Fair pay for women (wisdom, economic, money, state)

[Urban Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Redisca

Actually, no, it doesn't. Rather, the inference to be drawn here is that because women are expected to take time off for a family emergency, such as a sick kid, they must accept a trade-off even if emergencies are rare; whereas because men aren't expected to do these things, they do not have to take a pay cut. This is not to say that men don't, in fact, take time off to care for sick children. Employers do often act on perception, rather than reality.

And another thing, so long as we are on the topic of legislation/lawsuits. Given my age, I've been routinely asked by prospective employers (1) whether I have children; (2) what their ages are; (3) what my childcare arrangements are; (4) if I'm planning to have more children; etc. Now -- it's illegal to ask such questions, and the people who interviewed me for my present job acknowledged to me that they know it's illegal. But they asked anyway. That's because the threat of litigation isn't always equally great. They knew I wouldn't sue or complain to the EEOC -- because had I done that, I'd never be able to get another job in this town again, whether with or without disparity.

A woman would make waves? Really? Sexual harassment is part and parcel of working in a field dominated by the other gender, at least in my experience. My field is one of those, and it was far more dominated by men when I started practicing than it is today. And I too had to deal with constant disparaging commentary about my gender, both in court and in the office. Like most women working in this industry, I didn't "make waves" because I didn't want to become unemployable. The way I and my female colleagues saw it, sexism is just a way of life, and unless it progresses to actual sexual assault or finding excrement in your briefcase, you just have to suck it up; it gets better after a while, and if it doesn't, you start looking for a new job. "Unassailable"? I don't know about government jobs, but in the private sector, there are innumerable ways to circumvent Title VII -- or make her life hell.

Actually, I think it's the other way around -- the legal system changes to reflect changes in social expectations that have already occurred. When it comes to coBut what you pointed out would certainly explain in part why less religious and more egalitarian couples seem to have lower rates of divorce than more religious and traditional ones: because it would seem to me, in a traditional marriage, the only way for a woman to collect the benefit for doing all, or most, of the child care, is to divorce the father and take the kids. The idea that a child "belongs to the mother" is only an advantage if a woman wants to divorce; but in marriage, it's clearly a disadvantage.

I don't think anything I've said indicates that I don't recognize efforts on the part of men -- but unfortunately, a lot of men don't make these efforts, for whatever reason. You believe that my statement that a lot of men appear egalitarian while things are easy, but change to less so later in the marriage demonstrates bias? How about your statement that "a lot of women" either refuse to see what men do, or don't care as long as they get what they think they "deserve" in this society of "entitlement", or that women completely avoid harassment in the office by "making waves", which makes them "unassailable"? If you describe "a lot of women" so negatively, but protest when something negative is said about "a lot of men", does it mean women are primarily responsible for things like selfishness, laziness and pursuing one's own interests to the detriment of others, even family? I'm sure my statement about "many men" wouldn't apply to you, but then, your statement about "a lot of women" doesn't in any way describe my experience; but if my personal experience is insufficient to dispute a perceived trend -- as I'm sure you'll be quick point out -- I don't see why yours would. Any generalization is potentially offensive if we disregard the context. We do have this statistic still, that men's hours spent doing household chores decrease after marriage, while women's increase; this doesn't mean every man or even most men put their feet up and do nothing while most women make souffles day and night while wearing petticoats and 4-inch heels, but the general trend is still towards women doing more housework. And it's not as simple as women liking cleaning more, or women liking victimhood, or women choosing to be butlers -- just like where the situation is reversed, and the man is the one pulling most of the weight, it isn't because he likes cleaning up after another adult all the time.

One of the reason the law changes slower than society is that most judges are old.

Your suggestion is that the rate at which women get custody isn't a reflection of how many men want custody -- with which I agree. But it's also undeniable that social expectations influence people's wants or how they express those wants. In a traditional society, a man may feel an inclination to take care of his children, but feel "emasculated" by diaper changes and making lunches; a woman may feel an inclination to pursue a career and limit the number of children she has, but fear the social opprobrium for being "selfish".

Yes, especially since the advantage and its corresponding disadvantage are not necessarily anywhere near comparable. It's like that illustration that Simone de Beauvoir gave, about the price paid for having castrati on the opera stage -- not every trade-off is equitable.

