Tinordi - Take a break from your high horse and read what he said. He's speaking from experience in his family and his profession that he sees great strength and empowerment with the women in his day to day life. Take a second from your stomping around and appreciate that he's giving us a positive example of strong women in his life and sharing that story with us.
He's trying to show us that there is progress being made, in his view, and we should embrace that and not immediately sh*t on it with "but this and that and imbalance and systemic"
Holy shmoly.
+1.
Viewing women simply as victims in a society where they have zero control only helps perpetuate the myth that only men can save them. There needs to be a balance.
Exiled: I think the "problem" with the examples you are using is that those are extremely educated women in professions who are likely of a socio-economic status that allows them to overcome some of the obstacles they face in every day life. I suspect the wage gap for unskilled or low-skilled labour is greater than 23 cents.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to corporatejay For This Useful Post:
In your world women are victims who are oppressed by men everyday. In your world we should feel sorry for women because they don't have the same opportunities as men and are second class citizens.
What are you talking about? Are you talking to me? I was talking about the gender wage gap not about victims. Get off your soap box.
Viewing women simply as victims in a society where they have zero control only helps perpetuate the myth that only men can save them. There needs to be a balance.
Exiled: I think the "problem" with the examples you are using is that those are extremely educated women in professions who are likely of a socio-economic status that allows them to overcome some of the obstacles they face in every day life. I suspect the wage gap for unskilled or low-skilled labour is greater than 23 cents.
Actually a better example than doctors, etc., are female professors at universities, who on average earn about 80% of what male professors do when taking into consideration equal tenure, status, etc.
The pay gap has barely budged in a decade.
In 2013, among full-time, year-round workers, women were paid 78 percent of what men were paid.
Women in every state experience the pay gap, but some states are worse than others.
The best place in the United States for pay equity is Washington, D.C., where women were paid 91 percent of what men were paid in 2013. At the other end of the spectrum is Louisiana, the worst state in the country for pay equity, where women were paid just 66 percent of what men were paid.
The pay gap is worse for women of color.
The gender pay gap affects all women, but for women of color the pay shortfall is worse. Asian American women’s salaries show the smallest gender pay gap, at 90 percent of white men’s earnings. Hispanic women’s salaries show the largest gap, at 54 percent of white men’s earnings. White men are used as a benchmark because they make up the largest demographic group in the labor force.
Women face a pay gap in nearly every occupation.
From elementary and middle school teachers to computer programmers, women are paid less than men in female-dominated, gender-balanced, and male-dominated occupations.
The pay gap grows with age.
Women typically earn about 90 percent of what men are paid until they hit 35. After that median earnings for women are typically 75–80 percent of what men are paid.
While more education is an effective tool for increasing earnings, it is not an effective tool against the gender pay gap.
At every level of academic achievement, women’s median earnings are less than men’s earnings, and in some cases, the gender pay gap is larger at higher levels of education. While education helps everyone, black and Hispanic women earn less than their white and Asian peers do, even when they have the same educational credentials.
The pay gap also exists among women without children.
AAUW’s Graduating to a Pay Gap found that among full-time workers one year after college graduation — nearly all of whom were childless — women were paid just 82 percent of what their male counterparts were paid.
Last edited by rubecube; 09-25-2014 at 11:23 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Actually a better example than doctors, etc., are female professors at universities, who on average earn about 80% of what male professors do when taking into consideration equal tenure, status, etc.
Actually a better example than doctors, etc., are female professors at universities, who on average earn about 80% of what male professors do when taking into consideration equal tenure, status, etc.
Rube, I would point out your study is US based. I would almost bet if the same study were done in Canada, the numbers would be much closer. We are far more progressive than backwater USA.
Also, I would be very curious how paternity leave factors into the numbers, and also seniority. Because many times women will run out their paternity leave, then opt to be laid off and take more time. Then start with another company and lose any seniority based pay incentives they accrued. Someone isn't realistically going to go from company A as a senior staff member, to company B at the bottom of the totem pole, and expect the same compensation.
