Equal Pay for Women

[minto grubb]

I have just been suprised. it does not happen often at my age, but there you go! Someone has told me thatthe United States of America does not have Equal Pay for Women anywhere on the Statute Book.
In Britain, where I live, women have had the right to get the same money for doing the same job as a man for nearly 30 years. Equal Pay for women is also part of State legislature in France, Germany, Sweden and a whole load of other European countries...and you are telling me that America is, like, about 30 years behind us on this? The world's only superpower(so they like to tell us), based on a constitution declaring liberty and justice for all, does not allow equality to about half its citizens... Sheesh!
Lets be realistic. People who earn more tend to spend more, buy more, keeping other firms in business. Most women with kids would love to stay home wih their kids, but economics prevent it.
Paying women less does not keep women home- how many working mother's do you know?
The Democratic Party, to have any cred as a progressive movement, should make Equal Pay for Equal Work a matter of State Legislation.
The Feminist Movement has got to get behind this one, and build alliances with Trades Unions and others who are after the same thing. (It may suprise some feminists, but not all those who support equal rights for women are actually female by gender).
If democracy in America is worth as much as a plugged nickel, it should be able to deliver what Europe has enjoyed for decades, and it does worry me that Americans, for whatever reason, have not cottoned onto this yet.

[MidwestMomma]

1. Got more surprising news for you from the States...

Feminists is a bad word.

No really, it is.

They've been blamed for everything from promiscuity to divorce.

See, that's how it works here in the good ole USA. You tear something down to the point that they have no credibility.

So crazy Feminists want equal rights for women=equal rights for women must be bad.

I'm not making this shit up.

We tried to pass an Equal Rights Amendment. That went nowhere fast.

But then less money=less political clout so who's surprised by that. We women can't even get equal representation in our government. Turn on C-Span coverage of our congress one day. You'll see who's still in charge of this country.

Also, you don't have the infestation known as religious fundamentalism in your country like we do. That's a disease that causes women and men (who should know better) to believe that women are second-class citizens. And the women are totaling okay with that!

Do I sound a bit bitter?

Guess I am.

But things could be a changin' here. Heard that Walmart is getting sued for non-equal pay by some female employees. If the mighty Walmart falls, maybe somebody will listen. Here's hoping for a better days pay for all women in the USA!

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Don't worry, Rush Limbaugh's definition of feminism...

Credible since they found out he was a drug addict.

[minto grubb]

101. Thanks for your response...

Do I sound a bit bitter?
well, no, but if you are, i can't say as I blame you.
I am not sure I undestand the term 'Cspan coverage', but I guess it's a news service that will be showing you a lot of male politicians, right?
If so, I can relate to that. In England, it was about getting women to use votes seriously, turn up at meeting and put questions of women's rights (or lack of them) on the table. Ok, I like to think that as a bloke who voted, that I did my bit to support them, but the fact is that it was a male premier and and a male dominated cabinet that gave women like my mother the chance to leave people like my Dad.

I get what you say about ' feminism is a bad word'. I think that real leadership is about building alliances, seeking common ground.
I remember the days when men like me who were CND, Ecology Movement, TUC and whatever turned up at Greenham Common. Ok, it was a Feminist Movement that started the protest, but when we turned up, they refused to work with us 'because we were men, and therefore part of the system that exploited and oppressed all women everywhere'.
I mean , that sort of talk did not encourage men of moderate opinion to join forces. It put off a lot of women, too, who went back to their loving husbands who did not beat them. not everyone is cut out to be a lesbian, and the whole thing came to a soory end.
Feminism needs people like Bell Hooks, not Michael Moore, if you ask me. If Wal Mart are being sued, maybe I am wrong, perhaps you can help answer me some thing. When I say ' Equal Pay' , I mean 'get the same money if you do the same job, as a legal requirement by your employer'.
I don't mean 'more chance of getting the higher salaries men get as CEOs, etc.' Can Walmart be sued if they pay Jack more than Jill if they both work on the checkout in the same store?

[MidwestMomma]

116. That's what Walmart is being sued for, for paying Jack more then Jill

when they both work in the checkout at the same store. Some people have all sorts of justifications for why this okay but it just isn't. However, like I said in a later post, it's hard to get people motivated to care about unequal wages because nobody really knows what anybody makes. And if you do find out that Jack is making more than Jill and try to raise a stink, you'll probably lose your job for discussing your wages.

My daughter has already found this gender wage discrepancy at her age. She worked at a retail store and the boys all made a little bit more than the girls. I don't know if it's because boys are perceived as being better workers, or that boys need more money then girls or what it is.

But I agree this is an issue that should cross gender lines and be supported across gender lines. Especially nowadays when most families have the husband and wife working, you'd think everyone would be interested in the wife getting as good as wages as she can.

This has been a good discussion. Thanks for starting it.

[private_ryan]

121. perception is that boys usually support families

I'm not saying it's OK, I'm just stating what I think why they do this.

[MidwestMomma]

133. Yes, but I'm literally talking about boys

Single teenage boys. How do they rationalize that?

[minto grubb]

164. Being Devil's Advocate here...

I would probably say that the response goes like ' A teenage boy has to save up to 'Get Married'. So, I think we would be rigt in poining out that there is a divide between people paid a Salary and hourly paid workers fact is, in most 'blue collar' homes, both parents incomes are needed, although mother usually works part time.
The fact is that The share holdes make massive profits off of the system. They can easily afford to give workers a few things like a shorter working week, equal pay and conditions, and stuff.
If you make it compulsory, they all have to, so it isn't unfair to any company in particular. government should compel Companies to be socially and environmentally responsible, and reward those that are.
I re-iterate that it does work. When the market was absolutely free ( or ' self regulating') in Britain, we had scandals and a lot of graft and corruption. On the back of this , we aquired a lot of regulations, and our experience was that the good companies did not mind this, and the bad boys found it harder to beat good companies with the law the way it was. good business practice flourished.
with the recent scandals involving a few big name companies in the States (was it Ecron, I can't recall the name right now) I am hoping that the American electorate will see the sense of government regulation rather than a free hand being applied to companies.

[minto grubb]

199. Hope you dont mind me coming back again...

I have been following the various threads on this, and a few things have emerged (for me, at any rate).
Firstly, American women do have equal pay by law, but getting employers to compy is a bigger problem thatn over here.
Second, getting equal pay at entry level factory jobs is not what most women need, its beig able t rise up the proffessional ladder. We have exactly the same problem over here. I am glad to hear Walmart are getting sued, BTW, and I hope it makes for change.
I think that the whole role of State intervention needs discussing. I mean, women lose earning power when they stay home and raise kids. Is it fair , and Practical for the State to compensate women in some way? I mean, does it make sense for Government to say , in effect, "Ok, you are going to take time out to raise the next generation of taxpaying, working citizens. We think its unfair that you should get so little in the way of help or support, so we will pay you last years salary, every year, until your kid grows up & you return to work"?
Another problem is that some jobs are not as easy to quantify as the ones I did when I left school. I think its for people in those professions to say how fairness can be administered.
Maybe I should start another thread on State benefits to women who leave to start families...?

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Meritocracy

The U.S. tries hard to be a meritocracy and, no it doesn't always make it.

Nevertheless, pay for work at anything above an entry-level job is a complex proposition. Experience, education, performance, ability to get along with others, etc. all factor in. That makes it hard to legislate the issue.

[prolesunited]

15. Funny how all of that

complex proposition works out. You add in all of those variables and men come out on top. Glad it works out so well for you guys. Guess I can see why you wouldn't want to change it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. The variables

Also include that women not only get pregnant but also are the primary caregivers for children (and often parents as well). Thos limit their options and physically, some other career choices are limited as well.

[minto grubb]

74. Look...

Over here in England where I live, women get married, get pregnant, have kids and some how still go to work. Maybe they don't climb as high up the tree as a man might, but most working women who do an 8 hr day get paid the same rate per hour as a guy who is married with kids , or even a guy who is young, free and single.
Its what you do on the job that counts. if you can't do the job, you won't keep it, but if you do the same job as me, you get the same money. as a man. I do not have a problem with this, as a Brit, I am amazed that the women of America have to put up with this kinda crap in this day and age.
Oh, sure - in Europe, it can be hard for a working mother to go right to the top. No one asks a man how he will care for his kids and carry the extra responsibilities of being a CEO or whatever, we have not got that one sussed yet. However, we do not have unions that refuse to take on women members, or guys who talk a lot of baloney about " variables" on the shop floor. Sorry pal, but I have to say that your argument sounds so hollow, it doesn't suprise me that American women sound so pissed off sometimes. This kind of discrimination has ended decades ago in England. Its time it was put an end to across the world.

[Muddleoftheroad]

76. Few jobs here are that straightforward

The kind of jobs you speak of might be mostly unionized. Here, that is often not the case.

[private_ryan]

96. plus he doesn't realize that generally no one cares

about your personal life here. You either are useful to the company or you aren't. End of the story.

[Muddleoftheroad]

102. That is basically true

If you are useful, a smart company will try to keep you happy. If you aren't...

[minto grubb]

104. Unity is Strength.

Sure, but if you are on your own, no where else to go, the big guy will pick on you. What are you going to do? fight back? what with?
I was once pulled into a firm, as a manager, to iron out production problems. Discrimination on the shopfloor was rife. everyone was intimidated. it was a small factory, newly opened, still struggling.
There was no union. I told the workers in my team that I wasn't going to let anyone push them around. I was going out if it asn't sorted and if anyone wanted to join me...
Well, it only took one person to stand up, and they all followed. As an accredited Union Rep, I had to face down the arguments from workers who were more afraid of change than anything else, and a lot of people still say 2 why bother with a union, when its the Unions that made everything worthwhile that we in England see around us.
schools, hospitals, public services, even the vote.
Here in Great Britain, if you are smart, you carry a union card and the union, if it's any good, has got a team of lawyers. And big companies, if they are smart, do not mess with the Union Rep.
It isn't just about pay, its about health and safety in the workplace, and issues like that. The Unions in this country supports the Labour party, and it's Labour Governments that put the legislation in place that keeps the Companies in check. We learned the hard way in the Thatcher era that the Free Market does not supply everything. We have to be careful though, tht we do not lose sight of the fact that it's the unity of several factions that we have to keep if we are to defeat Thatcherism.

[minto grubb]

103. The difference is...

You either are useful to the company or you aren't. End of the story.
Thats pretty much the same as over here, that difference is, I suppose, is that Unions over here have a bigger say in the politics of the Labour party, and therefore in britain as a whole. They have won the argument in Britain that you have yet to win Stateside.
They also speak out on anti Racist, anti sexist initiatives. This attracts women and other minorities to join. getting women in strngthened women and the unions.
Sure, the boss only wants to make a buck out of you, but Socialism is still a force to be reckoned with. The unions took a battering in the Thatcher years, because some Union leaders were irresponsible, and because of the effect of the Cold War.
The biggest achievement we have, I think, is the fact that discrimination is seen as unfair. no one tries to argue that over here.

[private_ryan]

105. "Socialism is still a force to be reckoned with"

here socialism is something that will kill your political career fast, really fast.