To be quite frank, I cringe when I see "chivalry" being offered as something that offsets inequality. Once we get into what chivalry actually consists of, it boils down to merely polite behavior with small additional courtesies thrown in here and there. Does every woman like chivalry? Gee, who doesn't like being treated nicely? But you have to consider its costs to women, and in my (admittedly personal) opinion, they are entirely too high. Chivalry is almost exclusively about appearances, and stops short once chivalric displays begin to entail real sacrifices to those who make them. And at that point, the payback for chivalry begins -- giving up one's career out of gratitude for having your chair pulled out for you once in a while. (The again, perhaps women who never had much to give up in the first place, are the ones to pine over the death of chivalry.) So yeah, chivalry is nice. But if the price of having a seat on a crowded train is having one's existence reduced to living vicariously through one's husband and sons -- I'd rather stand, thank you. Of course, I can't speak for everyone.

Each point countered nicely, and in one area in particular I'll admit -- the majority of my history IS in government positions (with respect to women who complain becoming unassailable). I hadn't actually stopped to think about the differences there when I made that statement but you are correct -- it DOES make a difference (granted that you said you DIDN'T know whether it made one).

As for the remark about chivalry (mine, not yours), it is precisely because I hear it so often lamented by the very women who also demand respect and independence (and by "the very women" I mean those within my personal experience, not "all women") that I make the remark at all. It seems common enough and prevalent enough (again, with the qualifier "in my experience") that I've often been reduced to pointing out that a position imbuing or bestowing privilege of any sort cannot equate with egalitarianism.

I WILL say that in my experience it's been an oft-played trump card for everything from the last ticket to a sold-out show all the way to the upper hand in various low-level deals. However, you make a good point, especially with regard to the likelihood of those who lament chivalry never having had much to lose.

My favorite remark herein:

One of the reasons the law changes slower than society is that most judges are old.

That is some real food for thought.


I DO often think when reading your stuff that you have a bias against men; but even today before ever I saw a response from you I was thinking about my own potential bias against women, ruminating that we may each be coloured by our experiences and observations from one side of the fence no matter how much we may attempt to take in the larger picture.


Touche and well-met! There is a distinct reason I keep seeking you out in these threads!

[Le Lune]

Originally Posted by Urban Sasquatch

There is a distinct reason I keep seeking you out in these threads!

Sounded just a tad bit creepy and stalkerish there

Reading the responses from this thread is quite interesting. As a student currently enrolled in a sociology course, current social events and what not are explored. Recently, a student did a presentation on women equality in terms of pay (same as this topic).

The professor did agree that women were being discriminated, but from the responses, it seems that there is a whole lot more to the woman's 78 cents to a man's dollar than just the number.

I would love to see how the sociologists researched and tallied the data as there are way too many factors to this issue than just the face value of the statistic.

[cqoica123]

Originally Posted by Redisca

Like which one?
Like the Paycheck Fairness Act
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.

I think US already responded to this.

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?

I do not have superpowers and neither do the women that marry men that do more housework. I'll give you a hint. It is likely that men in a family friendly field will be more open to help with child care.

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 disagree with this notion. Maybe true in a third world country, but it is not the case in the United States of America. Why would any women even get married?

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?

I think the last paragraph summarize our disagreement. I do not believe in government imposing "social Justice" and I think you do. Nobody is forced to be a low level office worker or brain surgeon. It is the choices that we make throughout our lives that determine where we end up. We'll just have to disagree on that.

[Nutz76]

Originally Posted by Le Lune

Sounded just a tad bit creepy and stalkerish there

Reading the responses from this thread is quite interesting. As a student currently enrolled in a sociology course, current social events and what not are explored. Recently, a student did a presentation on women equality in terms of pay (same as this topic).

The professor did agree that women were being discriminated, but from the responses, it seems that there is a whole lot more to the woman's 78 cents to a man's dollar than just the number.

I would love to see how the sociologists researched and tallied the data as there are way too many factors to this issue than just the face value of the statistic.

Don't confuse sociologists and legitimate academia with feminists doing biased research.


Here's some more reading on why it's not all it's cracked up to be:

Paycheck Fairness Act: Good Riddance | BNET

Paycheck Fairness Act Will Be Anything But - On the Docket - Inside the courtroom - Forbes

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/op...22Sommers.html

So as you can see it's not about equality but really about "social justice", which is feministspeak for "having my cake and eating it too" through having the consequences of women's choices with regard to pay negated by the govt.

