|
As opposed to jobs like receptionist, call centers, retail clerks, or working at home? CNA level nursing. the same article also indicates "Women are excelling academically (earning far more college degrees than men). Given that the economy tends to place a premium on education, we can expect women to contribute (and earn!) more in the future.", which is where a teacher kind of falls more into.
But I think the main point isn't so much how much they pay in comparison to each other as much as how they compare to other jobs, specifically ones that are heavily male or female filled. Most miners/drivers/construction/roofers are male, for example where as more teachers are female. However are there more truck drivers, miners, roofers, etc. . . than there are teachers? Also are you accounting for the fact that teachers get paid higher wages to account for the summer breaks, (though still underpaid in my opinion), and that the others jobs are not taking into account things like late night shifts, where the additional pay is a bonus to the pay rather than incorporated into the base pay, (usually). I also do not believe that teachers get overtime, but rather a set pay, so granted, in your arguments favor, all the extra work they do, both working late and at home is probably likewise not accounted for.
|
|
The argument isn't that women can't advance up the corporate ladder (or that management makes more then employees), there are far fewer women at the top of companies, but thankfully that's slowly changing. The argument is that women in similar management positions earn less then men. Now management is usually a salary position so there's no hourly wage but the number crunchers have tried to explain away the difference at this level by point out things like height and the fact that men are more likely to ask for raises. Size and assertiveness are factors that contribute to higher salaries and they also happen to be male traits. Sure there are short men that make less then tall men, maybe even qualified men making less then their taller peers, but...
Then please explain why a corporation, whose (if we can agree on this) motivation is primarily to make profit, would go out of it's way to spend substantially more money on one group of employees than on another? What rational is there, if the females are willing to do the same work and have the same qualifications and experience, but are willing to work at the same job for less pay would they ever choose men over women, (when the only different factor is that they need to pay the men more)?
If you response is something along the lines of "well the old boy's club/network", that still doesn't jive when women are more intrinsically social, and tend to have much better networking skills in such places. It also doesn't jive with the fact that generally woman in authority positions will generally pick males over females for both subordinate and equal positions, all other things being equal.
As opposed to jobs like receptionist, call centers, retail clerks, or working at home? CNA level nursing. the same article also indicates "Women are excelling academically (earning far more college degrees than men). Given that the economy tends to place a premium on education, we can expect women to contribute (and earn!) more in the future.", which is where a teacher kind of falls more into.
But I think the main point isn't so much how much they pay in comparison to each other as much as how they compare to other jobs, specifically ones that are heavily male or female filled. Most miners/drivers/construction/roofers are male, for example where as more teachers are female. However are there more truck drivers, miners, roofers, etc. . . than there are teachers? Also are you accounting for the fact that teachers get paid higher wages to account for the summer breaks, (though still underpaid in my opinion), and that the others jobs are not taking into account things like late night shifts, where the additional pay is a bonus to the pay rather than incorporated into the base pay, (usually). I also do not believe that teachers get overtime, but rather a set pay, so granted, in your arguments favor, all the extra work they do, both working late and at home is probably likewise not accounted for.
Well, if you're talking to me, I'm not accounting for anything. I'm trying to make sense of Ms. Lukas's article.
And I think what the problem is, and maybe it's because she's a managing director of a non-profit, and maybe it's because she's a writer for Forbes, the Capitalist's Tool is that she doesn't appear to know what a high-paying job for men is.
|
|
If what your saying is in fact true, than yes, they are choosing to work for less. Plus, as the CEO's and other top positions, shouldn't they have some idea of where the corporations money is going without needed to check each other's pay stubs?
You also sort of failed to answer the question, that is assuming that woman in the higher positions are in fact expected to make less, and all other things being equal, what possible motivation would said corporation have to ever pay more to have men in those positions, (getting nothing else in return besides a male rather than a female and less total profit take home)? It doesn't make sense, so there are probably other factors not being considered. Off the top of my head, experience and seniority come to mind, but I honestly don't know.
|
|
Well, if you're talking to me, I'm not accounting for anything. I'm trying to make sense of Ms. Lukas's article.