[minto grubb]

107. here socialism is something that will kill your political career fast, rea

Point taken...
but was Civil Rights a popular cause when Rosa Parkes refused to give up her seat on the bus. Hell, I'm British, but i have heard of Rosa Parkes.
I deeply suspect that most Americans will align themselves behind the right ideas rather than the 'right wing' candidates, if the ideas are put to them in a way they can relate to.
I mean , Justice for all, because it is right in principle... not because it is easy, but becuse it is worth while. Isn't that what people really want? I don't agree with the way that feminists have argued the cae in the past, and I realise that a lot of detail needs sorting, but its like the minimum wage, we got the details hammered out, and we implemented it. and it works. I get the sense that in some places Progressive people like us need to sort out the details ourselves before we take it to the electorate.

[minto grubb]

109. here socialism is something that will kill your political career fast, rea

point taken...
but how popular was Civil Rights when Rosa Parkes and Martin Luther King started to argue for it?
I agree that feminists have not argued the case well in the past, but I believe that America is fundamentally a place where the right ideas rather the right wing bigots will eventually come out on top.
It was not easy in Britain, but we did it. Are the American people of today any different than the generation that did away with segregation? even if, heaven forbid, American voters are as dumb as your worst critics try and make out, I still hope that the progressives of today will follow in the footsteps of thier noble heritage and do things, not because they are easy, but because they are morally right and true.

[CivilRightsNow]

220. Im so tired of this misnomer...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/03facts/pregbirths.htm

Do you know that women, for the most part, are shedding off these stupid sterotypes and labels? Do you know that a good deal of men are now primary care givers? Do you know that less women are having children and way more women are entering the work force?

Do you know that this trend has been prevalent for over 10 years now?

Im in my mid 20s and none of my friends have children. None of my female friends are housewives. None. Not a single solitary person. I knew a handful of girls in my graduating class of 1000 that got pregnant in HS. But in the years since, all of our lives have been very devoid of the traditional "woman's role". Hell, we have no choice. Who wants to bring a child into this? We carefully weigh our options.

Im sick of hearing about how all these women do it to themselves because they have children or are lazy bonbon eating part time workers. What utter crap. I watched my mom climb the corporate ladder as a single mother my whole life. I watched her have to make choices between being there for us and making the impression at work that she wasnt just another "woman" who would take off to mind the kids. Now, 25 years later, she works the day after Christmas and goes in at 6am to leave at 9pm practically daily. She has finally made VP although she gets paid 20% less then the males.

This trite excuse of how women do it to themselves because they get pregnant and care for children is neaderthal. These traits should be treasured, not penalized. Penalizing them has gotten us the world we live in with dysfunction, apathy and no sense of family or community. It takes a whole village to raise a child, a whole world..

What hogwash.

[Muddleoftheroad]

222. Generational differences

I think you see things from the perspective of your age. Perhaps it is true that people your age are indeed adapting and, if so, great. But people a bit older than you have not for the most part.

I do know that fewer women are having children and that is their choice. So I applaud it.

Given the size of your high school, I would hazard a guess that you live in a major metro area. Now try thinking about people who do not. Many of them still assume very traditional roles. Things change, but they change more slowly than many would like.

I don't think anyone made any bonbon comments. However, pregnancy is a choice -- for the parents. Both are involved in that choice.

However, whether for social reasons or not, women still end up as primary care givers, not just for kids, but for aging parents as well. I didn't make that rule, but it is true.

As for penalizing them, we shouldn't. But the question seems to be how much we benefit them for their life choice.

[CivilRightsNow]

229. You would wager wrong in your assessments

That's the problem with making assumptions and assesments based upon your limited knowledge, and that is what irks me.

I didn't grow up in a major metropolitan area. I grew up in a small Texas town that was comprised of folks who made babies. Moms stayed home or worked shit jobs. I lived in that conservative place that you "hazarded to guess" is out of my perspective.

But see, that's not the actual point. What Im really trying to tell you is that things change. The gender roles have shifted. Atleast the repressing force must come up with some new excuses.

You can spin it, dice it and dress it up however you want, but you cannot deny that the prejudice is there. Nobody may have said that women sat around eating bonbons, but that didnt make some of the comments any less callous.

So, how much do you think that women should be "benefitted" for their life choice? I cant even valuate that, Im curious as to how you could.

[Muddleoftheroad]

248. That's why I asked

Where I live, in rural VA, I don't think we have high schools anywhere near that big. Perhaps my math is just bad this morning.

Yes, the gender roles have shifted in your opinion. They are shifting but have not gone anywhere near "shifted" in my opinion.

As for benefitting people for their life choice, I wouldn't seek to just benefit women. I would seek to benefit either party who makes the life choice to raise kids.

Kids are in the best interest of our society, so it should be easy, but not so easy as to screw folks who choose not to have children.

[CivilRightsNow]

250. But the thing is..

That the pregnancy/child raising myth is just that, a myth.

It isnt a factor. What does it matter? Why does it fit into a monetary equation?

Does the company lose money because once every 3 months Employee XX must leave promptly at 5 to pick up their child? Or attend a PTA meeting?

Your scenarious about flocks of women having babies is a generation old. It is not happening any more. Nobody is getting screwed because they have no kids.

In some areas, where dynamics are different it may still occur. But Im talking in the US only. Not worldwide. Earlier, the point was made that people no longer have a choice, they must have a 2 income household. I think that's true.

This is a long thread, perhaps I have missed the statistics that backup this enduring contingent of women who have children or take time off work to have them. I saw the inverse... So, it makes me wonder about the collective psyche and where we get these ideas and opinions or why my brain processes them as unsubstanciated and blatently defiant of that possessing substance.

"In America everybody is of the opinion that he has no social superiors, since all men are equal, but he does not admit that he has no social inferiors, for, from the time of Jefferson onward, the doctrine that all men are equal applies only upwards, not downwards." - Bertrand Russell

[Muddleoftheroad]

252. It is not a myth

Sorry, I have been a boss far too often in my career to think otherwise. Women both take more time off for kids in my experience and when they get pregnant it is a big question whether they will come back to work at all.

So of course it is a factor.

I love your humorous example about an employee leaving work every three months. Would that it were the case. Try some people who are late to work every day because they take their kids to school and who take over every time one of them gets sick. Kids get sick a lot. Then they want to leave early fairly often or work from home because of daycare issues.

From your perspective this problem is gone, from mine it is FAR from gone.

I think your point about two incomes is both right and wrong. People make a choice where to live and what they want in life. Once that choice is made, the rest follows. But do we need to live in the urban areas, have two cars, own DVD players, have plasma TVs, etc.? I have a friend who lives quite well on one income for her, her husband and child and they aren't earning much.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

254. How much does housing cost where you live?

I live in an area where one bedroom condos cost over $300K. How does a family survive on one income when two bedroom single family homes are over 400K? Many people choose to live here because of access to decent-paying jobs, cultural life and other perks. It is very difficult to afford all the luxuries you describe when the cost of living is so high.

Oh, and I have had *plenty* of male coworkers take time off when the kids are sick or have a snow day. My boss at a former job was always doing that because his wife was a Senior Vice President at a bank and had more responsibilty than he sis as Director of Sales.

[Muddleoftheroad]

282. Location, location, location

Families decide to not live in that area. I know that sounds harsh, but it's not. Families have moved for opportunity or land for thousands of years. In fact, that's why many people came to the U.S.

In my area of Virginia, there are numerous houses for sale for under $100,000. You can buy a nice historic farmhouse for about $100,000. For the price of that condo, you can buy a monster house and prices top out at mansions close to $500,000. Rentals costs in the $500-$800 range or so for many homes.

Again, you made the choice to live in that area. By choosing to live in a less exciting area with fewer exciting jobs, you can live much more cheaply.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

284. A lot of people stay in Boston because of families and job opportunities

not to mention liberal, progressive attitudes. If I had children, I wouldn't raise them anywhere else. I live in an area where there are 100 universities in a 30-mile radius. It adds a lot to the cultural opportunities here.

Also, Expensive housing=higher property taxes=better schools. CT and MA consistently have the highest test scores and SAT scores. it may be expensive to raise a family, but it all depends on what you value.

[Muddleoftheroad]

285. Exactly

But if you value those things, then you will inevitably end up both working.

Millions of Americans live in smaller communities and in areas where a $300,000 home is a mansion.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

255. Dupe

[Kathy in Cambridge]

224. Excellent Post, CivilRightsNow!

One of my earlier posts points out that in my state, more women have children over 40 than under 20. This has to do with the large number of women who are in the workforce and put off having children-if they do at all. At 39, I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. Most women HAVE to work to be able to afford the necessities in life. One of my girlfriends who stays at home does so because her husband has a great job. All my other friends with children work. And I have two very close girlfriends-both married, like myself-who have decided against having children. They have their individual reasons, like me. I love kids, BTW, and am lucky t have a ton of nieces and nephews to spoil!

I also mentioned that a lot of fathers now are sharing the parenting duties, unlike 30 years ago. I see this with my in-laws (my husband comes from TEN children). When one of my brother-in-laws leaves work because his son is sick, or has to leave early to pick the kids up from daycare, do you think his career track is impacted or his earning potential stymied? The answer is no. A woman, on the other hand, is penalized when she acts as the primary caregiver. I have also seen this double standard at work in the corporate world, and the only explanation is that sexism still exists and is accepted.

[CivilRightsNow]

247. ;)

I had an aunt and uncle, very traditional southern people.. They traded off when they had children. With the first child, she would stay at home for the first year.. Then he did it for the second.

I remember being in my teenage years and thinking that was so innovative.

I think that men could and do request time off with the FMLA, acknowledging their part in the struggle against breaking the sexism barriers and defined gender roles. Sadly, not enough do.

[spooky3]

260. I'm in a male dominated job and

men frequently use the "child care" excuse for why they have to leave at a certain time or can't schedule meetings before a certain hour. This excuse is readily accepted, even when it recurs. I presume that they are actually performing child care, but I am not aware of anyone raising questions about this.

There are a couple of posters here who always "come out" on threads like this and despite the useful statistics and data that people provide, or suggestions about CONTROLLED STUDIES that they could read that directly address their "concerns", I find their posts never show any enlightenment. I think it's admirable that people try hard to educate these individuals, but it's clear to me that education is not the issue; these persons would prefer to retain their sexist attitudes. I'm glad they are only a very small number but there should be no such people on a progressive board.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

261. I Agree, Spooky

Most of the persons who retain their sexist attitudes do so with disregard to the fact that the world has changes outside their little microcosm.

As I mentioned, many men I know share equally in the household duties when it comes to children, especially with two wage earners. My dad was a firefighter when I was little, and my mom worked full time. Guess who stayed home with the us when we were sick or had a snow day? The flexibility of my father's job (he could trade a day shift for a night shift) enabled him to do his fair share in childrearing. This is why I probably have a great relationship with my father.

[Nobody]

36. Actually

I once worked for a company that had numerous instances of women who were just as good as the men making less.

I made less than a guy who had 2 whole weeks more time on the job as me, but we both had the same education and experience. Doing the same job. I outdid him (and all 6 of my other male coworkers) in both quality and quantity and have the records to prove it.

A female coworker was hired at the same time as three guys. All four were classmates right out of school with similar GPAs. None had experience in the field. All four had the same job description and duties and were on the same shift. Guess who was paid less to the tune of 4000 a year.

