Japan being a pretty traditional male-dominated society still, this is a big step forwards. Tokyo may be "only a city" but it's the largest city on Earth, with over 30 million inhabitants, the capital of the third richest nation, and the venue for the 2020 Olympics, so this role is pretty significant.
It's a big step for Japanese politics and for Japanese society in general. After decades of going nowhere on issues of women's equality all of a sudden they're starting to catch up quite quickly.
Japan being a pretty traditional male-dominated society still, this is a big step forwards. Tokyo may be "only a city" but it's the largest city on Earth, with over 30 million inhabitants, the capital of the third richest nation, and the venue for the 2020 Olympics, so this role is pretty significant.
Omedetou Yuriko-san! Gambatte kudasai!
That sounds like quit an historic event. That city has a larger population than some countries. How to people keep sane there with such a population around them? Bear in mind, I ask this question as someone who comes from an area with a fairly low population by comparison.
I remember back in the day when I took Japanese the teacher was a Japanese woman who told us she had a Masters degree but the only real work she could get in Japan was as a Flight Attendant, which didn't require a degree, so she went elsewhere to find work. Glad to hear the wheels are (slowly) turning.
Japan being a pretty traditional male-dominated society still, this is a big step forwards. Tokyo may be "only a city" but it's the largest city on Earth, with over 30 million inhabitants, the capital of the third richest nation, and the venue for the 2020 Olympics, so this role is pretty significant.
Omedetou Yuriko-san! Gambatte kudasai!
That sounds like quit an historic event. That city has a larger population than some countries. How to people keep sane there with such a population around them? Bear in mind, I ask this question as someone who comes from an area with a fairly low population by comparison.
I've lived in suburbs or big cities my whole life, and I can't imagine staying sane without a dense population around. I guess it just depends on what you are used to.
Japan being a pretty traditional male-dominated society still, this is a big step forwards. Tokyo may be "only a city" but it's the largest city on Earth, with over 30 million inhabitants, the capital of the third richest nation, and the venue for the 2020 Olympics, so this role is pretty significant.
Omedetou Yuriko-san! Gambatte kudasai!
That sounds like quit an historic event. That city has a larger population than some countries. How to people keep sane there with such a population around them? Bear in mind, I ask this question as someone who comes from an area with a fairly low population by comparison.
Given what I've seen everytime I try to watch modern anime, they don't stay sane at all.
Relapse wrote: How to people keep sane there with such a population around them? Bear in mind, I ask this question as someone who comes from an area with a fairly low population by comparison.
For starters everybody tries to avoid causing unneccessary trouble to each other. The Japanese politeness stems from very simple survival instinct. It's NEEDED in such crowded area! Especially when apartment sound prevention can be almost literally "paper thin" and trains get crowded to the max(if you ever are in Tokyo in weekday try going in train toward Shinjuku around 8am That's quite an experience...). In Finland there would probably be riot if trains were as crowded. We like our personal space
Japan being a pretty traditional male-dominated society still, this is a big step forwards. Tokyo may be "only a city" but it's the largest city on Earth, with over 30 million inhabitants, the capital of the third richest nation, and the venue for the 2020 Olympics, so this role is pretty significant.
Omedetou Yuriko-san! Gambatte kudasai!
It has always surprised me how male dominated that country still was. I worked pretty closely with the JASDF, and I was always shocked at how the women were treated, no matter the rank. A woman Senior NCO would be expected to clean the building, before the lowest ranking male. It made me really uncomfortable at times.
I think Japan has a lot more problems than equality in politics (rampant suicides, birth rates declining due to lack of people getting married and having children) but this is a step in the right direction. Bravo!
Part of the reason for the birth rate decline is Japanese women being unsatisfied with the life concept of getting married, giving up a career and being a housewife whose job is to bring up some children and make sure dinner is on the table whatever time Husband-san crawls in from late working or after-work drinking.
From that viewpoint, more women in politics hopefully will promote women-friendly policies that address this part of the birth-rate problem.
Kilkrazy wrote: Part of the reason for the birth rate decline is Japanese women being unsatisfied with the life concept of getting married, giving up a career and being a housewife whose job is to bring up some children and make sure dinner is on the table whatever time Husband-san crawls in from late working or after-work drinking.
From that viewpoint, more women in politics hopefully will promote women-friendly policies that address this part of the birth-rate problem.
Possibly. I think overall Japan as a culture needs a revamp, and I think women in STEM and business fields as well as Politics would go a long way to changing that. Like I said, I think it's a step in the right direction, but I don't think it's going to magically change the inequality they may have.
Definitely not. The West is about 100 years into its progress in developing sex equality. Women still earn only 70% of men's salaries, comprise only 5% (or whatever) of executives, and so on.
Kilkrazy wrote: Definitely not. The West is about 100 years into its progress in developing sex equality. Women still earn only 70% of men's salaries, comprise only 5% (or whatever) of executives, and so on.
95% when you compare same-same positions, actually. Point 3 in the attached. But in some highly technical fields, it's much less, as referenced in point 5.
Let's not get bogged down into minor bits of detail. (More nursery school teachers are women than men, for example.)
The basic fact is that overall, women are paid less than men, and have fewer positions of power and influence, despite 100 years of improvement, so we can't blame the Japanese too much and we can still celebrate the election of a lady Governor of Tokyo.
It's an indictment of our education system that you think that was Godzilla. On topic, though, that creature was a woman and saw her career end immediately after having children. Her closest male counterpart just keeps getting more work with higher budgets.
It's an indictment of our education system that you think that was Godzilla. On topic, though, that creature was a woman and saw her career end immediately after having children. Her closest male counterpart just keeps getting more work with higher budgets.
Well at least to counter balance at least women have control of money in Japan Poor men have to get by whatever wife deems to give Recently there's been grumbling how even if their salary increases their pocket money has been dropped by wives
Kilkrazy wrote: [..]More nursery school teachers are women than men, for example[..]
Which is normal. The numbers are normally, in any developed country, at a 12 female to 1 male ratio, especially high are the numbers in specialized fields
like psychiatry, oncology etc, i.e. care for patients - 0.8% to 1% are male in this field. The reasons for that? I actually don't know.
Since Japan is (probably, i personally don't know exactly) a pretty traditional country, i think a revamp of their social contract might be in order. Here's a
question though - Is the nuclear family with a non-working Mother a norm in Japan?
I think you are thinking of nurses, when I said nursery school -- meaning kindergarten -- teachers. However it is true for nurses as well. One theory is that as a field becomes increasingly staffed by women, men come to think of it as "women's work" and abandon the profession.
100 years ago there were no female doctors, and now over 50% of doctors are women. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues and if doctoring comes to be seen as "women's work".
Extended family with non-working mother is fairly common in Japan, as well as nuclear family.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you are thinking of nurses, when I said nursery school -- meaning kindergarten -- teachers. However it is true for nurses as well. One theory is that as a field becomes increasingly staffed by women, men come to think of it as "women's work" and abandon the profession.
Having a fair few friends who are nurses of varying stripe this is somewhat true.... Men in nursing positions tend to get railroaded towards the mental wards still. Psychiatric nursing, as well as wards that tend to have heavy lifting involved, at least according to those same family/friends in the field, is where you'll see the bulk of male nurses.