[GregW]

I would be satisfied if there was an act requiring "fair" pay for both women and men. The fact that less than successful managers can bag salaries and bonuses uses worth hundreds of times more than the folks actually creating the wealth is unconscionable. We need a steeply progressive income tax to stop this abomination.

As far as equal pay for women is concerned most employers consider workers to be warm blooded robots. The fact that they can pay some of them less is good for the bonus calculation and for the managerial ego that requires continuous reinforcement of its superiority.

[Urban Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Le Lune

Sounded just a tad bit creepy and stalkerish there

Heh -- I see your point, but no -- Redisca and I have been both butting heads AND agreeing with one another for quite a while now. She rates up at the top of posts I enjoy because she forces me to slow down and think. It's because while I may not always agree with her, she certainly presents her stuff thoughtfully and after clear consideration.

I will NEVER have a problem with someone disagreeing with me; I shall always have a problem if they only disagree "just because". She knows I'm a fan.

Reading the responses from this thread is quite interesting. As a student currently enrolled in a sociology course, current social events and what not are explored. Recently, a student did a presentation on women equality in terms of pay (same as this topic).

The problem with "studies" is that for all the academia being pursued out there, someone has to fund a study the majority of the time. There's an old joke that applies to this:

Three men are applying for an accounting job. The boss decides to give the simplest sort of test to the applicants during the interview, asking them each the result for 2+2.

The first guy immediately and with great enthusiasm responds "Four!"

The second guy ponders for a second before responding "That would be four, obviously."

The third guy gets up, closes the door, leans in and whispers "How much do you want it to be?"

One guess who got the job.

Good humor is good precisely because it contains truth.

The professor did agree that women were being discriminated, but from the responses, it seems that there is a whole lot more to the woman's 78 cents to a man's dollar than just the number.

Again, in reference to such assertions: All the studies in the world typically begin with at least some form of PRE-supposition in the form of a hypothesis. It's the foundation of experimentation, the posing of a question and the follow-up of let's go find out if it's true or not.

The downside to beginning with any presupposition is that if you're ONLY looking to see whether Factor X occurs or not, then you come up with the answer "YES" but may go no further, or worse, may limit your scope of reasoning with regard to cause-and-effect OR discover that your funder was only interested in yes/no.

I would love to see how the sociologists researched and tallied the data as there are way too many factors to this issue than just the face value of the statistic.

While we cannot do without them, studies tend to show what we want them to show. People who are looking for bears tend to find bears.

While you're a student (no pun intended) bear in mind, and once you've graduated and moved on, never, ever forget: Numbers and statistics can be skewed to lead someone in a desired direction. Percentages get us closer but still have to be taken into account with overall numbers, and even THOSE numbers often aren't enough because there's a larger, quite dynamic picture to be fathomed.

[markg91359]

While we cannot do without them, studies tend to show what we want them to show. People who are looking for bears tend to find bears.

While you're a student (no pun intended) bear in mind, and once you've graduated and moved on, never, ever forget: Numbers and statistics can be skewed to lead someone in a desired direction. Percentages get us closer but still have to be taken into account with overall numbers, and even THOSE numbers often aren't enough because there's a larger, quite dynamic picture to be fathomed.

I concern myself less with an individual study than I do with groups of studies or "trends" over time. Disparity in wages has been studied for a long time by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All studies seem to show the following:

1. There is a definite disparity in what women and men earn for performing similar if not identical work.

2. Even after you factor out things such as time out of the labor force for pregnancies, reduced hours, and higher vacation time there are discrepancies between what men and women earn that cannot be accounted for.

3. On the positive side, these discrepancies have decreased. Twenty years ago women used to earn about 58 cents for every dollar a man earned. Today, the figure is about 78 cents.

I think the discrimination is real. I also think there are too many men who take a myopic and cavalier view towards it. I don't. I view it as something that hurts entire families--not just women. My wife has worked for almost twenty years for county and state government. She occupies a midlevel management position. I have seen far less qualified men promoted above her. Its always something "unquantifiable". What is quantifiable is that the head of the department is a man and has pretty much gotten away with making all his key people men as well.

