Topic: Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn. - page 3. (Read 6892 times)

Says the person who doesn't have to choose between having a career and having a family.

The entire point here is that women have these costs to their ability to be successful in their career and are forced to make these expensive tradeoffs that many men don't have to. It represents a mathematical disadvantage to women in the work place, compounded by our cultural perceptions that it should be women who handle the bulk of unpaid domestic work as well.

You are not framing the issue correctly. It should be phrased "given the option of me punching you in the face, or me not punching you but giving you the perception that I did, which would you pick?" And you're not Hobson and this isn't a horse we are talking about.

Of course it can, which makes women naturally disadvantaged and leads to the exact scenario that I pointed out above and to a culture where we have a very real wage gap between genders as a result.

When men get equality in child raising, which means they need to have boobs and a uterus and the ability to get pregnant, then women will get equality in the workplace. Until then I guess we just have to accept that we are different.

Just because women on average earn less, doesn't mean a particular woman will earn less if she does the same as a man - it just means women are a bit more likely to have family commitments which reduce the commitment they can put into a job (or want to put into a job).

In most other cultures historically speaking when that is done the baby is taken with them directly to work, and I would also point out that it wasn't exactly healthy for the mothers and children. Developing economies generally aren't bastions of child and maternal health.

then dont have a baby if you cant afford it but dont want to miss out on career, god damn it. giving in to peer pressure and then bitching and blaming instead of taking responsibility for your action.
almost every woman i know wants to have babies just because other women do, although she has no fucking career or any idea what she would do to provide a decent life for them. worse, some of them were still in the ages where they haven't finished being children themselves (16-24), still living at home, yet they keep talking about having baby NOW as if it was like getting a doll from the store.

I think you are making my point. There is no substitute for "being there," whether at work or on the home front. That's why people who have breaks in their careers, for whatever reason, have a harder time advancing and make less money. Think of it like Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours requirement. If you miss a substantial amount of work, which is roughly equated with experience, you are worth less to most employers.

If someone chooses to take parental leave--paid or unpaid--and loses out on experience, there is always a penalty. If you leave work early on a regular basis or are otherwise not available because of family obligations, there is a penalty, just the same as if you work too much, there is a penalty with your family. Society makes women more likely to incur the penalties because of expectations for women. But it's not a particular institution that is creating the problem. There are women who forego families or at least the majority of the day to day of family life and, I'm willing to bet, their careers and salaries end up comparable to men with like experience.

Short of employers or the law treating men and women differently, there is no way to correct this other than a remodeling of societal expectations, which are hard-coded into our culture, if not our DNA. I, for one, do not want to see the law treat people differently based on race or gender or any other immutable characteristic, so I am opposed to anything that would attempt to level the playing field, especially since negative side effects are very tough to gauge.

As to your last point, I would just say that men and women are and should be equal, but they are not interchangeable. There are certain tasks and jobs that men are better suited to, just as there are some that women are better suited to. That said, I am opposed to any discrimination that does not have a basis in merit.

Hmm.

So given the option of me punching you in the face, or me not punching you but giving everyone the perception that I did, which would you pick?

In basically every other culture (including America before we moved to the cities), it's normal for a woman to have a kid then go back to working almost immediately. I completely understand the idea of BOTH parents taking time off just because they would be so frazzled from lack of sleep that they wouldn't make good workers, but you have to know that missing work for that long of a period will affect your job.

Got any proof on that, because I'm postive they skew it to make it look horrible.

Those aren't equivalent scenarios. The man is expected to come back into work pretty much ASAP and he has significant freedom of choice to do so (generally speaking).

The woman in your scenario on the other hand essentially has to choose between both her health and the health of her child / having a family vs getting ahead at work.

While males can face those choices too, they are MUCH more common and on average MUCH more impactful (negatively in the work sphere) on females. The cost of going into work is far different for each of your two examples as is the cost of staying home.

I'd also argue that simple blatant discrimination would also be worse than the costs of those choices that you presented. Your scenario with blatant discrimination wouldn't even exist because the woman wouldn't be able to get ahead in the job regardless of whether or not she went in the day after giving birth or stayed at home for a couple of months. Which still leaves your previous assertion rendered false.

If I had two exact resumes in front of me. One a woman asking for $770 for the project and one a man asking for $1,000 I would hire the woman.

So...does that mean that unemployment is higher for men?

If I have a project that requires programming and an American and an Indian apply for it. I check both of their work. If they are both the same I would hire the American. Not for any patriotic reason but because I have found that Americans tend to work to achieve what you want...not what you ask. If you know what I mean. I am speaking of programming here.

However, more often than not the Indian is about half the price of the American so I go with the cheaper rate.

In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.

Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?

Women are genetically more nurturing than men. Why wouldn't they tend to chose fields of study more akin to their genetic disposition? Very little income disparity exist in fields where men and women are performing the same job, with the same level of expertize. Income disparity between sexes is such a 70's thing.

I only have an outsider's perspective, but I notice in some of my female and minority colleagues a defeatist and attributionist attitude. They tend to attribute any slight (some of them perceived, some of them real) or any failure to external factors--the boss is racist or sexist, or the system is. This shields them from having to take any responsibility for their shortcomings.

They're just not going to be able to articulate the plights of others quite as well as those on the shitty end of the social inequalities, and calling all social equality movements "feminism" also waters down the various movements to an extent.

There are obviously other aspects that are positive about third-wave feminism, but it's the absorbing of other equal rights movements that I find to be problematic.

Engineers, Scientists, CPAs, Investors, etc... all sit on the right side of the income curve. Just because women are getting more degrees doesn't mean it will remove income disparity. Income disparity will only be leveled by having more women pursuing the aforementioned fields instead of going to school to work in primary education or just because their parents said they had to (most 4 year business degrees have been described as high school 2.0).

Then there is the argument that true income equality still has women on the slightly lower side because of the fact that they play a necessary biological role which anchors stable family life.

Two guys are drinking at a bar. The first says "Do you ever start thinking about something, and when you go to talk, you say something you dont mean?" The Second guy says "Yeah, I was at the airport buying plane tickets, and the chick behind the counter had these huge tits, and instead of asking her for two tickets to Pittsburgh I asked for two tickets to Titsburgh. The First guy says, "Yeah, well I was having breakfast with my wife last week, and instead of saying Honey can you please pass me the sugar?, I said Youve ruined my life you F..... Bitch....!

Ahh, I see. I didn't realize that #YesAllMen was being used by feminists. I figured it was probably being used by men to try to counter the #YesAllWomen activism.

For the most part I have very little appreciation for third-wave feminism. I don't think it will end well when equal rights movements that address racism, homophobia, ageism, heightism, men's rights, etc. are co-opted and bundled under the "feminism" umbrella. I mean, I can sympathize with the notion that feminism has more political clout, and I think they often mean well, but putting feminists in charge of handling all social injustices is the same as having old rich white men in charge of it.

It depends on what you mean for "freaks". A freak is anyone that in the context of a particular culture is considered deviant or just unusual. If "deviant" it's more probably devalued than "unusual".
 It has nothing to do with an alleged objective way to be a freak (it's just don't exist). You couldn't know my point of view just by a post (you are probably too ignorant in philosophy and have probably frequented too few places and kind of people to imagine my point of view on culture and society; I hope not to be offensive but the average american is a bit ignorant about the world and what is thought and has been thought..)


I'm not a reactionary, neoreactionary or conservative anyway. Nor white XD