Japan being a pretty traditional male-dominated society still, this is a big step forwards. Tokyo may be "only a city" but it's the largest city on Earth, with over 30 million inhabitants, the capital of the third richest nation, and the venue for the 2020 Olympics, so this role is pretty significant.
Omedetou Yuriko-san! Gambatte kudasai!
It has always surprised me how male dominated that country still was. I worked pretty closely with the JASDF, and I was always shocked at how the women were treated, no matter the rank. A woman Senior NCO would be expected to clean the building, before the lowest ranking male. It made me really uncomfortable at times.
Not was, is, just a few months back a female parliament member was shouted at that she should get pregnant.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think you are thinking of nurses, when I said nursery school -- meaning kindergarten -- teachers. However it is true for nurses as well. One theory is that as a field becomes increasingly staffed by women, men come to think of it as "women's work" and abandon the profession.
There's also been work done that's shown that as certain careers become to be as women's work the payrate starts falling behind.
The big problem with gender equality is that it is not actually desired by either side.
Sure there are equality minded dreamers in abundance, but they are not in command when things plan out.
Pay gap.
Here will always be one unless enforced (grossly unfairly by an iron grip.
First let us face some basic facts, men are 10-15% stronger on average, which is de facto physical superiority. Though this only effects a minority of better paid or white collar work it is noted for completeness. Now exceptions will exist, but those are exceptions, not average females.
More importantly biological roles vary a lot. This might not be equal, but like it or not it is the reality. Men do not normally get pregnant, it we deducted a total of three years in combined maternity and postnatal leave, it would place women at an unfair position in the workplace with regards to seniority. This assumes that early childcare is split between both parents or hired staff, I am only talking about the biological minimums of raising two or three children.
What can be done about that? Feminism cannot wave a magic wand and gender equalise pregnancy, whether you want that or not. Any attempt to force companies to promote on gender doctrine rather than input are penalising other workers male or female, who dont take the out of career time.
This is the kernel of the problem, eventually gender equality means using arigidly enforced legal inequality to compensate for biological differences that disadvantage a woman in entirely natural and often unavoidable ways.
Now most women for forgo family for career can avoid that, and pay equality is not just feasible it is a workplace reality for most. Now admittedly there is a lot of sexism, but that works both ways. Gender bias is hardly a male only occurrance, however litigation and availability for litigation is inherently one sided in our society.
Radical feminism is 'advancing' womens rights, however from strong indications they have no intention at stopping at equality. Feminine bias in the courts is commonplace, with regards to employment tribunals where even vague rumours of female harassment produces strong payouts, but male harassment is ignored. Men are also second class citizens in the divorce courts especially with regards to housing and child access.
I never really understood the need for the level of feminist dogma in UK society. I grew up with Thatcher as Prime Minister, Thatcher rose to the top by her own hard work, and had no trouble staying there. She is reviled by feminists for not giving a free pass to her own gender. She was right not to. Thatcher proved that the system did not prevent her rise, she got there on merit not from an artificial state gender bias lift up. In fact during all of Thatchers time, bar the first week or so after her election in 1979 the fact that Thatcher was a woman was largely irrelevant. Everyone knows Obama is black and Hillary is female, and get reminded time and again. Thatcher had a strong feminine identity, Christopher Hitchens considered her sexy, but her gender didnt come through in her politics, it was irrelevant to her work, and the nation slowly forgot beyond adding the words Mrs or Maggie before her name.
It is potentially a welcome sign to see senior female Japanese politicians, it is certainly not s step backwards, but whether it is a step sideways or a step forwards depends on the motivations behind the voters. Japan needs more gender equality, but also needs to learn the lessons of the west and not vote in a woman out of guilt, and be subsequently badgered into a feminist agenda. It wont end well.
Now most women for forgo family for career can avoid that, and pay equality is not just feasible it is a workplace reality for most.
I read an article a fair bit back, I think it was in Esquire or some similar magazine, that made a very good attempt at debunking the myths of the pay gap. Basically, what the author found, when looking at the methodology of the prime example trotted out by mainstream media sources, is that the people who conducted this study did an incredibly horrible job at it. For instance, they claimed that men in a janitorial job made 70% more than women in janitorial jobs. When he looked at the methods and where the data was obtained from, he found that all of the male janitors' salary obtained, were from janitors in New York City, while most of the female janitor salary information came from cities like Council Bluffs, Iowa or Lincoln, Nebraska (areas which I think we can all agree, do not have the same cost of living)
Outside of certain well documented job fields (nursing, as we've discussed), the pay gap is nearly non-existent in terms of wages. The differences in pay, as noted in this same article that I read, were largely societal. By that I mean that working women take more sick days to care for children than men do. Men are something like 60% more likely to work overtime than women are. If all you saw were their pay stubs, you could assume a wage gap, but are failing to account for all of the variables present.
Birmingham City Council liable for £757m equal pay claims
12 November 2012
Birmingham City Council has revealed it will have to pay at least £757m to settle equal pay claims brought by mainly women who missed out on bonuses.
Last month 174 people who worked in traditionally-female roles won a ruling at the Supreme Court over the pay.
The £757m includes claims by that group and hundreds of other city council workers.
The former staff had worked in such jobs as cooks, cleaners and care staff for the council and had discovered they had been denied bonuses given to staff in traditionally male-dominated roles such as refuse collectors and street cleaners.
So, not the same jobs then?
And they were entitled to the bonuses, but hadn't claimed them?
The council didn't offer them bonuses, because they were mostly women.
The Supreme Court ruled on this several years ago. It's not really up for dispute, just as evidence that at least one "side" actually does want equality.
It seems that people get rather disgruntled by inequality when it works against them.
The second reason for the article is that it isn't isn't something I think I read in Hello! or some other magazine a few years ago that "debunked" blah-di-blah. It's a well grounded legal case that went to the highest court in the land and found unfair discrimination against women.
Kilkrazy wrote: The council didn't offer them bonuses, because they were mostly women.
Well, they were mostly women and they weren't offered bonuses. I don't see anything in the article you linked that implies causation, other than the council being hard up for money.
Ashiraya wrote: In Sweden women still only earn about 80 öre to the crown. I am not sure why people keep pretending this is not a thing.
Is there somewhere that breaks down how in equal jobs they don't get equal pay? I always see the 70% number thrown around, but no context to it. Is that number an aggregate of the total work force, or is it an actual representation of the average discrepancy for equal work/position?
Kilkrazy wrote: Definitely not. The West is about 100 years into its progress in developing sex equality. Women still earn only 70% of men's salaries, comprise only 5% (or whatever) of executives, and so on.
I cannot believe the gender wage gap is being perpetuated in this thread. This is a myth that's been disproven ages ago and no reputable economist takes it seriously.
Allow me to be the one to ether you on this subject.
A PAY GAP exists yes, but there is no WAGE GAP. People usually don't realize there's a difference because they just buy the feminist myth at face value. No females experiences an employer saying, during hiring, "You will be paid only 80% of John here, because you are female."