This company also had a poor record of promoting and paying non-caucasians.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if my male coworker had certifications coming out of his ears and I didn't have as many and he was paid more. But when all else is equal, why IS the woman paid less?

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. All else is never equal

And no, I am NOT saying there is no discrimination. There is discrimination against women, minorities, etc.

The problem is how to really show it. No two employees are alike. No workplace is identical. Some employees might be great at what they do, but that skill might be fairly commonplace and easily replaced. Others might be only mediocre at their jobs, but those skill might be highly valued.

Then we get into working relationships, deadline performance, reliability, presentation, self promotion, etc.

[prolesunited]

43. Yes, it's all just so complicated

Why don't we all be good little girls and be quiet and be happy that they are letting us work at all. :eyes:

I guess I'm just not in the mood to be nice and calm over the same arguments we've been in time and time again. That's probably why it's better to walk away today before I get myself in trouble.

Of course the oppressor in the system is not going to be advocating for change.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Oppressor?

I'm sure as hell not anyone's "oppressor." To leap to such a term deflates your argument more than I ever could.

So, did you read my post where I said there IS discrimination, but it is hard to prove because there are so many factors at work?

[MidwestMomma]

49. Prolesunited, you said you were done playing for the day...

No go out and enjoy 'mother' nature while you can.

You can come back and administer a thrashing to the unenlighted another day...they are always here!

I'll stay here and keep an eye on things :)

[minto grubb]

71. About those variables

I dunno how it goes over there, but over here, we say " the job involves this and that. People who dothe same get the same. Two years back, I, as a white male in my mid forties got the same money as a nineteen year old working beside me.
The thing is, yes, I did come into that position with experience behind me, and I did not merely 'make the grade', I surpassed it. I got promotion and she didn't. The 19 yr old is still making her way through the department I left. In her early 20s, there is no reason why she could not join me, and even overtake me, if she has the aptitude. I am merely getting back to the level I used to be on, but she could go much further, and why not?
However, it is all on paper, our performances were measured by an employer that wants to get the best out of both of us. I think our system is much fairer to both parties, I just wonder why the United States, the economic powerhouse of the Western World is so backward in some ways. The way it treats women in the workplace being one.
I take your point about variables in the workplace, but isn't there a concept of quality control at these places? Like, does anyone come in and say "I'll have one of Sue's, please, 'cos they are cheaper than Tom's". No, didn't think so. Fact is that the system will only go on being unjust so long as the majority allow, so go out and challenge it!

[alarimer]

230. yes

It is a complicated issue. I work for the state so salaries are based on the job category plus your years served. Simple enough I guess. But most employers aren't like that. I would be upset if I found out that I was making less than someone else (male or female) who had the same qualifications and time in as I did. The problem is also that no two people are going to have exactly the same qualifications- they go to different schools, have different GPA's, different job experiences so how do you come up with a formula to compare them?

Also I think the wage gap in this country reflects other factors. The jobs that are female dominated (administrative assistant, customer service) tend to be lower-paying than jobs that are higher paying (engineering, physicist). There are still not a lot of women being drawn to engineering and many of the sciences, for whatever reason. Although not all science jobs pay well (biology for example is relatively low paying but there are a lot of female biology majors inuniversities).

[Yupster]

274. But alarimer ...

I bet if you would get a comparison of all the workers in your line of work all paid by the same salary scale, you would find that the average 50 year old male makes more than the average 50 year old female in the exact same job, even though they are both paid on the exact same salary scale.

The reason would be because the average male has a little more years of experience than the average female, because on average, the female interrupted their careers more than the average males. Even if only one of 10 females did it, it would still drag down the female statistics compared to the male.

That's why it's such a complicated issue.

[MrPrax]

92. Whoa...this is career guidance boilerplate.

Funny other countries don't have this problem?

More of that good old American exceptionalism, huh?

"The U.S. tries hard to be a meritocracy and, no it doesn't always make it."
The US tries to be a lot of things and fails miserably, including providing a CLEAR alternative between progressives and conservatives...

Truly amazing...

[minto grubb]

106. Britain tries it too, and does a little better, apparently.

Well, over here, we make the bosses sit down with the folks who do the job (through the Union Reps)and discuss what is involved. In detail. Now anyone who meets that standard is in, anyone not meeting standard is a trainee. Lower standard of work, lower rate pay. Simple. You perform to a standard above the norm, and you get a legally agreed raise. Not a private deal for you & you alone, Anyone does it to your standard, they get the same rate. Its open, above board and absolutely fair.
The company I work for now gives everyone a 6 month appraisal everyone, down to entry level, has a target set. It must be SMART
S Specific
M Measurable
A Agreed
R Realistic
T Timebased
As a manager, I had to implement systems and make them work, tying intangible things like 'workforce morale' to measurables like retention rates.
obviously, if 10 people quit my department in the first quarter, but only 5 did in the second, I must be doing something right. Given partnership and co operation, we had SMART goals for everyone, everyone got the same payoff for meeting the same standard.
I dunno why Americans don't all do it this way. It is an American concept, I understand.

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. Again, thankfully, we don't have so many unions

Here we don't make the bosses do anything except obey the law. If there is a union, then they have to work with them. But many states including my own current residence are right to work states where you don't have a closed shop.

Here jobs change, morph or whatever over time. We are much more flexible with job duties. I don't see how much of what we do would equate into your complex and bureaucratic system.

And, as to your last example, it is NOT obvious that you would be doing anything right. It could be the time of the year, economy or the fact that turnover happens after people had been in the job a certain length of time and most of the veterans had already quit.

[minto grubb]

165. Complex ? Bureaucratic?

Here jobs change, morph or whatever over time. We are much more flexible with job duties. I don't see how much of what we do would equate into your complex and bureaucratic system.

Lets be clear what the system actually is. It simply says
A) If you employ someone, you must give them a written contract of employment. The contract shall specify the duties, the hours and rate of pay. disiplinary and dissmissal procedure must be outlined, and and followed.
B) it is illegal to discriminate against anyone in the workplace on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation or gender.
C) employers have a 'duty of care', they are responsible for the safety and welfre of everyone who may be on their premises.

Now there is nothing that says that employees get an appraisal every 6 months, or training programmes...or that bosses should be paragons of political correctness and tear down porno pictures from the canteen wall... But this is what happened in practice.

See, anyone can open up a hamburger joint, or even a chain of 'em, and go into business.They start hiring people, "you start on Monday, Ok, don't worry to much about what the job entails, you can pick it up as you go along. Once you get the hang of things , we will see about a raise, but don't tell anyone else how much you earn, thats betwwen you an' me , OK?"
This is what it was like starting out when I left school. let me say that this was NOT a meritocracy. If the boss did not like you, 'cos you were black, a supporter for the wrong soccer team or whatever, you never got given training, or shown any way of advancement.
Ok, there were good bosses and bad bosses, but leaving a bad boss was hard without a reference. he could dismiss you on a whim and you had no comeback.

Then, we got The Employment Act. You never 'picked it up as you went along' no more, you got a written contract. A lot of firms found the term 'As per the company hand book' useful, you went to the handbook fr the specifics as they applied in your firm, and your industry and as a worker, you knew exactly where you stood. No more did you have to suck up to the gaffer if you wanted to get on, or even keep the job. You were not at a disadvantage if your gaffer did not like your colour- the details were there in black and white for everyone to check. THIS was meritocracy. anyone who could read and apply could move on.
If you could show that you could do what it said in your contract, your job had legal protection. Resposible companies did not find this a problem, in fact they soon found that the system could be used to make workers more productive.
Perhaps you've heard of Pizza Hut. They taugh me this system of business management. I had worked my way up thru' Chargehand and then Supervisor in other firms, but my first job as Manager was with Pizza Hut. They were a Multinational that went for training big time.
the funny thing was, that on leavng that company, the next place I want had the same appraisal system. Not because it was legally mandatory, but because it was the best way to manage folks. My wife work as a nurse, and she has the same system. it does work.
A lot has changed in the workplace since the Act came in, and new methods means new training in new systems. You do the training, you sign to say you have done it and the company holds you accountable. there are built in checks and balances. You can still dismiss peole if they do not meet the terms of their contract, but it is down in writing. Fair on both parties, rather than a verbal agreement open to mis interpretation.
as some firms were getting sued because employers were complaining of sexual harrassment, firms started to take the issue seriously.
You got told that it as not on to touch a female employee, or to make unwelcome and unasked for comments. As a company manager, I had to tackle racism and stuff like that, and it was easier with the Law behind me. women felt confident about saying they did not want to see soft porn on the office wall, and the company had to tell the sexist bastards who worked there that it wa time they treate thier women co workers witha bit of decency and respect. It was a good time for everyone, exept sexist bastars. trust me, I was there. it was a revolution I helped make happen.
To succeed in business, you need real leadership skills, and all the system has done is give companies with a 'teach, train and invest in people' strategy a level playing field againt the 'lets exploit the cheap labour' merchants.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. As a former boss

I ain't a boss any more, but I can respond to some of this because I have been a bunch:

A) How specific do you get on duties? If the duty is to get projects done as assigned and to do other things as listed, that is fairly vague. If you need to get more specific than that, I can't envision any boss bothering to go through that.
B) Yep.
C) Here we use lawyers to ensure that. If the employer screws up, you sue.

As for your hamburger joint, many entry level jobs entail doing a little of everything. So how do you describe that? Do you list every lousy job in the operation and say they have to do them all?

Yes, in many cases, bosses can dismiss you on a whim. Equally, you can leave on such.

Most American firms do have a company handbook, but that only entails procedures about the firm, hiring, benefits, etc. It does NOT entail the nature of your job.

I've worked in more fluid fields than you. I don't see how anyone would or could break down the job duties into discreet parts. I think this aspect of your proposal borders on the ridiculous.

As for sex harassment, I always gave a talk to EVERY new hire in addition to what management gave. I explained that this is a workplace and, as such, everyone is supposed to act professional and not do anything that upsets or harasses another. If someone does, I would suggest they say something to that person. If the problem persists or they do not feel comfortable saying anything, then I give them the list of the chain of command. I add, that if it is me making the comment, then they should feel free to go over my head and that NO ONE has to tolerate working in a harassing situation. I never had to deal with any complaints.