And I think what the problem is, and maybe it's because she's a managing director of a non-profit, and maybe it's because she's a writer for Forbes, the Capitalist's Tool is that she doesn't appear to know what a high-paying job for men is.
As in, accounting for the or that possibility to better understand what you are having an issue understanding. :)
These jobs that pay a king's ransom nationally, they apparently pay less and less the closer they get to you.Still not getting your point.At one point you were like, woah, Doodlebug, $40k is a lot of money here in WI where we're all dirt poor, and I'm saying those jobs apparently don't pay $40k in WI.
40k is well above the median income here. So...you're agreeing with me?
|
DA,
People tend to hire and respect people who are more like them. Men will tend to think other men are more valuable, more important, better at their jobs, even if they are in fact eqwual. It's not intentioanl, it's a well-known psychological bias. And as most CEOs and board members are men, they'll tend to hire men. It's also why minorities strufggle to break into the board room. They "don't fit in with the culture" as easily.
Women are excelling academically (earning far more college degrees than men). Given that the economy tends to place a premium on education, we can expect women to contribute (and earn!) more in the future.
We do value social science degrees, but we value math, science, and engineering degrees more. So while yes, we do value education, we value the education that the guys are getting more than the education that the women are getting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to speak for Doodlebug, but I believe he's pointing out that, by the time you get promoted (through whatever means) to a high income position, your salary still doesn't match your expenses. M'lord Dice complains about this whenever he totals his ledgers.
Or, he may be saying that one high-earner can throw off the bell-curve. I've asked m'lord Dice about that, but he just laughs and laughs whenever I raise the subject.
What am I saying now, Dicey?
[Smack]
Well, I can't read, So I took your note to m'lord Dice, and asked him to read it. He glanced at at, and then he asked me for his reading glasses. I gave them to him, and he read your note.
And then he said ,"The line is, How you like me now?" and hit me with his shoe, again and again, and then yet again. And now I'm down in the scullery, scrubbing out pots and pans. I don't even know what I did, but take it from this goblin: Literacy hurts!
Has anyone here read Uncharted Territory by Connie Willis? It's a very short book that seems relevant to the last four posts.
gaming/video games, where the vast majority of the population that buys is male, trying to insinuate the agenda that she does is generally perceived (rightly or wrongly, or both) as an attempt to outright ruin one of the last bastions of escapism, check your PC BS at the door and chillax a lot of people have or want.
You don't go to a party and than throw a fit till everyone else changes the music for you, you go and enjoy what everyone else is grooving to, or you go to another party.
I just want to clarify.
Are you arguing for keeping sexism in games right there?
If not, single sentence restatement of intent would be helpful.
I'm simply making an observation on why individuals like Anita and the idea that video games and gaming being full of womyn hatezes is not universally agreed upon, and even if it is acknowledged as sexist, generally taken as going both ways. I'm not in any way making a personal opinion.
To me, the closest argument that would make sense is to take something that women do much more than men, and do to relax and get away from the world that is bugging them, (work, dealing with other people, whatever). Running on little sleep and just waking up, the first thing that comes to mind is social interactions. So to make things like facebook and texting more "man friendly", a similar push would be along the lines of, hey lets put some more sexual/attractive images into facebook, and maybe add some sound affects of dice rolling, famous action movie quotes, and maybe some guns shot sounds, and lets built it in directly so it can't be turned off, but rather change the way the basic social interaction programs work.
How well do you think that would be received, (regardless of if it's a good r bad, or even both idea), buy the (for the sake of argument much more female-centric current users), who go there for an escape from the real world.
I'm not terribly interested in trying to create hypotheticals. I'd rather talk about what is actually going on.
Anita Sarkeesian is producing a series of videos about sexism in games.
What is the counter argument precisely?
1) She's mistaken?
2) Because she's a woman, she has no business telling men what they can enjoy?
3) a third unnamed option I'm unaware of?
|
|
If what your saying is in fact true, than yes, they are choosing to work for less. Plus, as the CEO's and other top positions, shouldn't they have some idea of where the corporations money is going without needed to check each other's pay stubs?