An overall >>>earnings gap<<< (pay gap) exists because women don't get into the same work men do (let's see, a diploma in TRAVEL & TOURISM isn't going to net the same amount of money as a degree IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING OR PROGRAMMING) and therefore don't earn as much, on average they don't work as many hours, women take MORE vacation time (resulting in less pay, sources below), leave to have children, take MORE SHORT-TERM SICK DAYS resulting in less money, the list goes on. CHOICES.
If there were obvious wage gaps, as being incorrectly asserted in this thread, then:
1) why aren't these women suing the hell out of these companies that are clearly breaking the law? Where are all these clear-cut class-action lawsuits?? Answer: they aren't happening because pay inequality isn't happening.
2) why aren't these greedy capitalist companies just hiring ALL WOMEN if they do the same work/quality/hours and do it for 20% less? Answer: because pay inequality isn't happening.
The sad thing is, even that moron Obama and his lackeys perpetuate this nonsense, but then again what else can you expect from Leftist politicians? LOL.
Watch some of these videos below for visual guides to explain the above to you, though I doubt many itt will because the red pill is not something conducive to their digital safe spaces: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA HOFF-SOMMERS, A LEADING FEMINIST, EVEN DISPUTES THE WAGE-GAP AS BABYISH ECONOMICS:
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Coarse language, due to superimposed 'thug life' theme as Ben DESTROYS THE WAGE GAP MYTH NSFW:
I know Dakka is a very Liberal forum, so I'll provide some sources for my 'hate facts', lol:
Then I'd argue you stay in only parts of Dakka. I'd say it's 50/50, there's some fairly vocal right wing posters on here.
Occasionally I jump into threads here that are political and breaking, the rest of my time is in the swap shop, P&M, and 40K/Fantasy general. I'm mainly a lurker, but when the pay lie gets thrown out, I have to jump in.
People usually don't realize there's a difference because they just buy the feminist myth at face value.
People don't realize there's a difference because differentiating wage from pay is splitting a hair.
The wage gap has notably shrunk since Feminists first started raising a stink about it, and in some professions its gone entirely. Law enforcement for example once had a very harsh pay gap between men and women, but it's been virtually eliminated. However the wage gap still exists, like in teaching for example;
Differences in Teacher Sex and Racial-Ethnic Background
Despite the fact that sex and race-ethnicity are not accounted for in formal salary scales in the public or private sector, some differences in the salaries of teachers are associated with sex and racial-ethnic background once other teacher and school characteristics are taken into account. Specifically,
White and Hispanic male public school teachers earn higher salaries than their female counterparts. Male public school teachers earn between 10 to 13 percent more than females, on average, and a little more than half of this difference is accounted for by differences in the characteristics of male and female teachers. The remainder of the difference may be due, in part, to differences in the labor markets for males and females.
Married females receive lower salaries than nonmarried females, while for males, no difference associated with marital status is identified, all else equal.
Racial-ethnic differences among teachers were observed only for male public school teachers. The only statistically significant difference in salaries observed related to racial-ethnic background is the 4 percent difference favoring white (not of Hispanic origin) males over blacks (not of Hispanic origin). ~ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/95829.asp
A more complete study is available at IWPR, and is published yearly. The Gender Wage gap gets into a whole host of issues, and indeed Feminists sometimes push for more than the evidence can provide (example; though I think it should be the other way around, teacher's getting paid less than software engineers isn't just about which sex works the field but how valued the field is, and teachers just aren't valued as much as software engineers). But you're not going to make all that go away by pretending pay and wage are somehow different things, or that Feminists only debate the differences between male and female earnings using a single metric.
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Awww, that's cute. You gotta crush.
Ahh a personal slight at my sexuality, excellent argument!
Oh, not intended as a dig at your sexuality. My apologies, I can see how you could take it that way. I was riffing on the hyperbolic title you bestowed upon you hero.
Man-crushes are common amongst hetero men. It's how we organize the pack. I had one on Phil Anselmo when I was in high school.
This Milo guy seems like a right tit, though. A cursory glance at his resume makes him look like he is a professional troll. I'd be wary of hitching your horse to such a wagon.
Pay is pay. The only difference to be accounted for is if one is being paid a wage or a salary. I.E. You're demanding that we recognize a difference between pay and wage that does not exist. Creating a difference between pay and wage might serve your conclusion, but it has no basis in reality, and it certainly isn't related to the argument feminists put forth on the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: I had one on Phil Anselmo when I was in high school.
MrDwhitey wrote: I understand, that generally if a woman is working the same hours as a man, at the exact same job, they are paid generally the same.
A factor that almost always gets left out (and it's always confused me why its not discussed more), is the geographic variations of the jobs market. Women in lower income areas/families are more likely to work than women in higher income areas/families (and there may be a bell curve of some kind at play between the lower, middle, and upper income brackets). I've never seen a study that took the data on the wage gap and broken it down by geographic region, i.e where do women work, where do men work, and how do the geographic variations influence the pay scale. I don't even know if ones ever been done. It would be one intensive study to put out. I've always wanted to know if, and if so how, the wage gap data might look different once geography is accounted for.
The earnings gap is often then refuted as "woman choose worse jobs for money, take more time off, are more unwilling to do overtime" etc etc
The issue I have with those that say this is they then never look into *why* this happens. They just state that's how it is.
Agreed. It's kind of an ironic rebuttal, because it doesn't really rebut anything in the current discussion being put forth by feminists, which includes trying to account for why woman work in jobs that are worse and pay less, why don't they work more overtime, and why do they take more time off. As if simply stating that this occurs somehow invalidates the stated position women are paid less than men when they should be paid the same. Take for example the average pay of maids (a women dominated field) vs the average pay of janitors (a male dominated field); It's about a $3000 difference for virtually identical work. A big reason that gap exists is because Janitors are seen a labor, while maids are seen as "help" so the characteristics of the way people look at the jobs (and the way they are hired) accounts a lot for the difference in earnings. It's not like employers look up their employees junk and then pay them accordingly. The argument hasn't been about that since the 60s and 70s. Now its about the social demographics and factors that result in women being paid less than men, and that isn't remotely refuted by acknowledging the exact issues that feminists (and others to be fair) are looking into in trying to explain why women can make less than men.
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Awww, that's cute. You gotta crush.
Ahh a personal slight at my sexuality, excellent argument!
Its only a 'slight' against your sexuality (don't even get me started on the politics of that) if the person who replied knew you were male, which you'd given no evidence of. Even if they went off 'male dominated game/forum' and 'opinion that tends to be held by men', you pointed out how even feminist women also hold your position.
Watch Lord Milo destroy two feminists at the same time:
Awww, that's cute. You gotta crush.
Ahh a personal slight at my sexuality, excellent argument!
Its only a 'slight' against your sexuality (don't even get me started on the politics of that) if the person who replied knew you were male, which you'd given no evidence of. Even if they went off 'male dominated game/forum' and 'opinion that tends to be held by men', you pointed out how even feminist women also hold your position.
And even then, it's only a "slight" if one assumes being homosexual is bad.
Kilkrazy wrote: The council didn't offer them bonuses, because they were mostly women.