Rube, I would point out your study is US based. I would almost bet if the same study were done in Canada, the numbers would be much closer. We are far more progressive than backwater USA.
.
The last couple of days would seem to suggest we are not that progressive.......
The new Statistics Canada research paper, entitled The Evolution of Canadian Wages over the Last Three Decades, includes a chapter on changes in the male-female wage gap between 1981 and 2011. The authors report that women's median hourly wages, which grew more than those of men during the last three decades, were 87% of those of men in 2011, compared to just 77% in 1981. The chapter also analyzes some of the reasons behind the relative gains in women's wages. For example, women are staying in their jobs longer. In 2011, women's average time in a job with the same employer was the same as that of men, compared to 1981 when women's average level of job tenure was only 74% of that of men.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
I really don't understand where the wage gap comes from when talking about similar jobs with similar experience. I'm not disputing it's there, as many studies have shown it is, but HOW? No mid to large-sized company I have ever worked for has had other than a fixed pay scale based on your tenure, performance, and negotiated starting wage. Where does the gap start - are women willing to accept less money to start with, and never catch up? Are performance reviews tougher on women than men? Do women tend to stay at the same job for shorter times than men?
I personally managed around 8-12 people over a few years, and it's certainly true that the average man working for us made more than the average woman. The men also had more experience and more education, though, and generally occupied the senior positions on that basis, and not because of discrimination, or so I like to tell myself (and maybe I'm fooling myself, too).
The men were also more inclined to push for raises when they felt they were deserved, but again, that might just be because they were generally more experienced in the field and therefore more aware of the true value of their work. Or are men just generally more willing to push for more money, due to inherent aggressiveness, or socialization, or...
Like all anecdotal evidence, my experiences don't prove anything, but I wonder if there have been studies that go a little deeper into WHY the gap exists, and not with vague and useless terms like "systemic discrimination of the patriarchal society", which is a description and not an explanation. Of course, it's a difficult subject fraught with ideological traps, so perhaps it's easier just to keep proving the problem exists instead of digging into what it really consists of.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
I really don't understand where the wage gap comes from when talking about similar jobs with similar experience. I'm not disputing it's there, as many studies have shown it is, but HOW? No mid to large-sized company I have ever worked for has had other than a fixed pay scale based on your tenure, performance, and negotiated starting wage. Where does the gap start - are women willing to accept less money to start with, and never catch up? Are performance reviews tougher on women than men? Do women tend to stay at the same job for shorter times than men?
I personally managed around 8-12 people over a few years, and it's certainly true that the average man working for us made more than the average woman. The men also had more experience and more education, though, and generally occupied the senior positions on that basis, and not because of discrimination, or so I like to tell myself (and maybe I'm fooling myself, too).
The men were also more inclined to push for raises when they felt they were deserved, but again, that might just be because they were generally more experienced in the field and therefore more aware of the true value of their work. Or are men just generally more willing to push for more money, due to inherent aggressiveness, or socialization, or...
Like all anecdotal evidence, my experiences don't prove anything, but I wonder if there have been studies that go a little deeper into WHY the gap exists, and not with vague and useless terms like "systemic discrimination of the patriarchal society", which is a description and not an explanation. Of course, it's a difficult subject fraught with ideological traps, so perhaps it's easier just to keep proving the problem exists instead of digging into what it really consists of.
I can't seem to find the study about it, but I read a paper that mentioned that at least with regards to job applications--in general, if a man fulfills something like 50% of the requirements of the job description, he will apply for it. Women in general will only apply if they fulfill something like 80-90% of the requirements. Which probably speaks to the idea of men being naturally more aggressive, and having that aggression rewarded--rather than women, who in general are taught to not be aggressive. And I don't mean aggression in a violent way, just an assertive one.