You also sort of failed to answer the question, that is assuming that woman in the higher positions are in fact expected to make less, and all other things being equal, what possible motivation would said corporation have to ever pay more to have men in those positions, (getting nothing else in return besides a male rather than a female and less total profit take home)? It doesn't make sense, so there are probably other factors not being considered. Off the top of my head, experience and seniority come to mind, but I honestly don't know.
You seem to be assuming that corporate hiring policies are rational and that if men are being paid more they must be worth more because they are being paid more.
Which is circular.Why would they pay more to have men in those positions? Because the people doing the hiring believe that men are worth more. And that men are more in demand and therefore they must offer more.
I think we are talking about two completely different things, and your completely missing the point Im making. Im simply showing how illogical it is to assume that if females make less in executive positions that it is directly related to them being female, or that the other potentual factors involved dont count. IF a woman is paid less for the same exact job (all other factors being equal between her and the next guy) AND said company understands that they can pay a man 10 dollars rather than 5 dollars to do the exact same thing and get the same result, what possible motivation would they have to pay extra money to get the man?
They dont, and no company would be able to thrive if that was their position against other competition who didn't. Get it now?
So that leaves us with one or both of those "ifs" needing to be false. Either the woman is not as qualified or the company does not expect to pay more for the same end result, which means that the man probably does extra to earn said extra money.
Women are excelling academically (earning far more college degrees than men). Given that the economy tends to place a premium on education, we can expect women to contribute (and earn!) more in the future.We do value social science degrees, but we value math, science, and engineering degrees more. So while yes, we do value education, we value the education that the guys are getting more than the education that the women are getting.
Getting by choice.
Also time and effort aren't the same thing. Doing Laundry or mopping the floor isn't nearly as hard as mowing the lawn.Of my friends and relatives that own homes, none of them consider the stuff they do outside housework because it is recreational. My friend Dennis, for example, fixes cars as a hobby so working for 14+ hours over a weekend to fix his or his wife's car is like an opportunity to work on a project. Same with gardening.
My dad is the same way. He elects to do almost all the "yard work" which includes tending multiple gardens and about an acre of prairie because by hobby and by profession he's a botanist/horticulturalist whereas his wife is a financial planner.
I don't mean this to disagree with you, IT, just in answer to your question.
Would you consider cooking a household chore?
Would you consider cooking a household chore?Also time and effort aren't the same thing. Doing Laundry or mopping the floor isn't nearly as hard as mowing the lawn.Of my friends and relatives that own homes, none of them consider the stuff they do outside housework because it is recreational. My friend Dennis, for example, fixes cars as a hobby so working for 14+ hours over a weekend to fix his or his wife's car is like an opportunity to work on a project. Same with gardening.
My dad is the same way. He elects to do almost all the "yard work" which includes tending multiple gardens and about an acre of prairie because by hobby and by profession he's a botanist/horticulturalist whereas his wife is a financial planner.
I don't mean this to disagree with you, IT, just in answer to your question.
Not if it's a dude in a five-star restaurant. :P
That's paid labor.
|
|
I'm not terribly interested in trying...gaming/video games, where the vast majority of the population that buys is male, trying to insinuate the agenda that she does is generally perceived (rightly or wrongly, or both) as an attempt to outright ruin one of the last bastions of escapism, check your PC BS at the door and chillax a lot of people have or want.
You don't go to a party and than throw a fit till everyone else changes the music for you, you go and enjoy what everyone else is grooving to, or you go to another party.
I just want to clarify.
Are you arguing for keeping sexism in games right there?
If not, single sentence restatement of intent would be helpful.
I'm simply making an observation on why individuals like Anita and the idea that video games and gaming being full of womyn hatezes is not universally agreed upon, and even if it is acknowledged as sexist, generally taken as going both ways. I'm not in any way making a personal opinion.
