will share in the housework and child care, I think it's a little unrealistic to expect women to be perfect predictors of someone else's future behavior. Some men seem very egalitarian when they are in their twenties, and life is easy and care-free; but change their tune when they get older, and when children enter the picture. Not all men are like this, but this happens a lot. What should women married to such men do? Divorce? It may be a reasonable solution, but being a single parent (I'm assuming a man who avoided housework and child care during the marriage will not be interested in custody after it's over) will hardly free her up to pursue a career.
Maybe they should not marry these men in the first place. Even better, marry men with more family friendly jobs. Like Braunwyn said, they are a lot of choices.
This isn't actionable discrimination (speaking in legal terms here), but when Braunwyn mentioned "social discrimination", I believe she was referring to the double standard and different social expectations that play a role in the wage gap. The OP stated the issue in very general terms, and so I don't think there is any reason to limit the discussion to the legality of employment discrimination.
She should not have used that word in this case, because it is not discrimination. There are plenty of double standards in our society. We all have a choice how to pursue our lives in this country (for the most part anyways ). I just reject the idea that societal expectations are the same as discrimination.
Gender discriminarion by employers does not cause the gender wage gap. Women life choices do.
In the end, I will tell you that I am all for men getting more involved in the household work. But passing bad laws like this one is not going to help in that regard.
Like which one?
Quote:
No man can legally force a woman in this country to do household work if she does not want to. The word choice is key here.
No -- but in the event of a custody battle, a man's choice not to do household work weighs less heavily against him, than a woman's choice not to do household work would weigh against her. So even though the times are changing, there are still negative legal consequences for women's refusal to do housework.
Quote:
Maybe they should not marry these men in the first place.
Please re-read what I said previously: "Some men seem very egalitarian when they are in their twenties, and life is easy and care-free; but change their tune when they get older, and when children enter the picture. Not all men are like this, but this happens a lot. " It's a good idea for women not to marry such men, but alas, we do not possess the superpowers to predict another person's future behavior. Do you?
Quote:
Gender discriminarion by employers does not cause the gender wage gap. Women life choices do.
People in a family don't function as autonomous units. Once you get married, it's not his life choices and her life choices. It's a balance under ideal circumstances, but in traditional marriages, it's his life choices and her obligations to accommodate those choices.
I'll be honest here -- I don't like laws dictating to employers whom they can and cannot fire, what their pay structures should be like and so on. Courts are heavy-handed, and employment litigation is protracted and expensive. But unfortunately, it's the way of the world that if you refuse to fix a problem, sooner or later someone else will fix it for you -- and thus you would have no cause to complain that it's an overkill. Indeed, if women don't like being paid less because they are the ones who are expected to subordinate their careers to family -- maybe they should just go marry better men. At the same time, if men don't like laws being passed that dictate that employers must pay women as much as men in spite of any nuance -- maybe they should start doing their share of household work and child care instead of just "helping". And if people don't like the kind of deal they are getting as low-level office workers and unskilled laborers -- the areas where most disparity is observed -- perhaps they should just go and work as brain surgeons instead. After all, it's all a choice, all the time. Isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