[minto grubb]

169. In response to your question...

You ask how specific the company handbook is, well it depends on the company. even so, it will cover the specifics of the position.
I have worked in a supervisory role in
A supermarket
a restaurant
a soup factory
a school canteen &
all had a company handbook, plus an appraisal system. I was responsible for showing people what to do on heir first day, provide on going training, and appraise people's progress at the end of 6 months. And run the business as well. Sure, I delegated a lot of spadework to more experience staf and checked it over afterwards, but I considered this as a way to help people develop I never asked anyone to take ove my duties for me unless they were willing and gave them credit for a job well done. This was standard proceedure in Pizza hut, Gardner Merchant, the NHS, a sales office for a double glazing company and is the current system in my present job. Apart from the NHS and the Tube, all these firms are private companies that are still market leaders over here.
Over here, you need to give notice to quit, as well as being given notice. gross misconduct ( theft, that kind of thing) can get you terminated immediately with no legal recourse. the system is full of checks and balances, some arrived at after landmark cases that brought changes to Industrial Law.
As for your hamburger joint, many entry level jobs entail doing a little of everything. So how do you describe that? Do you list every lousy job in the operation and say they have to do them all?
Exactly. In Pizza Hut, there was a Company manual that detailed how a table should be set, how the ingredients were to be prepared, how the piza was to be made and then served. there was a specification for every thing. " When it is finished, it should look like this" I would say. There is a point you raised
I've worked in more fluid fields than you. I don't see how anyone would or could break down the job duties into discreet parts.
I think this aspect of your proposal borders on the ridiculous.
Well, as I say 3 market leaders, including Pizza Hut do it this way. I have worked in Manufacture, Retail and Public Transport. maybe there are places where it could not happen, but I can't think of one. Can I ask what fields you worked in, and what you see as being the pitfalls? I would say that in any job, there is a right and wrong way to do it. If I can do a job properly, I can write a checklist, and go thru' that list with someone. Name me one job where the elements of a successfully completed task cannot be checked, where it is so full of mystique that it cannot be tabulated , and you have a point. Maybe in art or music, this is true, but in reail and industry, all the big names do it like this.

[Muddleoftheroad]

176. The ongoing response

I have worked in publishing, journalism (they are much different), sales, international business and the Internet.

Most of those are information type jobs that require a great deal of information to pass from one person to another. That information changes rapidly and it is hard to be specific on how to do it because everyone does it differently.

Much like art and music, fields of other intellectual endeavor are not like factory work and can't be as easily quantified.

[minto grubb]

196. I can see where the problem lies...

But I personally don't have any answers on that sort of thing. I think some one else has already mentioned artists having problems, and I can see that journalism is, in a sense about creativity - how a story gets presented. I must admit I nothing about working on the internet in a professional capacity. Every time, it is unique...sure, it's not a standard product or process to present a news story, and the models from my sort of background don't work in the same way.
Yet so many jobs do not depend on raw, creative talent, they are things that most people can learn, if skillfully taught. I can understand the argument that a teacher with x years experience is going to fall behind in the pay scale if they drop out for 5 years or so to raise a family, but, like you say, intellectual stuff is not like factory work. Most jobs on the prodiuction line can be picked up in few hours, after a week or so, you could teach someone else, and if you are average, you could run a team of your own in a few months if a break came up. This is based on my own experience. Very few processes require manual strength beyond female capability, these days.
At a conservative estimate, I imagine that, maybe 60 -70 % of jobs are like that. We should therefore have 60-70% of women on equal pay, and if women were not capable of becoming good journalists and publishers over the years, I would be suprised.
It's maybe unfair to ask you if American factories work like English ones because don't suppose you have worked in any. I wonder if someone else can enlighten me here.
However, I think you will agree that if standard products and processes are involved, there ought to be standardisation in pay, regardless of the worker's gender. I certainly never paid waitresses any less.

[Muddleoftheroad]

203. No I won't agree

About even factory work. Even within the strictures of standardization, some employees perform better than others.

I read a Harvard Business Review article that essentially encouraged a ruthless triage of employees at review time. The article advocated giving top raises to top people (A level), medium raises to the Bs and no raises other than cost of living to the Cs. Anyone below that, they urged to be fired.

Honestly, I find it pretty tough, but still fair.

[minto grubb]

209. Ok, lets recap..

The work you do, in your field, involves creativity, and other factors that I find hard to calibrate and quantify.
The work I have done, at various levels is actually so easy that calibration, appraisal and assessment of personnel have become the standard way of doing things (in my country at least).
I can see how it would be hard to for me to rate someone's performance as a journalist, and would not want to try- but I am saying that, on the basis of 20 yrs experience, it is possible to rate the performance of a worker in a restuarant, canteen kitchen, factory or railway station, using nothing more than a checklist and (maybe) a stopwatch. I am actually saying that I have done it myself and have to say that gender is not a factor to worry about.
And you find this hard to accept? I would seriously like to know how they run busineses and supervise staff in your country.

"Some people do perform better than others", true, but nothing in all my years has shown me that women are slower or less adept, or more likely to become a problem or liability from a bosses point of view than men. The problems I have had (in industries that have a varying mix of male/female staff ratios) have shown me that men (esp. young men) are likely to have problems with absenteeism, alcohol and substance abuse and stuff like that. There are many more who don't, of course.
I don't have the stats to hand, but I think they will show that more men per 1,000 will end up in prison than women. In my country, your country and anyplace else that keeps proper records.
In short, I am saying that most things to do with work can be measured, and women do not come up as second rate in most tests, on the whole. So there is no reason why most females should earn less than most men. Yet this is so, apparently, in most places. A situation we ough to redress.

[Muddleoftheroad]

212. Other jobs

I don't pretend to speak for all other jobs. In my experience of friends, family, dates, etc., nothing is quite so formulaic in our employment system. Usually firms have annual reviews and those reviews include goals, but most of them are not as extensively broken down as yours.

The major exception is sales or revenue type jobs where goals are clearly set, but they are all geared to bringing in more money.

[minto grubb]

215. Well, thank you for your response...

I guess the difference is down to the way our respective Unions have interacted with the Political establishments.
As an overview, very simplified, it would be fair to say that trades Unionism create its own Political Party. There were Liberals and Conservatives before, and these corresponded to your Democrats and Republicans respectively, but the Liberal party has been eclipse by the Labour Party, which is the party that represents the interests of blue collar workers- in practice , it has moved to the right as more workers move into skilled and white collar jobs and the old heavy industries went into decline.
Over here, the Union insisted on tighter State control on industry, and bosses insisted on tying better pay to better performance as a result. Hence everything getting counted and measured. I don't know how british Journalism and publishing works, but I guess they have their ways of staying within legislated guidelines.
Can I ask, though, you must have managed two diferent men before. What do you use as a yardstick to rate performance in your field?
Would you say that there is a significant difference between men and women in your field? In Britain, you see women at mid and senior management levels, but not so often at director level. a female CEO will make headlines. Is it different in the States?
The BBC has, like many employees over here, embraced equality as part of its mission statement. I can name several women like Jan Leeming, Kate Adie and Angela Rippon who have attained celebrity status - and top earnings - as journalists. Would you say tht the same thing is possible in America, that women with talent can rise to the top? Or are all the top flight newsreaders and reporters all male?
I would appreciate whatever you can tell me on this...

[Muddleoftheroad]

217. Ongoing

First off, this is nice and civil. I like that. I also find how another nation does things intriguing.


Over here, the heyday of the union is long since past. Though, since that might be cyclical, who knows...

Actually, to clarify, I have managed people on several occasions. The yardstick includes numerous factors: deadline performance (not as measurable as you might think because it is reliant on what an editor wants and want various sources can or will give and when, but it is one of the most measureable.) accuracy, creativity, ability to work with others, overall work product (very subjective), breaking news, ability to work independently and specific goals. That's a start at least. The rest might depend on a specific job or company.

And yes, women as CEOs are still novelties here as well. Alas.

We have women celebrity journalists as well here. Amazingly, sex appeal is not a complete requirement, but it does help.

[minto grubb]

228. The State and the Unions...

Thank you, once more, for responding. I too am interested in how different people do things.
women as CEOs are still novelties here as well. Alas.
What measures or strategies do you see as standing a real chance of breaking the glass ceiling?

Over here, the heyday of the union is long since past. Though, since that might be cyclical, who knows...
As you post on DU, I take it that you are 'Progressive' in outlook, what factors do you see as leading to unions declining in American politics? is there any role for them in future, are they climbing the road back, in your opinion?

One thing that set the unions back over here was the Thatcher era.
The people who ran the union in things like the Elecrical Power industry found out that they could literally plunge the country into darkness in pursuit of a 10% payclaim, and often did! This lost public support no end, and Industrial legislation was passed to weaken the union's power. The Thatcher years saw a fervent embracing of the Free Market, and it had some success, but when scandals began to emerge and the Market did not always deliver, public opinion turned against hard line Thatcherism, and the unions began to focus on Safety and Environmental issues in the workplace. They took a stance of 'we are working with management to deliver a better service to the customer. We are also concerned about the health and safety of British workers.' It wasn't all window dressing, and slowly, union membership began to rise. It is not unusual to see Supervisors acting as Union Reps in my industry, a thing unheard of when I started work. This has also lead to the role being split, there are 'Health and Safety Reps' and 'Negotioations Reps' The 'Negotiation Reps' handle pay claims and the H&S guys are more about keeping the stance of working with the managers'. In ractice, managers try to ensure that the company will spend money on neede improvements, but always have to build a buiness case.
Consumer and workforce protection is relatively strong. as a union rep, I can say to people that I think that a place or a practice is unsafe and advise them not to work on grounds of health and safety until it is cleared by an independant Govt inspector. In practice we rarely have to call them in. a good rep calls his shots wisely and he company responds quickly to a serious complaint. We can only call a strike after a secret ballot, though. They still get called, but not as often.
The Labour Party also became the party of the office worker rather than the factory worker. More people are homeowners than previously, as incomes rise. the political limate is more to the right, even after thatcher has fallen.

At present, we have the Unions facing off against the government in this country over the state of the Rail Transport System. it might get very interesting... the Unions have massive public and even Press support here, but the Blair administration is well over to the right on a lot of issues and has put up the money and wants to see a return on it's pet project.

[alarimer]

233. well

Most states are "at will" states, meaning that anyone can be fired for any reason that is legal (not having to do with age, race, gender or religion but not sexual orientation- you take your chances if you want to be "out" at work) at any time. Workers can also leave at any time for any reason. Some employers do have contracts with their workers, especially where there are unions. Unless you are a member of a union you have very few rights as an employee if they fire you legally. I am oversimplifying I think because I have not had very many jobs in my life .

[amazona]

3. maybe in a thousand years

We lost our chance at having an equal rights amendment in the 1970s/early 1980s and have never come close since. There is always a "reason" why a woman can't be paid or titled the same unless she works a 100 hour week -- and even then it's iffy.

[mopinko]

4. wrong

the equal pay act of 1963 requires that all people doing the same job receive the same pay. they just won't let women do the same job. so, women still make up about 2% of all construction workers, and parking lot attendants still make more than child care workers.
the unions here, for the most part, do not want women members. there have been many pushes for comparable pay, and there are state statutes in some states that require this. it really only helps for jobs that require a college education that can be compared easily.
plus there has been a long running battle for enforcement. under reagan, the eeoc was gutted, with the likes of clarence thomas as director.
so, yes 40 years later, we are still making a lot less than men. we are a little better, but not much.

[cowpie]

5. I am a woman

And have not experienced this evil specter of sexism. As a matter of fact, women recently passed men in the total number of white collar jobs in America. I go to college everyday and am treated just as any male would be treated. Granted, there are always going to be examples of male chauvinism, but we are well past the need for legislation or any constitutional change.

[Crowdance]

6. Women's pay is 76% of men's.

I, personally, was passed over for promotion this year in favor of giving the job to a man. (who subsequently approached me and asked why I hadn't wanted the job--as I was clearly already doing it.)

Therefore, based on the statistics and my own personal experience, Cowpie, I'd say one should be cautious making the assumption that sexism is dead. I'm thrilled that you've not been the victim of sexism. It would be unwise for you to give such weight to your own experience, however, that you assume it's universal.