To me, the closest argument that would make sense is to take something that women do much more than men, and do to relax and get away from the world that is bugging them, (work, dealing with other people, whatever). Running on little sleep and just waking up, the first thing that comes to mind is social interactions. So to make things like facebook and texting more "man friendly", a similar push would be along the lines of, hey lets put some more sexual/attractive images into facebook, and maybe add some sound affects of dice rolling, famous action movie quotes, and maybe some guns shot sounds, and lets built it in directly so it can't be turned off, but rather change the way the basic social interaction programs work.
How well do you think that would be received, (regardless of if it's a good r bad, or even both idea), buy the (for the sake of argument much more female-centric current users), who go there for an escape from the real world.
As I mentioned Im not trying to argue anything. Just trying to explain "the other side" of why there is a rather large backlash against her and that point of view. If that can not be fixed, then there is indeed little point in talking further about the topic, and its going to take more than "dont worry thats not how it really is" or dismissive lists that really only show the lack of understanding of both sides.
40k is well above the median income here. So...you're agreeing with me?These jobs that pay a king's ransom nationally, they apparently pay less and less the closer they get to you.Still not getting your point.At one point you were like, woah, Doodlebug, $40k is a lot of money here in WI where we're all dirt poor, and I'm saying those jobs apparently don't pay $40k in WI.
Well, before I try to belabor the point I was trying to make that the jobs we were discussing pay less in Wisconsin then the national median stats I linked to that started this part of the discussion...
What's the difference between median income and median household income?
Because I get Wisconsin's median household income at above $40k.
That's paid labor.
I'm saying, a dude who cooks in a five star restaurant, that's a chef, and that thar is salaried labor. Going by my experience, though, the paycheck isn't worth the stress.
|
|
@ Guy True but at the same time whats the likely outcome of spending outside of your means or needs? How about with someone elses money and when said choice will directly affect your own job efficiency. Still just doesnt hold water.
You keep saying circular logic, but I think that you are following the circular logic to avoid seeing the example just doesnt work that way.
Men take more jobs that may endanger their physical health than women, such jobs pay more to act as incentive. Men tend to work more extra hours than women.
If women are not allowed to get promotions just because they're women when they deserve them then that's unfair.
But I don't think they is an actual wage gap. The problems are in another direction.
Median household income includes those households where more than one person works.
Yeah, that's what I figured.
It's hard to get stats for median income as opposed to median household incomes.
Anyway, these are interesting articles.
I'm glad I spent the day reading them and having mutually un-understandable conversations with Comrade Meatrace about the price of tea in Wisconsin.
Some "Gender Pay Gap Is Real!" articles to compare:
Center for American Progress--What Causes the Gender Wage Gap?
Joan Williams in HuffPo taking aim at the Fox article above
The AAUW study Somers cites, even though I can't find what she's citing
|
|
You keep saying circular logic, but I think that you are following the circular logic to avoid seeing the example just doesnt work that way.What keeps it from working that way?
What is your argument other than "Men must be worth more because they're paid more"?
Is it just faith that the market would weed out the the inefficiencies?
I've seen far too much of the corporate world to have any faith in that. There are always far too many factors affecting corporate success or failure to say that any one thing would get weeded out.Besides the same argument could have been made about the status quo 10 years ago. Or 20. Or 50. Obviously the way things are now is the most efficient. If it wasn't the inefficient companies would have been swept away. Women are fit for nothing but secretaries. If they could do more, the market would have rewarded it and they would already be there.
That seems to be what you are arguing, not I. I am not at all saying that men are worth more because they are paid higher, I am saying that IF they are actually paid higher, and IF they are also paid higher for doing the exact same job, having the same experience, and having the same time in company/position/rank, IF both a and b are true, then it is because of some other factor not being taken into accounted, because the end result is that companies are simply paying higher process for the same exact result they would have gotten if they paid cheaper. And that makes no sense in a business/economic sense.
Now if YOU want to argue your case on why woman are only fit for secretaries, go ahead, but that is not something I am talking about at all, and ardently do not agree with.
Except that wages actually are going down overall...
|
|
Some "Gender Pay Gap Is Real!" articles to compare:Center for American Progress--What Causes the Gender Wage Gap?