Well, they were mostly women and they weren't offered bonuses. I don't see anything in the article you linked that implies causation, other than the council being hard up for money.
You will find the evidence and findings in the judgement of the court.
MrDwhitey wrote: I understand, that generally if a woman is working the same hours as a man, at the exact same job, they are paid generally the same.
A factor that almost always gets left out (and it's always confused me why its not discussed more), is the geographic variations of the jobs market. Women in lower income areas/families are more likely to work than women in higher income areas/families (and there may be a bell curve of some kind at play between the lower, middle, and upper income brackets). I've never seen a study that took the data on the wage gap and broken it down by geographic region, i.e where do women work, where do men work, and how do the geographic variations influence the pay scale. I don't even know if ones ever been done. It would be one intensive study to put out. I've always wanted to know if, and if so how, the wage gap data might look different once geography is accounted for.
The earnings gap is often then refuted as "woman choose worse jobs for money, take more time off, are more unwilling to do overtime" etc etc
The issue I have with those that say this is they then never look into *why* this happens. They just state that's how it is.
Agreed. It's kind of an ironic rebuttal, because it doesn't really rebut anything in the current discussion being put forth by feminists, which includes trying to account for why woman work in jobs that are worse and pay less, why don't they work more overtime, and why do they take more time off. As if simply stating that this occurs somehow invalidates the stated position women are paid less than men when they should be paid the same. Take for example the average pay of maids (a women dominated field) vs the average pay of janitors (a male dominated field); It's about a $3000 difference for virtually identical work. A big reason that gap exists is because Janitors are seen a labor, while maids are seen as "help" so the characteristics of the way people look at the jobs (and the way they are hired) accounts a lot for the difference in earnings. It's not like employers look up their employees junk and then pay them accordingly. The argument hasn't been about that since the 60s and 70s. Now its about the social demographics and factors that result in women being paid less than men, and that isn't remotely refuted by acknowledging the exact issues that feminists (and others to be fair) are looking into in trying to explain why women can make less than men.
The fact is that despite all the considerations about child care and so on, which are valid, time and again women successfully bring court cases in which it is proved that they have been paid less than men in the same organisation for doing the same job or an equivalent one. This ranges from the Birmingham cleaning ladies to traders in the richest banks in the city of London.
Either it is still true that women often are penalised for being women, or somehow the legal system has been subverted in a mysterious way to allow women to successfully bring these cases though they are lies.
Birmingham City Council liable for £757m equal pay claims
12 November 2012
Birmingham City Council has revealed it will have to pay at least £757m to settle equal pay claims brought by mainly women who missed out on bonuses.
Last month 174 people who worked in traditionally-female roles won a ruling at the Supreme Court over the pay.
The £757m includes claims by that group and hundreds of other city council workers.
What recourse does a man has who didnt get the bonus?
Likely none, the employer can claim reward based on merit.
However if you have a minority card to play, of any applicable type, then you must get your bonus regardless of merit or the employers are seen to be bigots.
Equal opportunities might be well intentioned, though under Blair I doubt even that, and we are still in the shadow of that government. Even if well intentioned at the set up though, the application is often highly unfair.
Differences in Teacher Sex and Racial-Ethnic Background
Despite the fact that sex and race-ethnicity are not accounted for in formal salary scales in the public or private sector, some differences in the salaries of teachers are associated with sex and racial-ethnic background once other teacher and school characteristics are taken into account. Specifically,
White and Hispanic male public school teachers earn higher salaries than their female counterparts. Male public school teachers earn between 10 to 13 percent more than females, on average, and a little more than half of this difference is accounted for by differences in the characteristics of male and female teachers. The remainder of the difference may be due, in part, to differences in the labor markets for males and females.
Married females receive lower salaries than nonmarried females, while for males, no difference associated with marital status is identified, all else equal.
Racial-ethnic differences among teachers were observed only for male public school teachers. The only statistically significant difference in salaries observed related to racial-ethnic background is the 4 percent difference favoring white (not of Hispanic origin) males over blacks (not of Hispanic origin). ~ http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/95829.asp
A "fix" to that, is to do as my state has done... Now, I must preface this by saying that I'm not actually IN school yet (I'm in school to become a teacher), but the pay charts are public record and can be pulled up for the state of Washington. The scales break down basically the same as a military pay scale does.
There are two scales: teachers with a Master's and teachers without. From there, it's 0 years, 1+ years, 2+ years, etc. etc. The state has a baseline pay for every teacher, with individual districts providing a boost to that pay on a district level (ie, a teacher working in Seattle proper is gonna get paid a higher salary than a teacher working in Chelan.
PrehistoricUFO wrote: The sad thing is, even that moron Obama and his lackeys perpetuate this nonsense, but then again what else can you expect from Leftist politicians? LOL.
And this is what I am supposed to 'take seriously'?
Embarrassing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: I understand, that generally if a woman is working the same hours as a man, at the exact same job, they are paid generally the same.
The earnings gap is often then refuted as "woman choose worse jobs for money, take more time off, are more unwilling to do overtime" etc etc
The issue I have with those that say this is they then never look into *why* this happens. They just state that's how it is.
They also say there is no racism involved, and yet, in Sweden of all places Uppdrag Granskning showed that a job that was taken when Mohammed Al-Abnir called was surprisingly often available when Markus Persson called a minute later.
Ashiraya wrote: In Sweden women still only earn about 80 öre to the crown. I am not sure why people keep pretending this is not a thing.
Is there somewhere that breaks down how in equal jobs they don't get equal pay? I always see the 70% number thrown around, but no context to it. Is that number an aggregate of the total work force, or is it an actual representation of the average discrepancy for equal work/position?
I don't see the pay gap (as distinct from a wage gap) as a problem. If women work less hours, take more holidays, take time off to raise kids, and in turn get less promotions, then it's the woman's choice to do that.
Yes, there's more males in my engineering classes than there are females, and I'd love to see more females in it.... but it's absolutely not harder for a female to get in to it**. If less women decided to get in to engineering because their parents didn't encourage them enough, take it up with their parents.
Encourage your kids, regardless of their gender, to get in to STEM fields and higher paying jobs, teach them to fight for bonuses and pay rises, teach them not to take time off work to care for kids of their own, because in most western countries these days the only thing stopping you from earning more is your own choices. Someone discouraged you along the way? Toughen up buttercup, if you want that higher paying job, take it.
**In fact the university offers a bunch of sexist scholarship programs which you will be excluded from if you have are a dude because apparently the way to fight inequality in a field is with sexism.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I don't see the pay gap (as distinct from a wage gap) as a problem. If women work less hours, take more holidays, take time off to raise kids, and in turn get less promotions, then it's the woman's choice to do that.
Yup, it is their fault for choosing to propagate the species. If women want to be taken seriously like men, they should stop having kids. Genetics be damned! /s
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I If a person work less hours, take more holidays, take time off to raise kids, and in turn get less promotions, then it's the person's choice to do that.
Fixed it for you. If anyone has a problem with that, feel free to point it out.
Yup, it is their fault for choosing to propagate the species. If women want to be taken seriously like men, they should stop having kids. Genetics be damned!