[mopinko]

8. sexism is alive and well

it's just more subtle than it used to be, but like racism, it is still out there. it is very hard, for instance for women artists to make a living. (my personal experience) and they are still a tiny portion of blue collar jobs (also my personal experience)
and cowpie- college, and entry level jobs are not that bad, but did you ever hear of the glass ceiling?

[catzies]

18. That's right. Men can say, "Another day, another dollar,"

and a woman has to say, "Another day, another 76 cents."

[Triana]

21. sexism is alive and well in the IT industry...

...right now, they won't even hire a woman (every woman I know of in IT is still unemployed. The guys have found jobs - guys have no degree and less experience - the women have CS degrees and 10+ years but companies won't hire them right now).

And come layoff time (or any other excuse they can find), a woman or other 'miniority' (persons of color, for instance) are the FIRST to get the pink slip - LAST to ever be hired after the economy picks up. EVEN when their resumes are awesome.

I know of several instances in IT where women were treated like they were total idiots, left out of key meetings, locked out of the datacenter, consdescended in front of their peers (by male managers), given all the grunt work to do, passed over for promotions, and if they DID accomplish anything on the job, CREDIT for the technical feat was given to - a man, instead.

Alive and well indeed - is sexism in IT...

[MidwestMomma]

23. That's why I dropped out of IT training

Try being a middle-aged woman. That really sucks. Everyone would tell you, oh, so and so got this fantaboulous IT job and they've only completed 2 computer classes....yada, yada, yada.

I would go interview and zippo.

You know, because men are so much better at math and logic and all.

Oh well, guess it's just a figment of our imaginations seeing as how sexism is dead. :)

[CivilRightsNow]

223. Definately...

I feel your pain. IT is so fundamentally backwards in gender equality that I often feel like I live in the 50s. I recently found a position after looking for over a year. Humorously enough, I found that when I dumbed down my resume as well as used the name that everyone calls me, Sam, opposed to Samantha, I got way more call backs.

After a year, I was getting pretty desperate. I figured it couldn't hurt. Luckily, I explained that to the gentleman who called me back for an interview regarding my dream job... I dont know if he would have called me back anyway... but, I got the job.

I've had to threaten to quit to be given a raise to bring me up to the same level as my male counterparts, after proving myself indespensible. I've had to learn to play their game, to some extent. I find that there is a fine line between assertive and bitch that one has to walk carefully.

IT is the greatest bastion, besides oil execs, of the New Order of Boys Clubs.

Im tooling with changing careers while Im still young and mobile... but most of the time, I dont think the current economic system is really going to be around long enough to make it worth my while.

[Character Assassin]

41. I've heard that again and again, and it remains an empty citation

Please cite your sources.

[Yupster]

50. But how much of that 24 % gap

is prejudice and how much is other factors?

A portion of it is prejudice no doubt, but the larger portion of it is not prejudice no doubt.

The biggest statistical cause of the gap is women taking time away from their careers to have children. A woman may take a year or three off, and then go back to her career. No surprise her pay will now be lower than her peer who worked through the whole time.

A woman may go back to work, but part-time for a while.

A woman may go back, but pick a specific job (teaching) where she can be home similar hours to when her kids are home.

My wife took off when we had our kid, and seven years later she has still not returned to her career (teaching). When she does someday, she will be years behind the other teachers on the salary schedule. I don't think that can be reasonable evidence of discrimination, but many will just post that women make 76 % of what men make and assume that just proves discrimination. Well, it wouldn't in my wife's case.

[CivilRightsNow]

225. ....

People who pursue careers in teaching are typically more child minded then the average woman that works. I mean, look at the profession they chose.

Alot of times, I notice that men seem to site subsets of women that are no longer majorities and are, infact, very slim minorities.

I think that the small number of cases where the scenario that you discribed currently happens in does little to impact the whole picture and cant be used as a variable or justification.

[Yupster]

275. I use teacher as an example because

1. I know about it since I taught for nine years.

2. It is the profession that employs the most women nationally. Talking about women's careers without talking about teachers would be like talking about winning the electoral college without mentioning California.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

276. But Like Civil Service/Government Jobs

the payscale for teachers is hierarchical and based on years experience and what degrees you have. Of course, it also depends if you are in a high-paying or low-paying school system. The Business Worls is more fluid and thus more open to discriminatory practices.

[Cicero]

84. I don't know about sexism being dead...

... but I believe that, for people who have just graduated from college now, women's pay is now up to 97% as for men. The 76% figure I assume is for all working women vs. all working men, so things like taking time out for childbirth and raising a family will definately cause the gap to widen.

(Of course, I'm remembering this off the top of my head, I could just as easily be mis-remembering.)

Later,

[Skittles]

7. WE ARE WELL PAST THE NEED ?????????????????????

you do NOT live in the real world and how DARE you be so freaking ARROGANT as to assume YOUR EXPERIENCES compare to ALL WOMENS' EXPERIENCES ??? :puke:

UGH I AM PUTTING "COWPIE" (GOOD NAME) ON IGNORE

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[private_ryan]

11. or maybe just honest

even though your experince might be different. She just made the mistake of saying what she sees.

[Skittles]

12. NO

she said she feels HER EXPERIENCES alone are enough to judge ALL WOMENS' EXPERIENCES, and that LEGISLATION SHOULD BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY. THAT is ARROGANCE.

[private_ryan]

14. and everyone else is saying the exact opposite

which is not 100% true either.

[maxanne]

44. this isn't exactly

an area in which you are unbiased, private. You are a staunch defender of patriarchy on these threads.

[private_ryan]

45. and you are fair and balanced?

no bias whatsoever, correct?

[Darth_Kitten]

53. Patriarchy holds women back......

Feminism pushes both the sexes forward.

[private_ryan]

55. whatever floats your boat, feel free to label people and say whatever you

want

[Darth_Kitten]

167. Oh. Right. I'm labelling people now......

And yeah the concept of holding people back because of their gender sinks my boat. Sorry.

[maxanne]

58. if I were a member

of the ruling gender, you'd have a much better point.

[Darth_Kitten]

47. College is real life?

Yeah, guys are really fair to the gals in college and all, after all they are all invited to the same beer bashes. :(
Seriously though, we working gals have stories to tell, and I find the experiences related by the ladies here to have more than enough merit.
Egads, things are really still so backwards. :(

[private_ryan]

54. she stated her opinion from her limited experience

you state yours which is different, that's all. We all can agree to disagree and maybe she'll change her mind in a few years, but there's no neeed to bash her (other posts more). Isn't here a "sisterhood" here, or that applies only when they tow the official line?

[smirkymonkey]

180. Or doesn't see...

I suspect this person is young and clueless...give it a few years.

Or, maybe she's a he posing as a she. Hard to tell.

[donsu]

26. just wait

nt

[Darth_Kitten]

40. Wait until you get out of college......

wait until you get into the workforce, it ain't no picnic. :(

[maxanne]

42. good for you cowpie!

The viewopoint represented in your post is at odds with your sig line.

[Selwynn]

60. Give cowpie a break, O gentle and open-minded DU! /sarcasm

Hey guys, sorry that you disagree but some of your reactions are just pathetic, and an utter embarrassment to the ideal of a country in which dialog and open discussion and working together are concepts we cherish.

Instead, you demonstrate a "you're either with us or with the terrorists" mindset. I'm more ashame of some of the responses (Skittles) than I am with this post.

Do I agree with cowpies post? Well, its not completely clear, but probably not. I think a lot of you have pointed out a very true fact: that I congratulate you on being lucky enough to be in a place where you do not deal with much discrimination, but I think you are being a little bit foolish if you feel that the reality of gender discrimination in American is a myth. In fact, you can pretty much look at hard statistics and bear out the truth that gender discrimination remains a serious problem.

I appreciate your story of your experiences, but at the same time I could share the experiences of several of my friends who have dealt with gender discrimination and been treated unfairly for doing the same work of a man. Do I think that this problem is as bad as it was 30 years ago? No I do not - I believe we are making progress, but that progress is like two steps forward for every one step back. It is a long hard fight that is nowhere near over and I think we must continue to take it seriously until the day when gender discrimination is truly eradicated from not only our laws, but our hearts as well.

Now, to me that's the kind of response cowpie deserves.

[maxanne]

65. cowpie

was exactly what "she" sounded like. Tombstoned already.

[MidwestMomma]

69. It's an understandable reaction to a hurtful statement

It's really hard to strive all your life to make things better for women and take massive amounts of shit for it from men and women alike and then have a young women...who is very likely pursuing a career made possible by the very equal rights struggle she dimisses...come on a thread about equal pay and state...hey, I don't see any sexism, what sexism?

That is a smack-down, I don't care how you try to frame it.

[smirkymonkey]

181. Good point...

I am so tired of women of my generation and younger just assuming that their hard won rights (Thank you, all who participated in the women's movement!) are their birthright. They can and will be eroded very rapidly if we don't stay vigilant.

It is unfortunate that many younger women are sacrificing their selfhood just to get in good with "the guys". It's a losing proposition girls - the sooner you become aware of that fact, the better.

[CivilRightsNow]

226. We are a nation of self help gurus addicted to "oxy-morons"

In the same token, as women, I feel like some tried so hard to keep up with the men that they forgot they were charged with the responsibility of educating their offspring about what they have inheireted.

Adults always look down their nose and shake their finger and say, "You little gurlies, you better wisen up." While they flip through channels of scantily clad women, bitches and hoes, deragatory imagery and words.. body image.. etc.

I notice this in the democrats, in the feminists, in the christians... etc. Nobody wants to relate, inspire, invigorate. Everyone has to get motivated. Everyone has been slacking.

Don't tell me I have to wisen up. Tell me about what you are doing to make it better and why.

[minto grubb]

75. As the one who started this...

I just want to say I would be very happy if cowpie proved me wrong. sadly, I don't think she has.I can understand how some people may feel if someone maybe half thier age says "what problem? there ain't a problem" when the older person has first hand experience, but I feel we should project that anger at the system, not each other.
let us explore ways of moving forward together rather than just tearing each othe to bits.

[private_ryan]

95. "women still make up about 2% of all construction workers"

do you honestly think as many women would like to be construction workers as men? Ever worked it or been to a construction site? Child care workers are making a fortune where I live, up to $200 a week to take care of just ONE kid.

[kath]

152. umm, HELLOOOO! $200 a week is only 10,400 a year at most

definitely not even a living wage, much less "a fortune".

[private_ryan]

10. disagree with legislating pay

even two men doing the same exact job don't get paid the same (in a lot of cases). So many variations: how much business you bring in, how much sick time you get, how flexible you are, how much ass you kiss and so on. Starting salaries and raises in most cases are flexible, depending on the person and rightfully so; some people are better and smarter (or the boss thinks they're better) than some (in both genders).

If the law is passed, how would you enforce it? Sue them because Sally thinks she is getting paid less than Jim because she's a woman? What if John gets paid less than Jim?

[Yupster]

57. But even when pay is legislated

men still make more.

Public school teachers are paid on a salary schedule. If you have X years experience and Y education, you get Z salary. It's a chart made public to the whole population.