Women who are assertive and confident and aggressive are often spoken of as bossy, bitchy, or pushy. Men who are assertive and confident are 'go getters' and 'natural leaders.'
It's all in the little subtle things like that where sexism shows. It's rarely outright or purposeful. Usually it's just these little things that flow under the surface for all of us, it's just the way we've been conditioned to think. It's not that each little thing that shows up is all that hurtful in and of itself, but when each of those little things builds up on top of all the other little things--as well as the occasional really ugly big thing--that's when it causes problems.
The Following User Says Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
I really don't understand where the wage gap comes from when talking about similar jobs with similar experience. I'm not disputing it's there, as many studies have shown it is, but HOW? No mid to large-sized company I have ever worked for has had other than a fixed pay scale based on your tenure, performance, and negotiated starting wage. Where does the gap start - are women willing to accept less money to start with, and never catch up? Are performance reviews tougher on women than men? Do women tend to stay at the same job for shorter times than men?
I was wondering about this too, and I think you may well be right in terms of women starting behind and never catching up (based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, unfortunately).
Take myself, for example. When I entered the workforce, it never crossed my mind that I could (or should!) negotiate my salary. As I moved up in the organization (a highly unionized environment), I was restricted in terms of how much my salary could increase based on the things you identified - fixed steps, etc. - so that initial salary really 'set' my salary for many, many years (until I decided to leave that organization).
Is that willingness to negotiate related to gender and/or sex? I'm not sure. In my case, though, starting out behind certainly would have meant that I showed up behind my male counterparts in any given survey of comparative salaries, if they had negotiated and I hadn't.
The Following User Says Thank You to maverickstruth For This Useful Post:
I can't seem to find the study about it, but I read a paper that mentioned that at least with regards to job applications--in general, if a man fulfills something like 50% of the requirements of the job description, he will apply for it. Women in general will only apply if they fulfill something like 80-90% of the requirements. Which probably speaks to the idea of men being naturally more aggressive, and having that aggression rewarded--rather than women, who in general are taught to not be aggressive. And I don't mean aggression in a violent way, just an assertive one.
Women who are assertive and confident and aggressive are often spoken of as bossy, bitchy, or pushy. Men who are assertive and confident are 'go getters' and 'natural leaders.'
It's all in the little subtle things like that where sexism shows. It's rarely outright or purposeful. Usually it's just these little things that flow under the surface for all of us, it's just the way we've been conditioned to think. It's not that each little thing that shows up is all that hurtful in and of itself, but when each of those little things builds up on top of all the other little things--as well as the occasional really ugly big thing--that's when it causes problems.
The best Boss I've had was female and she was assertive, confident, and in no way bitchy. The second best was also a woman and the third best was a man.
I've also had many bosses of both sexes who were ###holes that tried to hard to seem confident, assertive (aggressive), used fear tactics... They exist in both sexes.
You keep re-selling this crap that you yourself have bought.
The best Boss I've had was female and she was assertive, confident, and in no way bitchy. The second best was also a woman and the third best was a man.
I've also had many bosses of both sexes who were ###holes that tried to hard to seem confident, assertive (aggressive), used fear tactics... They exist in both sexes.
You keep re-selling this crap that you yourself have bought.
I'm just stating that I'm bowing out of this particular argument, solely because you aren't actually looking for discussion. Your opinion isn't going to change, and I'm just the man-hating feminist killjoy in the equation. So please, feel free to keep believing that feminists are just oversensitive harpies, because nothing I say, no data that I link to, no studies that I show are going to convince you that the real world is a whole lot different a place for women than it is for men.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest
You keep re-selling this crap that you yourself have bought.
We almost started having a civilized, rational discussion, but thanks for stepping in and yet again polarizing the discussion and taking it back to emotionally-based invective and accusations.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverickstruth
Take myself, for example. When I entered the workforce, it never crossed my mind that I could (or should!) negotiate my salary. As I moved up in the organization (a highly unionized environment), I was restricted in terms of how much my salary could increase based on the things you identified - fixed steps, etc. - so that initial salary really 'set' my salary for many, many years (until I decided to leave that organization)..