I've highlighted the important word there. Women are people with their own agency. Women are responsible for their own choices. That includes the choice to get pregnant, the choice to carry the child to term and the choice to raise the child.
It's exactly the same for a man. If a man has sex- by choice- and the woman falls pregnant he is responsible for that choice. And that responsibility will inevitably be a financial hit to him. His choice will have very real costs. I assume we're all ok with a male wearing such costs, since they chose to have sex?
Birmingham City Council liable for £757m equal pay claims
12 November 2012
Birmingham City Council has revealed it will have to pay at least £757m to settle equal pay claims brought by mainly women who missed out on bonuses.
Last month 174 people who worked in traditionally-female roles won a ruling at the Supreme Court over the pay.
The £757m includes claims by that group and hundreds of other city council workers.
What recourse does a man has who didnt get the bonus?
Likely none, the employer can claim reward based on merit.
...
The article says that several men were included in the lawsuit because they did not get the bonus, when working in the same jobs as the women. The judgement was that the council would have to pay them the bonus alongside the women members of the suit.
The reason the council failed in the case is that it was clear that the bonuses were not based on merit, they were based on whether you were working in a traditional male (e.g. rubbish collection) or female (e.g. office cleaner) type of job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I don't see the pay gap (as distinct from a wage gap) as a problem. If women work less hours, take more holidays, take time off to raise kids, and in turn get less promotions, then it's the woman's choice to do that.
...
It's a problem for the reason already mentioned of child-bearing and -rearing duties.
The thread started with the election of a woman to governor of Tokyo, and diverted into this pay gap tangent because it was observed that Japan has a population decline problem thanks to women not wanting to give birth because they are treated as second class citizens in this kind of matter.
It's also a problem because of poverty in retirement for women who lack the life-long earning potential of men due to time taken off from careers for child-bearing and -rearing duties.
Thirdly, this issue of career gaps does not address the separate but related issue of lower pay for equal work.
The kind of jobs more easily available to women taking career breaks or wanting to work part time owing to child-bearing and -rearing duties are often the sort of "women's work" like part-time shop assistant or cleaner, which tend to be low paid and often as shown by the Birmingham case, are lower paid than equal or equivalent male jobs.
I don't think we should assume someone saying "people make choices and they are responsible for them" is necessarily saying that there are no mitigating social factors influencing those choices. Ultimately, we do expect people to own their own actions, and this is distinct from recognizing that someone's actions can be heavily influenced by outside factors.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I don't see the pay gap (as distinct from a wage gap) as a problem. If women work less hours, take more holidays, take time off to raise kids, and in turn get less promotions, then it's the woman's choice to do that.
Yup, it is their fault for choosing to propagate the species. If women want to be taken seriously like men, they should stop having kids. Genetics be damned! /s
Well the question is, do we want to pay people for rearing their own kids? I mean, there's maternity leave in many countries and specific jobs and for compassion sake I agree with maternity leave for the period of time near the end of a pregnancy and immediately after. But should that extend further than a period that is medically justified? I don't really think so and if you're out of the workforce for a couple of years or take lots of time off work then for obvious reasons you aren't going to get as for in the professional world
I don't think it's a good idea to try and force companies to pay and promote people equally if they don't both contribute the same amount of time, effort and expertise. At a government level we could decide that being a mother is worth $X to the community and tax everyone enough to distribute the wealth around, but you're not going to convince too many people raising your own kids should pay as well as being the head of blah blah in whatever professional field.
We could try on focusing fathers to take more interest in the kids so mothers can work, but IMO that's a choice for the individual family to make, not something we should be mandating or creating artificial incentives that advantages women over men to achieve.
Kojiro wrote: What is this bootstrap argument you speak of?
My argument was simply that people are responsible for their choices, whatever those choices might be.
Which, in turn, implies that all they'd have to do to solve the problem would be to choose differently, which simply is not true. It's shifting the responsibility to the individual to fix a structural problem. As an example, if you're stuck in a room and the only way out is to chop off your own leg, would it be fair to blame you for later getting tetanus from having chopped your leg off? It was your "choice" after all".
I guess what I'm saying is that pointing out people's responsibility for their own acttions is entirely pointless when the "choice" is constrained by factors that are out of the individual's hands.
LordofHats wrote: I don't think we should assume someone saying "people make choices and they are responsible for them" is necessarily saying that there are no mitigating social factors influencing those choices. Ultimately, we do expect people to own their own actions, and this is distinct from recognizing that someone's actions can be heavily influenced by outside factors.
What mitigating factors would you say arise in the specific case of having and raising a child in the first world?
LordofHats wrote: I don't think we should assume someone saying "people make choices and they are responsible for them" is necessarily saying that there are no mitigating social factors influencing those choices. Ultimately, we do expect people to own their own actions, and this is distinct from recognizing that someone's actions can be heavily influenced by outside factors.
What mitigating factors would you say arise in the specific case of having and raising a child in the first world?
Societal pressure, poor sex-ed, unplanned pregnancy, etc. etc. etc.
What mitigating factors would you say arise in the specific case of having and raising a child in the first world?
And that's of course ignoring that acting like the biological function of pregnancy is an inherent choice is kind of silly. Lots of women get pregnant without trying. Contraception isn't 100% effective 100% of the time (EDIT: And yes, Sex-Ed in this country does suck balls). Abortions have become harder to obtain in recent years, what with state legislators in many states doing a very effective job of legislating providers out of business (I believer there was a recent SCOTUS case about this that came down on the side of "the state's can't do that", anyone know for sure?), and of course the factor that women are expected to bear the bulk of child rearing. It's not like woman choose to make pregancy physically intense. That's just biological imperative, and that doesn't even begin to account for the long noticed trend of married women being paid less than single women, and that women with no children fall into the same wage gap as women with children as far as I know. So actually, what does having children really have to do with any of this in actuality except that it is expected of women regardless of their own interests? It doesn't explain why women, despite now generally being more educated than men and make up a larger percentage of college graduates, are less likely to be employed than men. It doesn't explain why they generally work worse jobs. The entire life of a woman and any problems she might encounter cannot be boiled down in the "they can have children" box.
LordofHats wrote: I don't think we should assume someone saying "people make choices and they are responsible for them" is necessarily saying that there are no mitigating social factors influencing those choices. Ultimately, we do expect people to own their own actions, and this is distinct from recognizing that someone's actions can be heavily influenced by outside factors.
Of course there are mitigating social factors influencing choices. IMO there's mitigating biological factors that influence those choices too, but I'll probably be executed by feminists for saying that I think there's always going to be more women who want to take time away from work for the sake of their families than men and so there's always going to be a pay gap. And don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for guys who take care of their kids full time to allow mothers to work, but I think that's always going to be an anomaly for biological reasons. Unless you go all communist and decide to pay everyone the same regardless of whether they're a manager in a professional field or a parent raising their kid.
But men and women do mostly have equality in opportunity in western societies (barring some biologically influenced ones). I don't think equality of outcome SHOULD be a goal.