And yet, in every district in America, the average 55 year old man teacher makes more than the average 55 year old woman teacher. That must tell people there's more going on here than discrimination. If you factor out discrimination, and still get the same wage gap, there must be more than discrimination going on.

[minto grubb]

78. In actual fact

In England we used to have a system where your boss would pay you what he thought you were worth. I can remember when everyone got a pay packet, and you never showed anyone yours. It sounded fair, but it was so open to abuse that it was eventually done away with. Union men like me had a hard figth of it to convince people that lazy so and sos would not exploit the system. It took a Labour Government to do it, of course, and the right wing press said that we would be ruined, that firms would go bust as they were forced to employ the idle and unproductive. However, The more enlightened companies who got behind the Government initiative soon saw that setting standards clearly gave a better idea of what they wanted, a better idea of rating employees and the big firms all went with it . the rest had to follow. This ha s not lead to the collapse of great Britain just yet, nor most of Europe. Instead, there is a marked realisation that if you take someone on, you have to pay them. If you have to pay them, you might as well train them and if you do that, you train them well. We are moving away from the " Cheap labour" concept in Europe. Hotel Kitchen workers do a one day course in hygiene, and get a certificate. You cannot get a job washing dishes without one over here. Big firms can afford this, and set a good example. there are always firms who break the law, of course, but Govt. Health Inspectors work hand in hand with Union Reps and responsible employees to see that illegal immigrants who may carry typhoid do not get jobs handling food. Unskilled workers get eqaul pay and a clear standar to meet. Employers get better grade staff, the public get a better service. Everyone benefits. It does not work perfectly,
There needs to be legislation, and effective enforcement, but it does work. It needs improvement, but what we have in Europe could work elsewhere, I am sure.

[MidwestMomma]

87. Yes, we are very behind the times in the US in workers rights

That's because people have been convinced by the government and the media that unions are bad. Seriously, I argue with people at my non-union job all the time about it. They think union workers are slackers and losers who just get union jobs so they never have to put in another honest days work for the rest of their life and yet still receive fabulous paychecks and benefits.

They don't want to believe that we wouldn't have the modest benefits we do such as vacation and healthcare if it wasn't for the unions. (Or the fear of unions by corporate America) Most people here have bought into the lie that in our great free market system that all cream rises to the top and will be justly compensated and all the losers get what they deserve. (Except for those lousy Union people...who must someone day be forced to join the rest of us:))

Seriously.

We have the same system you had years ago where everyones pay is a big secret and if you tell anyone what you are making you'll get fired. And we all buy into this....what is wrong with us?

Of course this enables the powers-that-be to compensate workers however the hell they want and at whatever level they want. That's why most people would have no idea if men make more then women in the same position. They don't know what anybody makes in most companies.

Just think, if we all started sharing what we made and made companies accountable for the inequalities, they couldn't fire us all....could they?

That's why Americans say you can't legislate pay, because compensation in this country for the most part is made up of some mumbo-jumbo package of percentages based on profits and how well you suck up to ever be able to regulate.

Thanks for this opportunity to rant....

[minto grubb]

112. Have a rant on me...

Although not an American, I deeply wanted to set something going, because from what I hear, things are not so good for you guys over there. i don't want to sound patronising, but... well- you guys should give yourselves more credit. I know that 'lawsuit fever' takes hold on some people. We have it over here, there is a culture where people reckon that the union is there no mater what, but the truth is the union is only there if people want it there, and if it becomes a burden to the workforce, it loses its effect. People are beginning to realise that and come back becauase the unions have swung more into health and safety, rather than pay deals that ran above inflation.

[private_ryan]

97. I worked in Italy

I remember tha hour long lunches and 6 hour workdays, complete with god knows how many days of vacations. Try that in USA.

[minto grubb]

162. Italy has a lot of social factors

That are not Euro wide. The heat of the day is not so great in Sweden, f'rinstance, so Swedes don't have a seista. brits do not put in a 6 hr day, either. The length of the working day, number of public holidays, this kinda thing - it varies across Europe from country to country. I have not been to Italy myself, but , from what I see, the Italians turn out zippy little scooters, snazzy sports cars and really snappy suits, among othe things. If they can do all this on a 6 hr day and with lotsa holidays, workin' Italian tyle don't seem such a bad idea to me!

[SheilaT]

13. I think cowpie's only problem is that she's

probably quite young and has no idea. Cowpie, sweetie, do a little research on the pay of college professors, males vs females and report back on what you find.

I'll give you a bit of a head start: Female professors are invariably paid less for the same teaching load and the same amount of experience. Dontcha think that might indicate a little sexism?

[prolesunited]

16. Perhaps cowpie believes women

deserve less pay. It probably makes her more popular with men who are happy to meet someone who knows their place in the world, unlike us raging feminazis who want to change the status quo.

[MidwestMomma]

19. You are too funny....

from one raging feminazi to another :)

[sweetheart]

20. rock and roll feminazi's

Being really pissed off at a gross injustice is now a nazi... ha!

Feminazi's unite and refuse to bear another generation until there is equality.

[minto grubb]

79. I just want to say...

That I second that. Seriously, women should make a stand for their own rights. Having said that, I think people have a responsibility to help others who are faced with injustice.

[CivilRightsNow]

232. Hiss..

*fur fly* *tail up*

Retract yer claws, lady :) The poor kid is probably all of 20 years old.

[Cicero]

85. I find that very interesting...

...given that most university faculties lean overwhelmingly to the left in this country (USA). How would this ever be? (Yes, I am being a bit sarcastic here...)

Later,

[sweetheart]

17. women's pay equality sucks in britain...

are you kidding? The british patriarchy is alive and well. I don't have a link, but the guardian ran some stats on the equality of women's pay a while back, and it ain't so rosy as you put out.

Like in the US, women are grossly underrepresented in some professions and pay equality is simply not there... despite the "law". I'll buy that crap only when a person can show me a country where:

1. 50% of the parliment/congress is female
2. 50% of the executive is female
3. 50% of the judiciary is female
4. 50% of the boardroom's of public companies are female.


Strangely, 57% of the assets in america are owned by women... yet even owning things somehow does not translate in to equality.

The best countries for womens equality are denmark, sweden, holland and canada... and none of them get above an "F" on the 4 scales i just mentioned except sweden... and even then, forget the boardroom.

The repression of 50% of the human race is alive and well... everywhere... and nobody will challenge this in britain or anywhere else... i'm not flaming you londoner... just i'm really pissed off about the women's equality situation, and calling it a done deal in europe is a bit OTT.

Certainly in scotland and the north of england, it is much worse than in the city of london... pay equality is a problem in britain for men too in the sense that for every 100 miles you go from london, pay scales drop by 10K per annum. Petrol prices don't drop by 10% per 100 miles from london.... so basically, the economic planners that are pushing everything in to the southeast are actually dumping the nation in to relative poverty depending on proximity to london... .. off topic.. i know.. but all related to this pay equality issue.

[private_ryan]

22. the world is about 50% women and 50% men

BUT what % of women and what % of men are active in politics or puts in the time needed to become Disney's or GE's CEO. Many successful women leave the corporate world to raise families, which is not their fault but it takes a toll on their careers. Men can put 16 hours days because in most cases they have wives taking care of the kids, most women who want to raise families (perfectly normal) can't do that.

We need kids obviously, yet if you missed 12 months you aren't as qualified as someone else who was there all the time; things change a lot in that time. It maybe unfair, but it's the truth. Blame mother nature for having women give birth...

[MidwestMomma]

24. Hmmm, maybe sweetheart in Post 20 is right...

Maybe we should refuse to bear another generation until this issue is resolved. That would take care of your agrument against equal pay, now wouldn't it?

[donsu]

28. down thru the yrs. I thought the same - go on a reproduction strike

if all the women of the world got together on the same thing........
well, that's some power!

[private_ryan]

32. be honest

do women usually get a biological urge to have kids? This is NOT related to anything in this thread, I'm just wondering. We got our own urges too.

[prolesunited]

34. Yes

We are actually preprogrammed to be subservient to men. All we're doing here is fighting against the laws of nature.

[private_ryan]

35. so having kids is being subservient to men

cool. Now all I have to do is get my girlfriend pregnant. Thanks, prolesunited, you rule!

now that you opened my eyes, do you think that the evil men arranged that women have kids...to keep them down. I know it sounds far fetched to some who might not know but never underestimate what they're willing to do to keep women as second class citizens!!!

[maxanne]

52. no, private ryan

we women don't ever underestimate what you men will do to keep women as second class citizens. We've had a bellyful of it. Creating a God in your own image, and inventing religions that made us inferior were only the beginning.

[MidwestMomma]

56. Right on sister! n/t

[Character Assassin]

62. Yawn.

we women don't ever underestimate what you men will do to keep women as second class citizens.

"You" men? So all men are guilty of this? You fall into your own trap, Grasshopper.

We've had a bellyful of it. Creating a God in your own image, and inventing religions that made us inferior were only the beginning.

Rather than spouting the party line, how about dealing with modern day reality?

[maxanne]

67. what are you doing about it?

Character Assasin? Are you helping women to achieve equality? Or are you sitting around beating your chest longing for the good old days?

[Character Assassin]

70. For starters, I'm not making juvenile assumptions

Are you helping women to achieve equality? Or are you sitting around beating your chest longing for the good old days?

A. I'm not old enough to recall or even care about any 'good old days', and not stupid enough to believe what any particular party wants me to believe about them.

B. In my line of work, someone's head is far, far more important than their genitalia and, although there aren't many women who wish to pursue what I do, I welcome them warmly as another sharp mind can only make things better.

[maxanne]

73. we could continue

to bicker about whether or not you are making juvenile assumptions - accusing me of spouting party line might fall into that category... but we won't.

It's good to hear that you welcome women in your line of work.

[smirkymonkey]

185. Ummmm...Character Assassin..

that is what we are talking about in this post - modern day reality. Unfortunately, it has a long and ugly history as well.

And "Yawn" is an especially offensive response, commonly used by the sexist to belittle the feminist airing her grievances.

[Character Assassin]

189. The 'yawn' was to indicate the content was the same old, tired party line

that is what we are talking about in this post - modern day reality. Unfortunately, it has a long and ugly history as well.

No one is disputing that. It is meaningless to bemoan past 'grievances' like something as amorphous as the creation of a religion as if it had anything to do with the solutions that we have to face today.

Even if I were to ascribe to males some silly concept of guilt for belonging to the gender that created a religion that modern women might consider is holding them back, so what? What about doing something about it now, rather than just bemoaning it and pointing fingers?

And "Yawn" is an especially offensive response, commonly used by the sexist to belittle the feminist airing her grievances.

Bullshit. "Yawn" isn't particularly used to belittle feminists; it's used to show the pedestrian nature of what was being responded to.

[smirkymonkey]

202. You don't even see how dismissive

your responses are to maxanne. And to me. Instead of considering that someone who has actually experienced sexism might have a valid point, citing history, you shut the argument down cold by your "Yawn", implying that the poster is boring you because they disagree with you.

"Bullshit. "Yawn" isn't particularly used to belittle feminists; it's used to show the pedestrian nature of what was being responded to."

Don't you think calling the argument "pedestrian" is just a little arrogant and demeaning. And "yawn" is used to shut down any argument or viewpoint, whether it is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. by implying that the topic is so "dull" or "irrelevant" that it is not even worthy of discussion.