I have actually heard managers make comments about choosing not to hire a woman for a position because of their fear that she will get pregnant, take too much sick leave, or always be absent. When I hear this, I politely remind them that if they act on this prejudice they are violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Too many managers seem unconcerned about breaking the law. My own thought is that perhaps the monetary damages that could be awarded to people who actually succeed in proving employment discrimination should be increased.

[Nutz76]

Actual non-partisan studies have found for some time now women make about 5% less than men, although there's a +/- 3% error rate in the findings. For all intents and purposes, when looking at apples to apples in the workforce, there is no wage gap. Amazingly enough it's been this way for over a decade.

The real wage gap that's portrayed as a fiscal issue is actually social issue because women take lower paying jobs than men often do. Makes sense though because male dominated fields often pay better, namely because of the risks they impose and hours they require. For example, males comprise over 90% of on-the-job death and dismemberment rates. If women want to eliminate the wage gap they have to take the same jobs, and thus the same risks as men.

[Urban Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by markg91359

I concern myself less with an individual study than I do with groups of studies or "trends" over time. Disparity in wages has been studied for a long time by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All studies seem to show the following:

1. There is a definite disparity in what women and men earn for performing similar if not identical work.

2. Even after you factor out things such as time out of the labor force for pregnancies, reduced hours, and higher vacation time there are discrepancies between what men and women earn that cannot be accounted for.

3. On the positive side, these discrepancies have decreased. Twenty years ago women used to earn about 58 cents for every dollar a man earned. Today, the figure is about 78 cents.

Herein lies my problem with that:

1. There is a definite disparity in what women and men earn for performing similar if not identical work.

As I said in my initial post -- it's quite illegal for the SAME job to pay less for one gender. However, those "similarities" tend to get glossed over when people start waving the 78/100 placard, such as jobs in the same warehouse all being "similar" jobs, but with position-based differences, as in the picker vs loader example I cited.

I have personal experience with this, and while it's only ONE case, I find it to be a pretty good illustration.

Years ago I worked in a warehouse of precisely the type I cited, with "pickers", and "labelers" and "loaders", all depending on where one worked along the line.

I was the only man in the labeling section right beside the loading docks, the rest of the positions occupied by women. When ALL the loaders walked off the job following a dispute, the supervisor asked me to cover my own labeling position until the boxes had backed up to a certain point along the line, at which time I would shut down my position, run over, load the trucks with boxes weighing anywhere from 3 pounds all the way up to 100 pounds.

I would load until the line was clear and then return to my labeling position.

For this, I received a .25 cent position differential, meaning that I made all of $2.00 PER NIGHT over the women in the labeling positions.

Over the following three nights I performed as asked, but the women learned of the .25 differential I was making and began to complain, saying that my REAL job was as a labeler, and my labeling stats were falling since I was filling this other position, now being well below theirs, so they deserved the differential OR I needed to lose mine.

The supervisor handled it perfectly; he said that since it was a problem, I would lose my differential BUT everyone would now work the docks in addition to their labeling position.

The women tried to climb out together, but he stopped them. *I* did the job alone, *THEY* would do the job alone.

At the end of the night they ASKED him to let me take over the job completely and said they didn't give a damn about that $2.00 per night anymore.

But on paper, they earn .78 on my dollar -- correct? Similar jobs and all that.

2. Even after you factor out things such as time out of the labor force for pregnancies, reduced hours, and higher vacation time there are discrepancies between what men and women earn that cannot be accounted for.

Are you seriously -- and I mean seriously -- going to tell me that there has been that much research on this for nearly FIFTY years, and no one can account for this, despite laws, measures and the removal of every single quantifiable factor they can come up with?

That is one magic loogie, I'm tellin' ya!



Here's your answer:

The reason for those "unquantifiables" (and I am NOT arguing that these things exist NOR arguing against the notion of those things being unquantifiable) is the following:

These things exist but we're NOT supposed to talk about them any more than we're supposed to take into account absences, pregnancies, etc.

People ARE generally more reticent about hiring women, and it IS for reasons with most assuredly ARE discriminatory, but also kind of valid. We're not supposed to SAY they're valid because they're not politically correct.