IMO we should be teaching young girls that the world is theirs, THEY have the power to decide. That's why my emphasis is on parents, don't perpetuate this idea that your kids are oppressed based on their gender, perpetuate the idea that your kids can do anything they want to do regardless of gender but if you want outcomes you have to put in the work because that's the reality. Teach them sometimes the world opens up to you, sometimes it doesn't and you have to work and fight and if you do you might get lucky. Teach them that sometimes people will say discouraging things and you need to learn to deal with it and keep going.
What I think we should NOT be doing is reverse sexism where you have to tell a young guy, sorry, I know you got good marks in maths and science, but we aren't giving you a scholarship because that young gal who got worse marks than you needs it so we can fill our gender quota for this year.
Feminism won the important battles in western cultures, women to have equal rights and equal opportunity if they want to take it. I feel sorry for the girls and women in nations where that isn't true.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Feminism won the important battles in western cultures, women to have equal rights and equal opportunity if they want to take it. I feel sorry for the girls and women in nations where that isn't true.
That's blatantly not true, though. Society still expects women to behave in one way and men in another based on gender constructs.
I think a better way of putting it would be that Feminism won the easy and obvious battles (easy is a relative thing...) in western culture. These days Feminism tackles with much more complicated issues, and itself. Issues like how society expects and views the sexes, the way it indoctrinates gender roles, and the difficult task of defining exactly what equality looks like. And come on. It's not like Feminism is the only movement debating that last one. The bulk of modern Western politics could probably be boiled down to the question "what does equality look like?" We can all probably throw out a few sentences describing it, we'll quickly find out that making it a reality is a lot harder and we probably won't come up with the same sentences.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Feminism won the important battles in western cultures, women to have equal rights and equal opportunity if they want to take it. I feel sorry for the girls and women in nations where that isn't true.
That's blatantly not true, though. Society still expects women to behave in one way and men in another based on gender constructs.
But no one imposes that a woman has to behave one way and men another. Once no one is imposing it, don't be surprised when people stop caring. It's up to parents to instil values that a young lass can do whatever she wants and send the young lass to a good school, then once that young lass grows up it's her choice if she wants to wants to have a balanced lifestyle or a workaholic lifestyle.
That article says nothing of significance regarding the points I asked for citation. Unless you only read the click-baiting title, it talks about how women who are pregnant or have young kids are more likely to be in contingent positions and a couple of anecdotes about pregnant women and one anecdote about how a woman was told by a male colleague would move past her if she had a baby.
The 2nd one just is a little bit more interesting, though still too abstract to actually be a valid citation for your statements. I couldn't actually find the original article to evaluate their methodology.
That just talks about how 1 in 7-ish women feel they were passed over because of their gender.... forgive me if I don't trust how people "feel" about why they might have been passed over for a raise or a promotion.
There was a link within that link which is a bit more interesting, though I question their methodology and don't really have the time right now to investigate it further.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's still some discrimination probably mostly from older managers who grew up probably in the 60's and maybe, hopefully when they all die out/retire that will be a thing of the past.
But I still think the vast majority of the pay gap (and lets be consistent with our wording here, pay gap = the paycheque you take home at the end of the week regardless of the work you do, wage gap = how much you get paid per hour for the same work) comes down to individual choices rather than institutional gender discrimination, which is illegal (and I'm not saying just because it's illegal that it can't happen, I just don't think it's as common as people might think it is).
Dreadwinter wrote: [@AllSeeingSkink Can you tell me what amount of time is medically justified?
No idea, I'm not a doctor, or at least not a medical one. The time it takes for one's body to recover. It's not necessarily going to be the same for each person and so it either has to be evaluated individually or simply be generous and take the upper limit. I know one of my sister's had an especially hard time bringing her little one in to the world and couldn't do much for quite a while afterwards.
But when I brought that up I was talking specifically about how long a company should be expected to pay and/or hold a position for someone who isn't actually present for work and is not contributing to the company on compassionate grounds.
I don't think companies should be responsible in the long term if a parent simply wants to put their child ahead of their job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrDwhitey wrote: It should be the same amount that offer maternity leave.
Aka all of them.
There is a bit of time where the mother biologically speaking has to be responsible, so I'm happy with paternity leave being slightly shorter than maternity leave, but as I said I'm not a medical doctor so I'm not in a position to evaluate that.
Valid citation? A citation is pretty much valid if you can find even one sentence in a given source to support a claim, which is something you can do even for blatantly false statements. Google search any of those topics and you'll find dozens of articles, all of them with links to numerous studies and other articles discussing them and related issues.
This is the off topic section of a forum on toy soldiers. I'm not writing you a research paper, and I'm not going to do your googling for you (I'd do that somewhere I'd get paid for it), especially since I'm the only poster even in this thread actually posting links (not that I imagine counter links would be hard to find mind you).
I really need to go back to my policy of not playing the citation game.
and lets be consistent with our wording here, pay gap = the paycheque you take home at the end of the week regardless of the work you do, wage gap = how much you get paid per hour for the same work)
Why does it have to be explained how absurd this split hair is? Pay is pay. Most people are either paid wage (hourly) or paid salary (fixed amount based on expectations)*. You're creating a distinction that not only doesn't exist, but calling on others to use consistent wording by calling a type of pay by the wrong vocabulary. Even that distinction doesn't matter as paid wage and paid salary are easily comparable by simply breaking down how many hours a salaried worker worked over an equal period of time as a wage worker. The only kind of pay that isn't easily comparable is pay for contract work simply because contract work is highly variable.
I just think we should stop whinging about it and start telling girls the biggest obstacle in the way of their professional success is themselves, not their genitals.
It's kind of funny, on the STEM side of the University you see young guys and gals working alongside each other quite happily, it's when you walk over to the arts side of the campus you see people complaining about how there's not enough women in STEM fields... from women who chose not to go in to a STEM field
and lets be consistent with our wording here, pay gap = the paycheque you take home at the end of the week regardless of the work you do, wage gap = how much you get paid per hour for the same work)
Why does it have to be explained how absurd this split hair is? Pay is pay. Most people are either paid wage (hourly) or paid salary (fixed amount based on expectations)*. You're creating a distinction that not only doesn't exist, but calling on others to use consistent wording by calling a type of pay by the wrong vocabulary. Even that distinction doesn't matter as paid wage and paid salary are easily comparable. The only kind of pay that isn't easily comparable is pay for contract work simply because contract work is highly variable.
It's important because a "wage gap" implies 2 people doing the same work are getting different renumeration for it.
As long as it is understood that what we are talking about encompasses people often working vastly different jobs then call it whatever you want to call it I guess.
MrDwhitey wrote: I just think we should stop whinging about it and start telling girls the biggest obstacle in the way of their professional success is themselves, not their genitals.
Which just isn't true when a large segment of society continue to act like donkey-caves towards women.
Further, women ARE working to fix the disparities; hence feminism.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I don't see the pay gap (as distinct from a wage gap) as a problem. If women work less hours, take more holidays, take time off to raise kids, and in turn get less promotions, then it's the woman's choice to do that.
My wife has a degree in Business admin, I studied Product Design. I also studied for various additional certs and diplomas relating to web design and cloud computing/database admin which became far more relevant to my work.
I recently completed a CIPD in L&D.
We both work in (different) offices, are the same grade and get paid the same.