[Character Assassin]

258. No, you labelling that way doesn't make that so

your responses are to maxanne. And to me. Instead of considering that someone who has actually experienced sexism might have a valid point, citing history, you shut the argument down cold by your "Yawn", implying that the poster is boring you because they disagree with you.

No, I'm stating that the argument that men created patriarchal religious structures to oppress women is essentially worthless to actually addressing whatever problems stem from sexism today.. I'm not arguing that she hasn't experienced sexism.

Don't you think calling the argument "pedestrian" is just a little arrogant and demeaning.

No, especially when a particular argument actually is pedestrian. And again, no, it's not 'demeaning' in the least.

And "yawn" is used to shut down any argument or viewpoint, whether it is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. by implying that the topic is so "dull" or "irrelevant" that it is not even worthy of discussion.

Oh, please. It reflected, and reflects, my opinion of the substance of her arguement. I consider the specific topic of patriarchal religions irrelevant and, in this context, actually distracting from the main point, and hence the 'yawn'.

If someone is so unsure of their position and/or the evidence to support it that they're "shut down" and do not continue, that belies something about the quality of their argument.

[Selwynn]

64. This MAN is with ya, sis --

And no, I'm not offended by the generalization "you men" -- the cold hard FACT of the matter is that the majority position of males in society has been one of dominance. Of course there are always exceptions to any generalization, like me - I hope others would see me as an exception to the general rule about "men" in society. But the fact of the matter is, its still the "norm" attitude, in my opinion. And this man is willing to say that.

[maxanne]

68. thanks Selwynn

You are definitely an exception. Thank you for seeing things the way you do - and saying so. :thumbsup:

[minto grubb]

89. Maybe you are...

but the point is that an ' Us and Them' attitude is not going to help. Just accepting it is not going to change it. I AM offended by the generalisation "you men".
My father was a drunken wife beater, and I've got into a lot of fights in my time. First with him, then with others. My father was able to abuse my mother because the system allowed it. I have always had to take the system on, and deeply and bitterly resent being cast as a part of it. 'What have YOU done, personally, to help the oppressed?' is my question to anyone who will challenge my credentials. and I am willing to anwer that question, if you think you want to ask.

[Selwynn]

110. I think owning up to our societal lot is the first step in changing things

The system casts men as dominant over woman, the system is inherently patriarchical and reinforces those patriarchical attitudes into individuals in society. No, its not universally successful, some men end up becoming very enlightened about gender issues, and that's wonderful. Still doesn't change the fact that as a society there is a huge problem with how male "roles" are perceived and how female "roles" are perceived.

By the very fact of saying it is an institutional establishment problem, we are saying that it is a problem that has an over-arching affect on dominant male attitudes in society today, and that is just a fact. It really matters little whether you like it or not. You are in the minority, the very small minority. And I think its a far better and more valuable use of time to accept that as the first step in changing it than to take offense at a correct generalization and societal male attitudes in the United States of America.

[minto grubb]

115. Oh, yeah?

You are in the minority, the very small minority. And I think its a far better and more valuable use of time to accept that as the first step in changing it than to take offense at a correct generalization and societal male attitudes in the United States of America.
Well, thank you, but I disagree. I may be in a minority, but Rosa Parkes was in a minority once.If you are right, and on your own, you are still right. I don't care who agrees with you on this. You point to your followers, I will point to facts.
"You men" is as demeaning as saying all women are..."whatever. To me, women are all individuals. I want equality for women. so I see myself in the same terms. I don't even think it fair to say "99% of American men are..." unless you have some sort of data/ experience of that 99%. Although I don't see any way that the first comment was excluding me as a Brit. If you are going to say somehing about me, or about people that may include me, please be sure to get the facts straight.
Does a German speaking Jew have to take personal responsibility for for the Nazis? I think not. By the same token, I am not taking personal responsibility for my dad, or any other person who I consider as a failure as a human being, never mind as a husband and a father.
Patriarchy? Not in MY name, buddy!
Kindly respect that position on that, or I shall take it to the moderators.

[Selwynn]

147. Take whatever you want to the moderators -

I've been more then decent and even handed in my responses. The bottom line of all of this is a petty semantic issue. I don't believe for an instant that a bulk of the people who have read these threads really believed she literally meant "every single man on the face of the earth without exception." I think its pretty well understood that she is speaking of a reality that is so widely and so commonly true, and the exceptions to the rule so very very rare, that its a fair and reasonable generalization.

You know, I'm not one of "those men" either, and I am still not at all offended by the observation. I don't feel the need to give my "credentials" or go around proving to everyone else how great I am or how much I've done for women in order to defend myself. I don't need to threaten anyone who sees it differently with running to moderators. The reason I don't do any of these things is because I accept the fact that most of my fellow men still do not have healthy and proper attitudes toward women today - still, after all this time. Is it getting better? You bet - two steps forward for every one step back. But its still not very good. And ultimately I guess I'm more secure in my own attitudes and actions toward others so that I don't need to go into hysterics over an issue of semantics.

[maxanne]

117. it's your choice

to be offended. Hundreds of years of male dominance and female oppression and I should pussyfoot around and say, "Some men oppress my gender?"

The way I see it, minto grubb - if you don't understand my anger, you're one of them.

[minto grubb]

170. Ooops...

Sorry, I do understand your anger, but you are going to get nowhere by slagging off people who could be useful allies. I have issues of my own around this business myself. I am not going into tem here , but I do want to say that 'we' are not all out to oppress you.
Ok , some of what has prompted that response has been personal stuff in my life that it is unfai to expect you to know about and respond to. I guessthere is a lot you could tell me about this issue that springs from your own personal experience.
I hope you can accept the fact that I accept the position that women have been oppressed by Male dominated society for many centuries, but that I am someone who has tried to oppose that.

[minto grubb]

86. Er...

It may be true that MEN invented imperialism,racism, sexism and all the other evils that you are so justly angry about.
however, I refuse to let anyone say we are all the same, or even imply it, and let it go unchallenged.
there may not have been many , but my grandfather was one man who refused to go to war in 1914, (and it was women who sent him white feathers) In my own generation, there were men who campaigned to bring women the economic and political rights they have in britain today (I will respond to an earlier post on that when I have worked my way through).
There may not be many of us, but we did our bit, and I do wish that some in feminist circles would acknowledge the support of the TUC and other bodies that have supported Women's Rights instead of bigotedly branding us as " The Enemy".

[Selwynn]

111. The more important issue is societal trends and dogmas

-- not the aberrant from the societal norm. Until the day when the societal norm is people like you and I and the societal minority are misogynistic and steeped in patriarchal attitudes, I will continue to point out that the societal attitudes of men on the whole are fundamentally gender biased and discriminatory. Why? Because its a fact.

When we speak of the attitude of "men" in society, we're talking about an abstract. It's a commentary on society and the systems of oppression rather than a commentary on all individual men. The point is to say that society teaches men to be gender biased - and that is absolutely true.

Now, not all men accept this teaching from society, and no one was saying that they do, but society definitely teaches it. And that's what we've got to change.

[minto grubb]

119. Society is at fault

not all men accept this teaching from society, and no one was saying that they do, but society definitely teaches it. And that's what we've got to change.
I would say that society is at fault, even so far as to say 'British society', even, but make it clear...sexism runs in society. and there are women I have met in person that have a very neg attitude to women's rights, roles. etc.
Pinning the blame on men is not going to tackle it, or change anything, it refuses to acknowledge that some of us do buck the system, in spite of the odds, and if guys like me do, we all can.
Have you any idea what it is like to to grow up as a boy in a family like mine in a place like I did? Can you even find my childhood home on a map? Explain the internal dialogue and track the key events of my life? If not, please don't tell me where I should be on certain issues, thank you.

I would argue that what I have done for women is far more important to people like my mum than anything Michael Moore ever said in some book of his.

[Selwynn]

141. First of all, I didn't respond to you, you responded to me

So making this personally about you is silly. You responded to my post, which was a response to someone else's post. I don't have anything to say about your past, your issues or the fact that you need to bring up how hard your life was or how much you do for other people every five seconds.

I agree with you that society is at fault. I agree with you that some individual women as well as individual men have a very negative attitude toward women's rights. I also feel however, that society on the whole reinforces stereotypical men's attitudes of gender discrimination. I also feel that American society on the whole is characterized by attitudes of male dominance and sexism. Blame should be placed on the majority of men in this country. If a majority of men in this country did not have attitudes of discrimination and sexism, then there wouldn't be a problem of discrimination and sexism.

I'm sorry you're making this personal. I don't believe for an instant the point of the original post in this chain was to literally imply that all men are sexists. She even clarified later that there are exceptions to the rule. And with all due respect, this thread really has nothing to do with what you've done for who, or how spectacular you think you are (or actually are.) I know that sounds harsh, but you're turning this into some personal thing with you and the only one who is making it that is you.

I'm glad you're a great guy who does lots of great stuff. That's super duper, go you. It also has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't change the fact that their is inherent and perpetuated sexism in our societal structure, it doesn't change the fact that this inherent sexism is indoctrinated and taught to men especially and that a great many men buy into that indoctrination - hence the problem of sexism in the first place. The fact that you are a super duper man who's god's gift to woman really is irrelevant, though commendable.

[minto grubb]

175. yeah, ok, my bad...

[minto grubb]

82. "Preprogramming???"

Look, I may be just a bloke here, but I cannot see any evidence of women being ' preprogrammed' to do anything much.I do notice that women from Franch tend to speak French, and tend to adopt more gallic mannerisms than dutch womn, say.
Its social conditioning we are talking here. There are a lot of excuses for not fighting for a better way of life for ourselves and our children, but 'the laws of nature?'
Surely, don't we defy Nature every time we plow up a field to plant corn, and mill that corn into flour and turn that flour into bread?
Because we do not settle for what nature gives us, that is what makes us truly human. Biology is not destiny. We can fly to the moon if we wish, cannot we allow equality to become the norm for everyone on earth? or are we just not up to that?

[private_ryan]

91. she was being sarcastic on that one

n/t

[minto grubb]

197. Sorry, I never did understand the American sense of irony...

[smirkymonkey]

183. No, I have a biological

urge to stay as far away from them as possible.

No offense meant to mothers, I just happen to be one of those people with absolutely no desire to procreate or raise children.

[CivilRightsNow]

234. Personally...

I get a heart urge to have kids. It isnt biological, so much as the desire to make a life with the person I love and hopefully guide them through the world, the best that I can. It's dreams of getting to see the world again, wide eyed with wonder.

Biologically and mentally, I have no desire to reproduce. Mad cows? Bush? Perpetual war?

No thanks.

[private_ryan]

29. not really

if you want to totally dedicate yourself to work (plenty do) more power to you, but if you take off for years you aren't worth the same to the company as they man or woman who worked there continuosly. It's the fact. Try getting a job in certain fields as GUY who hasn't been in the worforce for 3 years, see how that plays out...

I oppose the law because salaries are not carved in stone, a lot of variables that can't be legislated. Even two women or two men get paid differently for "the same job".

[prolesunited]

30. LOL!

:yourock:

For the man here defending his right to earn more than me because he has a penis: that would be a fitting argument except for the fact that women who DO NOT have children find themselves penalized. Also, women who postpone child-bearing are still not allowed to ascend up the corporate ladder.