Anyone else catch that (6.7 + 41.1 + 27.4 + 21.9 + 10.5 + 3.5 for the win + 2.4) comes out to 113.5%? Additionally, all it's really saying is that there is roughy (40?%) that thye specifically consider undefined difference in the median wage gap. It's not saying that the 40% is false or non-existent, only that they don't have a category for it, (which thankfully others have already done for them). It really doesn't prove or disprove anything in relation to the others, (though it does kind of make them look, well dumb, in my opinion).
Joan Williams in HuffPo taking aim at the Fox article above
I'm not entirely sure what the writers goal here is supposed to be? Those in charge of hiring should be forced even further to pick an undesirable individual (based on the needs of the job and the need to make money by running smoothly) over an individual that is clearly better for the position? Should this likewise apply to individuals that made the choice with constraints to go to jail, ruin their credit, and the like? Not trying to be harsh, but I just don't get it. Why should a potential employer be required to pay more and get less because an individual decided to make a choice that they should know would make things like working more difficult?
The AAUW study Somers cites, even though I can't find what she's citing
I'll give this one a chance before commenting, I haven't read it yet. It seems to just burst with propaganda from what it looks, but that's just first impression.
|
|
So you're suggesting that companies would take the cheapest staff they could manage are you? That doesn't happen now so why would it happen in a world where everyone knew and understood that women made less then men and women accepted that? Because right now we assume men and women should be paid the same and yet the salaries management makes is going up, surely if business always hired qualified people that were willing to work for less salaries would be lowering. The problem is your premise that business would only hire someone willing to work for a lower salary is wrong.
Not if companies know that they can hire a woman for less and get the same result, no it isn't.
No, I don't assume that woman make less, because the evidence shows that they don't, or that when they do there are good reasons for it that has 0%, (none, zero, nil, etc. . .) to do with gender discrimination and is purely based on their own personal choices preventing them from earing more when they could. The fact of the matter is, that it is mostly females (in HR) that decide who gets hired and who does not for most jobs, not men. With that in mind, as you said, people are going to subconsciously discriminate against the opposite gender, but wait. That would again mean that, shock, . . . aw . . . women are then hiring more men for purely sexist reasons, (in other words specifically doing what they are supposedly arguing against, right or is it okay when a woman does it?)
I would imagine for the same reason that 2009 Department of Labor study keeps showing up in 2012/2013 articles--because it supports the author's argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting:
I searched for "gender pay gap" in all of my favorite hard-line left websites, and it wasn't mentioned that often. And when it was, it was mostly talking about executive or managerial positions. Lilly Ledbetter, for example, was a Goodyear supe.
Among more blue-collar positions, it seems that, based on the articles that I have read over the last 24 hours, indeed, when men and women perform the same job functions, they get paid the same amount of money (which makes sense, historically, because I believe the tendency has always been that there is more pronounced gender equality among the lower classes; not to mention the past 50 years of legislation), and that most of the gender pay gap results from "men's jobs", for whatever reason, paying more than "women's jobs."
And, to be honest, I don't see how you're going to fix that under capitalism. The Fair Paycheck Act, or whatever it is, that all the conservatives are railing against, doesn't seem to mandate much except closing one of the "loopholes" in the 1963 Equal Pay Act, which, it doesn't appear, would even address most of the reasons for the pay gap.
Back in the seventies, when second-wave feminism was a hell of a lot more inspired by Marxism, they had a program to overcome this: paid maternity leave, free state-provided childcare, pay for housework, etc. All these things, of course, are never going to be proposed, never mind instituted, in austerity-minded 2013 America.
Short of that, it leaves the right and the "left" arguing about the gender pay gap among yuppies and corporate executives. Which is bad, but seems to pale in comparison between the pay gap between, say, the corporate masters and mistresses of this country and their proletarian peons, male and female.
Anyone down for women's liberation through international proletarian socialist revolution?
Pay for housework? Oh hell no. If you need to be able to find your floor thats your own business. ooo cookie...