In a weeks time I will be promoted and we will not be paid the same, and in January she will take maternity leave.
All of this is choice, experience and merit at play. No shadowy system is oppressing my wife.
The issue is when people decide to ignore the equality of opportunity that exists and focus of the outcome.
There's also a height gap and a strength gap and a sickness gap that urgently need hashtags.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: ]It's important because a "wage gap" implies 2 people doing the same work are getting different renumeration for it.
...
It doesn't imply. It outright states it, and that's exactly what this past page of discussion has been about.
As long as it is understood that what we are talking about encompasses people often working vastly different jobs then call it whatever you want to call it I guess.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Which just isn't true when a large segment of society continue to act like donkey-caves towards women.
And a large segment of society acts like women need a leg up when they don't.
Anyway, I think I've said my piece, I think we should be encouraging instead of accusatory. As I said on the previous page...
"Toughen up buttercup" Life is always hard.
I just came from a class teaching a final year university STEM class with men, women, whites, blacks, asians, middle easterns, abled, disabled all working alongside each other. If you are a girl and want to get in to a STEM field, just do it, don't let people hold you back, there might be some people who will discourage you because you're a female but there'll also be people who will help you because you're a female, just quit whinging and do it, don't go in to arts and do a gender study course to complain about how there's not enough women in STEM
MrDwhitey wrote: I don't think a video of Shia LaBeouf will add the emphasis you want...
No but it's funny If you have a better motivational video I can edit it
But really, that was always my point, you can blame society or you can just do what you want to do and teach your kids to do what they want to do. Stop complaining and put a toy spanner in the hands of your 1 month old daughter instead of a toy barbie (or whatever the hell kids play with these days ).
In a somewhat contradictory way we live in a society that is remarkably open to people who don't want to follow societal norms, so don't let societal norms dictate to you.
I know what discouragement is, I may not be female but I grew up in a working class suburb and went to a crappy school, I had health problems that made me miss more than half my schooling from the age of 5 to 18, I had teachers tell me I needed to lower my sights because I probably wouldn't achieve what I wanted. Feth 'em, now I am a couple of months away from a doctorate in the field I wanted to go in to. I'm sure having a vagina instead of penis isn't going to stop you doing what you want to do unless you let it.
But if you are a woman going in to a stem field, remember no kids while you study, you gotta focus. Also when you get a job, no kids so you can advance your career. But remember, at 30 the risk of defects/abnormalities start to rise. So you gotta get that promotion or start a family. No pressure!
Dreadwinter wrote: But if you are a woman going in to a stem field, remember no kids while you study, you gotta focus. Also when you get a job, no kids so you can advance your career. But remember, at 30 the risk of defects/abnormalities start to rise. So you gotta get that promotion or start a family. No pressure!
Don't forget to date!
People have a finite amount of time. Yep, if you want to get to the top of the pile you may have to make sacrifices like not having kids, or find a partner willing to be a full time carer. How do you think I got my degree with all the health issues I mentioned? That's right, I fething sacrificed.
Instead of bemoaning your uterus, be glad that you have the privilege of being able to choose.
I know if someone chose (not always the best term, but applicable) to work less hours, but still expected the same net sum as someone who worked more, I'd be beyond pissed. I think (hope) that's what AllSeeingSkink is getting at.
It's like the dichotomy at Wimbledon. Both females and males recieve the same payout for singles, but women play for significantly less time then the men do, essentially receiving more for less. That caused a bit of a stir.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I know what discouragement is, I may not be female but I grew up in a working class suburb and went to a crappy school, I had health problems that made me miss more than half my schooling from the age of 5 to 18, I had teachers tell me I needed to lower my sights because I probably wouldn't achieve what I wanted. Feth 'em, now I am a couple of months away from a doctorate in the field I wanted to go in to. I'm sure having a vagina instead of penis isn't going to stop you doing what you want to do unless you let it.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I know what discouragement is, I may not be female but I grew up in a working class suburb and went to a crappy school, I had health problems that made me miss more than half my schooling from the age of 5 to 18, I had teachers tell me I needed to lower my sights because I probably wouldn't achieve what I wanted. Feth 'em, now I am a couple of months away from a doctorate in the field I wanted to go in to. I'm sure having a vagina instead of penis isn't going to stop you doing what you want to do unless you let it.
What do you mean people are facing problems? I am doing just fine! Clearly those problems people are talking about are nonsense, they should just man up and seize their destiny like me!
Because it's a false dichotomy. Pay is wage. Wage is pay. There is no distinction outside of noting that not all pay is wage, some of it is salary, but wage and salary are easily comparable making that distinction pointless.
I know if someone chose (not always the best term, but applicable) to work less hours, but still expected the same net sum as someone who worked more, I'd be beyond pissed.
Virtually every data set I've ever seen restricts itself to people who worked full time (40 hours per week). If two people work the same hours, then it doesn't matter if they're waged or salaried, paid monthly, or weekly. How much they're paid in a given time is easily comparable.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I know what discouragement is, I may not be female but I grew up in a working class suburb and went to a crappy school, I had health problems that made me miss more than half my schooling from the age of 5 to 18, I had teachers tell me I needed to lower my sights because I probably wouldn't achieve what I wanted. Feth 'em, now I am a couple of months away from a doctorate in the field I wanted to go in to. I'm sure having a vagina instead of penis isn't going to stop you doing what you want to do unless you let it.
What do you mean people are facing problems? I am doing just fine! Clearly those problems people are talking about are nonsense, they should just man up and seize their destiny like me!
I love these kinds of arguments, because they always ignore the presumably equal number of working class/ ill/ etc. people who are all of those things as well as being a woman/black/lgbt etc. So they have all your problems, plus a society geared against them.
I mean yes, theoretically everyone can bootstrap, and theoretically every so often my grots will stand up to the landraider tankshocking them.
Because it's a false dichotomy. Pay is wage. Wage is pay. There is no distinction outside of noting that not all pay is wage, some of it is salary, but wage and salary are easily comparable making that distinction pointless.
I know if someone chose (not always the best term, but applicable) to work less hours, but still expected the same net sum as someone who worked more, I'd be beyond pissed.
Virtually every data set I've ever seen restricts itself to people who worked full time (40 hours per week). If two people work the same hours, then it doesn't matter if they're waged or salaried, paid monthly, or weekly. How much they're paid in a given time is easily comparable.
Yes, and Skink was saying that less hours=less pay. Skink presumably had something to back up that women work (generally) less hours and that explains the pay gap..
I was seeing you two post the same thing repeatedly and wondering if I was missing something, which is the only reason I mentioned it.
Yes, and Skink was saying that less hours=less pay. Skink presumably had something to back up that women work (generally) less hours and that explains the pay gap..
I was seeing you two post the same thing repeatedly and wondering if I was missing something, which is the only reason I mentioned it.
Only thing I can point to, based on what reading I have done on the subject, is that due to the societal pressures of being the "stay at home mom" or being "nurse mommy" when kids get sick, women tend to take more sick days. Those sick days, especially if we're talking US jobs, tend to be unpaid sick days. On the other side of the coin, married men who have children have a much higher tendency to work overtime.