I know a lot of people, men and women, who would never even consider counter-offering a company's proposal when looking for a job, including people that I have specifically advised, when asked if a job offer seemed good, to do so. I think much of it depends upon how you view a job - if you think the company is doing you a favour by hiring you, because you NEED a job, you are unlikely to negotiate, whereas if you have the attitude that you're doing them a favour by adding your value to their benighted, unorganized chaos, you feel no compunction in asking them to pay for the privilege.
I think, in this scenario, a sense of entitlement is actually a bonus. As a tall, white male, I just expect I'm worth a lot of money to hire, and am confident that if I need a job, I won't be long in finding one. (And I'm only half-kidding - if you've never had trouble finding jobs, you assume you never will, and I'm sure having the trifecta of good birth luck has contributed in some part to developing that attitude). If I was, instead, a short black immigrant woman desperate to find *any* job, and with a history of rejection, I doubt I'd be as insouciant and blase about negotiating offers.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
I'm just stating that I'm bowing out of this particular argument, solely because you aren't actually looking for discussion. Your opinion isn't going to change.
My opinion isn't going to change because the words you offer are one sided that lack empathy and understanding towards both sexes. You continuously peddle the notion that life is just really really hard for women. It's hard for everyone.
I'd love (sarcasm) to share my story on an internet forum so people can understand the crap I've been put through. I'll give you a hint though - One of the people in the party is Man Hating Lesbian Feminist. I HATED Lesbian's because of her and her hatefull discriminatory words and actions. Then I met a group of cool down to earth Lesbians and I thanked them profusely for our relationship because it brought back something that I thought had died in me.
That's about as deep as I'll go in that subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
I'm just the man-hating feminist killjoy in the equation.
Actually I don't. Those are your words. However, those people do exist and I've had the "good fortune" to meet them and experience their hate front on.
I get the feeling that you are a normal woman who believes something that I do not. Like a Christian to an Atheist. I do think that you negative views cause you to believe that is true however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wittynickname
So please, feel free to keep believing that feminists are just oversensitive harpies, because nothing I say, no data that I link to, no studies that I show are going to convince you that the real world is a whole lot different a place for women than it is for men.
I'd love to see who made the studies, who funded the studies and who made them just about women... Feminism is a BIG business in North America. Just like the "feeding of the African kids" charities that really just pad the wallets of the wealthy. They pray on emotion.
We almost started having a civilized, rational discussion, but thanks for stepping in and yet again polarizing the discussion and taking it back to emotionally-based invective and accusations.
Oh please - I highlighted witty's emotionally-based invective and accusations. So it isn't just me.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest
Oh please - I highlighted witty's emotionally-based invective and accusations. So it isn't just me.
Ah, the "she did it too!" defence. Did it occur to you that you're not going to build a dialogue by focusing on the negative? That you could rise above what *you* see as provocation (and I don't agree) and let the topic change for the better?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
Ah, the "she did it too!" defence. Did it occur to you that you're not going to build a dialogue by focusing on the negative? That you could rise above what *you* see as provocation (and I don't agree) and let the topic change for the better?
Oh stop.
Does it occur to you that it is an incredibly sensitive subject for some and because of that it is actually very difficult for them to discuss. No, I don't think it does occur to you (prerequisite - empathy). You just want to belittle them.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest
Does it occur to you that it is an incredibly sensitive subject for some and because of that it is actually very difficult for them to discuss. No, I don't think it does occur to you (prerequisite - empathy). You just want to belittle them.
I don't think anything I said was belittling you, but rather your actions. There is a difference.
It might very well be a sensitive subject for you. Does that mean you should interpret everything, include witty's original comments, as being a personal affront? If you want empathy, you have to display empathy yourself, rather than calling someone's viewpoint "crap", especially when it's also coming from a place of pain.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