That is to say, it's FINE to remark about men being unable to ask for directions and thus getting lost repeatedly, even if it's not something universally true -- but we're NOT supposed to note that the higher the number of women in a given environment, the higher the level of controversies and conflicts.



I will be the first to admit -- that statement is hideously inflammatory, amazingly prejudicial, biased to an extent which is HORRIBLE. Any woman who minds her own business and does her job SHOULD be appalled at it and I'd do my darnedest to back her.



But in no way does it change that if you go around and start asking women with whom they'd rather work, the more you go the more the figures will begin to reflect that a surprisingly high number of women will tell you they don't want to work with other women.

Not all, certainly not all; and the ones who say it, it often depends on their mood -- but it gets said WAY more than just a little. Then start asking them WHY -- really, go ahead. The running theme will be that "women are difficult". This isn't something I'm saying; it's something I HEAR from women, have heard over and over and over throughout the years during which I've acted in both capacity as supervisOR and supervisEE, in various locations and jobs.

You think people don't simply begin to realize that stuff as they age, as they work in various places? That it doesn't seep into the collective psyche the same way other stereotypes do with regard to gender?

And we all know stereotypes are wrong, we're not supposed to subscribe to them because they are harmful and prejudicial, and most CERTAINLY cause harm to people who may fit a profile but do NOT behave according to a stereotype -- but that also doesn't change the fact that no matter how wrong, certain stereotypes might just exist for a reason.



I'm well aware that doesn't make them RIGHT, and I fully believe they need to be stamped out; but I also know human nature doesn't really change all that much.

3. On the positive side, these discrepancies have decreased. Twenty years ago women used to earn about 58 cents for every dollar a man earned. Today, the figure is about 78 cents.

Hell, why expound? It's what the whole debate is about!

I think the discrimination is real. I also think there are too many men who take a myopic and cavalier view towards it. I don't. I view it as something that hurts entire families--not just women.

On this, we're in absolute agreement. It's NOT just a feminist matter, it's a FAMILY matter.

As for this:

My wife has worked for almost twenty years for county and state government. She occupies a midlevel management position. I have seen far less qualified men promoted above her. Its always something "unquantifiable". What is quantifiable is that the head of the department is a man and has pretty much gotten away with making all his key people men as well.

... I cannot really do other than speculate.

On one hand your wife may be the finest person ever to walk the land; I have NO way of knowing -- none at all.

On the other hand, while it IS entirely possible that men are being promoted over her unjustly (because such things DO still happen), it's also entirely possible that she's just not the worker you think she is. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS SO; I'M MERELY SPECULATING POSSIBILITIES.

I know my own wife came home with tales of great injustice for a long time and I was often fuming over her maltreatment, frequently ready to march in there and make waves.

But over time I observed her actions and once in a while I got the chance to actually see her "do her job" -- and ultimately I had to admit that while there WAS some maltreatment heading her way, she also wasn't really all that great in her position, either. It's one of those things where you just suck it up and keep supporting the spouse because throwing the flag on it will only cause trouble.

I've seen some people really get screwed over; it happens. But I've also seen some people screw themselves over -- and in those cases it's never their fault, not if you take their word for it.

I have actually heard managers make comments about choosing not to hire a woman for a position because of their fear that she will get pregnant, take too much sick leave, or always be absent. When I hear this, I politely remind them that if they act on this prejudice they are violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Too many managers seem unconcerned about breaking the law. My own thought is that perhaps the monetary damages that could be awarded to people who actually succeed in proving employment discrimination should be increased.

And my own thought there is that changes need to be made on BOTH sides of that equation. For example, I think a major overhaul needs to be made with regard to maternity leave, sick leave and injury compensation, etc.

On the other hand, that opens a huge can of worms. HOW would it be done? WHO would pay for it, and at what cost (such as the Socialism mentioned earlier in the thread)?

By the same token people should often feel just a tad less secure in their positions in this nation, should have just a bit less of a safety net, the incentive being that they get off their lazy duffs and actually do their jobs!

But the downside of this is that it might become too easy for managers to fire people on pretense.


In order for ANY of this to work, people on the whole will have to be smarter and more moral -- and that's just not happening.

[dude1984]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

The gender pay gap is about social discrimination, rather than legal discrimination.

No it isn't. It is about personal choices that are made which affect a persons professional career.