Another point I'd like to point out, some of the debunking articles posted in this thread talk about DOL's definition of full time being 35 hours. One has to wonder, if a business is reporting employees as being full time, are they reporting a 35 hour work week, or a 40 hour work week? That would obviously have significant differences between companies. By this I mean that if two hypothetical companies are reporting their information to DOL, or has it collected and these companies are in the same city, they should have somewhat similar wage numbers for equivalent jobs. Major differences could be noted if Quik-Kleen, LLC reports all "full time" staff based on a 35 hour week, while Clean-Rite, Inc. reports it's workers having a 40 hour week. The raw data just isn't going to look the same.
Beyond that, as I saw in the article I mentioned earlier in the thread (still searching for it), some groups, whether they are activists, media out to prove a point or whatever, can go in and fine examples that prove the point they are making that makes the situation look more exaggerated (ie, choosing the same profession in two wildly different cities)
Because it's a false dichotomy. Pay is wage. Wage is pay. There is no distinction outside of noting that not all pay is wage, some of it is salary, but wage and salary are easily comparable making that distinction pointless.
I know if someone chose (not always the best term, but applicable) to work less hours, but still expected the same net sum as someone who worked more, I'd be beyond pissed.
Virtually every data set I've ever seen restricts itself to people who worked full time (40 hours per week). If two people work the same hours, then it doesn't matter if they're waged or salaried, paid monthly, or weekly. How much they're paid in a given time is easily comparable.
Yes, and Skink was saying that less hours=less pay. Skink presumably had something to back up that women work (generally) less hours and that explains the pay gap..
I was seeing you two post the same thing repeatedly and wondering if I was missing something, which is the only reason I mentioned it.
Women tend to work fewer hours (in paid employment) during their lives, because they take career breaks to have children. This is not in dispute, and it's a related issue that is worth discussion.
However it doesn't explain why women's rates of pay tend to be lower than men's. By rate of pay, I mean that if you are a woman lawyer or secretary or dinner lady, there is a tendency for you to be paid less for a day's work than a man in the same or equivalent job. The exact gap of course varies widely depending on the job and the country; there are even some positions where women tend to get paid more than men -- PR for example -- but it's rare.
Overall, though, women tend to be paid less than men. That's why many countries have laws about it, and in those countries, women keep successfully bringing cases against employers for discriminatory working practices.
Here is an interesting article from the BBC about women at work.
@Killkrazy
Yeah, we can see that. It redirects away from .co though. I will confess that I think the piece lacks substance, rather presents a few points and skims on, but I hate dealing with subjectives,
If the rate is actually lower there's a serious problem.
Assuming you define rate as (net earning/hours worked).
Provided that's equal for men and women there is no problem, and (I'm hoping) that that is what Skink is saying, that the rate is the same, its hours worked that's different, thus leading to different net earnings.
Otherwise Skink, you're a less savoury character then I thought.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: One has to wonder, if a business is reporting employees as being full time, are they reporting a 35 hour work week, or a 40 hour work week?
The DoL does not define full-time employment. The only law I know of that does is the ACA, which defines it as averaging 32 hours or more over a pay period. Though the in practice definition of the 40 hours work week is fairly universal in the US across companies.
But the people conducting studies of the wage gap aren't collecting data from the DoL. They collect them from workers themselves, or through the Census which does define full time work as 35 hours or more per week for 50-52 weeks (and collects the info via census forms).
Ensis Ferrae wrote: One has to wonder, if a business is reporting employees as being full time, are they reporting a 35 hour work week, or a 40 hour work week?
The DoL does not define full-time employment. The only law I know of that does is the ACA, which defines it as averaging 32 hours or more over a pay period. Though the in practice definition of the 40 hours work week is fairly universal in the US across companies.
But the people conducting studies of the wage gap aren't collecting data from the DoL. They collect them from workers themselves, or through the Census which does define full time work as 35 hours or more per week for 50-52 weeks (and collects the info via census forms).
Ahh, yeah.. thanks for that. Still, if 2 people are checking the block "full time" there can be some serious differences in the number of hours actually worked, no?
The whole reason its called a "Wage Gap" is because the data is broken down into terms of wage (how much you are paid in an hour, hence hourly wage). How many hours someone works is irrelevant when breaking down what their hourly earnings are. So long as you know how many hours someone worked when doing the conversion, how many they worked total doesn't really matter. A woman working 10 hours less in a week than a man does nothing to explain why her wage (hourly pay) is less.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Even setting aside that still (and I do want to see it) unaccounted for geographic variations in pay rates, women working fewer hours still wouldn't explain why they earn less unless we presume as many in this thread have that women are always the ones running off to take care of kids. A good chunk of the feminist argument is "why are women always the ones taking care of their kids?Kids have dads too. Why should the mother always be the one to sacrifice her career goals?"
LordofHats wrote: The whole reason its called a "Wage Gap" is because the data is broken down into terms of wage (how much you are paid in an hour, hence hourly wage). How many hours someone works is irrelevant when breaking down what their hourly earnings are. So long as you know how many hours someone worked when doing the conversion, how many they worked total doesn't really matter. A woman working 10 hours less in a week than a man does nothing to explain why her wage (hourly pay) is less.
Less promotions/wage raises etc due to working less due to kids?
A good chunk of the feminist argument is "why are women always the ones taking care of their kids?Kids have dads too. Why should the mother always be the one to sacrifice her career goals?"
Well at the infant age it's generally female who's better at taking care of kids(they have natural ability to feed them for starters) so that's logical start. Then kids have habit of attaching themselves to mother so it can be easier for the family itself that the mother keeps taking care of the kid.
Soladrin wrote: So... for everyone here saying there's a gender wage/pay gap.
Why do companies still hire men if they are more expensive?
Those hypothetical companies will not hire only women because their supposed reason for paying them is that they are (EDIT: Perceived as being) less productive in men's jobs.
It isn't a case of "pay them less because they are not men", it is either "women can't work as hard/well/efficiently as men so they get less money" or "women's jobs aren't as important so they get less money".
Soladrin wrote: So... for everyone here saying there's a gender wage/pay gap.
Why do companies still hire men if they are more expensive?
I think it's illegal in just about every western country to pay less based on gender ( or race for that matter ).
I think it's because ultimately, in many cases, it's not even necessarily a conscious thing. You'll have a company that gives out all of it's bonuses for the year, and each one of those bonuses will be weighed up, and the employee evaluated before the amount is set. And in most cases, 'She has a vagina' is not a conscious calculation for lowering the amount.
It's only when you take a step back, and look at who got those bonuses holistically that you realise less women got bonuses than men, and that the sum is generally lower for women. The reason is usually an unconsciously sexist attitude towards women, their value, and their work. Not to say that, 'You just a girl and don't know nothing' doesn't occasionally factor into it, but when it comes to public departments or big corporations, that tends to be why. I could write a thousand sociology papers on what those unconscious perceptions exist, but many other people have done it for me if you wander over to JSTOR.
Soladrin wrote: Why do companies still hire men if they are more expensive?
Because the pay gap is about condescending attitudes towards women. If you see someone as a less-desirable and less-capable employee then you're going to be less likely to hire them, even if a "better" employee would cost more.
