Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/05 12:00:45
I don't think a video of Shia LaBeouf will add the emphasis you want...
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 12:12:52
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.
That's my read at Skinks statements, anyways.
My $0.02, which since 1992 has rounded to nothing. Take with salt.
Elysian Drop Troops, Dark Angels, 30K
Mercenaries, Retribution
Ten Thunders, Neverborn
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.
Eh, needs more bootstraps.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/05 19:58:55
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.
Why must I always choose beween certain death and probable death.
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.
My $0.02, which since 1992 has rounded to nothing. Take with salt.
Elysian Drop Troops, Dark Angels, 30K
Mercenaries, Retribution
Ten Thunders, Neverborn
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/06 09:19:05
My $0.02, which since 1992 has rounded to nothing. Take with salt.
Elysian Drop Troops, Dark Angels, 30K
Mercenaries, Retribution
Ten Thunders, Neverborn
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).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/06 16:02:42
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?"
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/06 17:30:50
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".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/07 18:55:24
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.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
If you have a better motivational video I can edit it 
Elysian Drop Troops, 
Dark Angels, 30K