The second issue is why women are still relegated to the role of caretaker. How many women stay home and take care of the kids while hubby works anymore anyway. So when a family has kids, both parents work, why should the woman be penalized? You don't hear men complaining how hard it is to raise a family and have a career.

Two working parents are the norm, yet women retain the majority of household tasks. Why is that? Just because I have a uterus doesn't make me preeminently qualified to scrub a toilet, pick up the kids from school or fold the laundry.

To be honest, if it were the other way around and women were on top, I would be fighting for equality for men. Or, perhaps you want your mother/sister/daughter/granddaughter to be a victim of this unjustice. I'm not asking for more or special treatment, just the same treatment.

Just because you're denying the reality of the patriarchal system doesn't make it magically disappear. Imagine yourself on the other side.

[smirkymonkey]

182. Lysistrata redux!!

now that would be interesting! Seems to be the only real power we have, sadly.

[sweetheart]

25. so its unequal because women bear children

What crap. Many women forego the childbearing experience, thankfully, as our world population grows at a rate sure to strip the last remaining clean water and other resources... but that aside.

I don't buy that crap at all. Sitting in parliment does not take balls, it takes brains, and can be done just as eaasily with a child in daycare. Sitting in a boardroom similarly.

Your comment contains pure chauvanism and i'm containing myself... as you've hit a raw nerve. It is BULLSHIT what you said... it is an excuse for gross repression and fucking all women over... and its not OK and never will be...

It is not about childbirth, it is about misogyny.

[private_ryan]

27. contain yourself or let it go all you want

Are you angry that you weren't born a man?

"Sitting in parliment does not take balls, it takes brains, and can be done just as esily with a child in daycare. Sitting in a boardroom similarly."

sitting in parlament or Congress requires to campaign for months and months and to dedicate your life to politics. Very few people get to sit, at least here most have to be elected to it. Way more men than women have the time or will to do that. Plenty of women stay at home and raise kids if economics allow it. Hate it all you want, its the reality!!!!


"Many women forego the childbearing experience"...what % do? Most, by a wide margin don't thankfully.

[prolesunited]

33. Yes!

It ALL boils down to penis envy. Good gawd!!! :eyes:

Well, I would love to stay and play but the sun is actually shining so I'm going to his the trail and do 30 miles on my bike. Have fun y'all! :hi:

[Darth_Kitten]

59. Are you angry whenever your efforts.......

of keeping your mother/girlfriend/any female relative in her lowly place fail? :eyes:

Why are women supposed to WORK doing ALL the childcare and housework, etc, so men can be paid more? :eyes:

[private_ryan]

66. do you sense anger in my posts?

if you I failed to translate my mood in the posts. Sorry...

[smirkymonkey]

188. No, just blatant sexism...

then, on the other hand, I guess that is just another manifestation of anger.

[dawn]

83. Well, to be honest, it would be good if more women didn't.

There's too many people on this planet.

[private_ryan]

100. I agree but

we still need kids. Maybe less but we still need plenty of kids. Who will pay for your pension? Women are cutting down on kids, but still having them.

[dawn]

190. Of course we need kids.

I don't think we are at any risk of not adding a zillion more, world-wide, in the next year or two.

So don't worry.

[minto grubb]

172. Planet Population

There's too many people on this planet.
Last estimate I heard from UNESCO said that we could support 12 Billion people on planet Earth.
Current population is around 6 billion.
People are not the problem. The system is. We need to change how we do things. Equality for the women of the world, including women in the West who are raising the next generation of workers and taxpayers, totally free of charge and with little or no proper support from the state is one way to go about it.

[dawn]

192. Hmmm...good point.

I like your take on this. I still think the world is over-populated, but maybe it's because of the way things are run, not because of the amount of people.

[minto grubb]

241. Ok, so is the answer...

to have less people, or to take more care of the one's we already have? Actually population growth in some countries is in decline. Dunno about the States, but UK demographics show women having smaller families, later on. We have an ageing population. If we expect women to be mothers we must give them a much better deal than they are getting now.

[dawn]

271. I'd say a combination of the two.

I think we should focus on taking proper care of the people already here, and the ones to come. And I also think perhaps less people might be a good thing in the meantime, but that's only if someone chooses not to have children. It's a personal choice, but one I think more are making due right now.

I'd love to have a kid, but I long ago planned to either adopt one from another country or dedicate that time and money trying to help the less fortunate children on the planet. I just don't know if this is the best time for me to have a kid, due to economic reasons.

[CivilRightsNow]

236. U.S. Birth Rate Reaches Record Low

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/releases/03news/lowbirth.htm

The U.S. birth rate fell to the lowest level since national data have been available, reports the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) birth statistics released today by HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. Secretary Thompson also noted that the rate of teen births fell to a new record low, continuing a decline that began in 1991.

The birth rate was 13.9 per 1,000 persons in 2002, a decline of 1 percent from the rate of 14.1 per 1,000 in 2001 and down 17 percent from the recent peak in 1990 (16.7 per 1,000), according to a new CDC report, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2002.” The current low birth rate primarily reflects the smaller proportion of women of childbearing age in the U.S. population, as baby boomers age and Americans are living longer.

There has also been a recent downturn in the birth rate for women in the peak childbearing ages. Birth rates for women in their 20s and early 30s were generally down while births to older mothers (35-44) were still on the rise. Rates were stable for women over 45.

Birth rates among teenagers were down in 2002, continuing a decline that began in 1991. The birth rate fell to 43 births per 1,000 females 15-19 years of age in 2002, a 5-percent decline from 2001 and a 28-percent decline from 1990. The decline in the birth rate for younger teens, 15-17 years of age, is even more substantial, dropping 38 percent from 1990 to 2002 compared with a drop of 18 percent for teens 18-19 years.

...snip

[Yupster]

63. Statistics

Yes, many women don't take time off to have kids.

But,

statistically, all it would take is one out of ten to stay home and have kids to screw up the statistics. If you don't know any such women, meet my wife. She had a kid seven years ago and hasn't gone back to her career since. We just talked about it this week. Her opinion is that unless she absolutely needs to, she'd prefer not to go back to work.

Now you may never have taken a day off, but statistically, if you're going to be averaged with my wife, she's going to really mess your numbers up.

For example, if you have 10 boys and girls taking a spelling test. If all 10 boys got a 100, and 9 of the 10 girls got a 100, but one girl skipped class and got a 0, then statistically the boys did significantly better than girls on the test.

That doesn't mean that the girls are stupid or didn't try hard. You may say that your daughter got a hundred, and so did her friend next door, so how can this be?

It just means that small differences can skew the statistics, and my wife taking years off from work, and millions of other women doing the same will of course skew the numbers about whether men or women make more. That's hardly arguable.

The only question is how much of the gap is discrimination and how much is the other factors like time off work and extra duties, experience, etc.

[maxanne]

46. right on, dude

and if it were up to me, women would refuse to give birth until we achieved full equality.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Good luck on that

In my experience, women want children a lot more often than men. If you choose to boycott, I'm sure all you will do is ensure that LIBERAL women don't have kids.

[minto grubb]

219. Refusing to have children...

Given that the State is getting women to raise the next generation of workers and taxpaying citizens totally free of charge, and with little or no support, I think it fair that women should start demanding that the state compensate women who become mothers.
I don't know about a boycott, but it seems to me many women are 'voting with their feet' already, and not having children till they have had something of a career, at least.
Do you feel that there is any possibility that the Democrats, say, could be persuaded to give a better break to working mothers?
In Britain, there is 'family friendly' legislation in force. Not having kids myself, I am unfamiliar with the small print, but basically an employer MUST sit down and discuss flexitime, maternity leave or some simalar arrangement with unions on behalf of staff. the reactionary press are screaming that it will ruin the economy, of course, but I view it as another step forward.

[Mairead]

61. No, even when all variables are controlled except sex membership

women are paid significantly less well than men. When I entered the workforce 45 years ago, we made on the order of 65c to the male dollar. Today we make on the order of 80c.

But there's also an age skew that gets washed out in that '80c'. Younger women in technical fields are typically at parity in entry-level jobs, but the filtering process then starts working such that, at 5 years' steady experience, the men on average have nearly a full grade advantage over their erstwhile peers (Principal Engineer vs Senior Engineer). When I managed an engineering department, I had to work like hell to see that the women got parity in architect and project-leader positions. If I didn't watch it like a hawk, it would 'somehow' turn out that women would get Assistant positions, or 'leadership' of one-person or 2-person projects while the guys would get the 5- and 10-person projects.

So the parity at entry level would translate, unless tightly managed, to a $10K-$20K difference five years later, and to a $25 to $50K difference at the 10-year mark.

[dawn]

81. But many women choose not to give birth..

So that makes your argument only valid for the women who do.

[private_ryan]

93. not really

we're talking percentages. By in large women have kids and are family oriented as suppose to being career oriented. Those (the majority) obviously skew the numbers for everyone. You can't talk about individual people in this case, and she wanted 50% of CEOs, Congress etc to be women. Given that men and women are almost 50-50 in population, if less women then men are career oriented (want /have time for these positions) it will never be 50-50 in executive /political positions and call it fair. Fuzzy math, you know...

[prolesunited]

163. Would you have any actual statistics or studies

to back up these numbers or are you still living in the 1950s world of Ozzie and Harriet?

Ummm... and last time I checked, having a child does NOT preclude you from being career oriented. Why, just look at all of the men who manage to have kids and retain their interests in their careers.

Clue phone for you, even if it were economically feasible, the majority of us would NOT choose to stay home and be barefoot and pregnant.

Have you shared your beliefs about women with your girlfriend? She's OK with your anachronistic ideas?

[dawn]

194. So individual women must pay for the choices of the majority?

I think PEOPLE should be evaluated for pay based on what they can give to the company, not on their gender. Because most women give birth, and many choose to take time off for their families, women who don't should be paid less, even if they spend just as much time on their careers as the men do?

That's why the system is flawed. I plan not to have kids, so I should be paid for the time I put in at a company. Period. No employer should pre-judge me just because I am a member of a group (women) that take years off to be with their kids.

And for the women who do have kids and take time off, many don't leave the workforce altogether. Many work part-time, volunteer, or do freelance work. Not to mention the work they do at home! It's just that that kind of work isn't valued by corporate America, and that needs to change.

Edited for spelling.

[Darth_Kitten]

37. What would I be surprised to know that men actually support.....

equal rights for women?

What do you have against working mothers? They are the backbone of our society!
So when women are staying home with their kids, who is paying the rent, mortgage, insurance, car, food costs, etc? Somebody is, or is it just okay when a man brings home the bacon?

Yeah, the Feminist movement doesn't make enough of an issue of equal pay for work of equal value. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. I support women working or not working

As long as they can afford the second option.

[minto grubb]

99. The great Debate continues...?

<i>the Feminist movement doesn't make enough of an issue of equal pay for work of equal value. :eyes:</i>
This is precisely why I raised the subject. Thank you to all those who took part. Even if I dissagreed with what you said, it is only by hammering things out in rational debate that we can move forward. I have learned a lot this ever=ning. Thank you all.

[wanderingbear]

72. Nobody gets equal pay anymore..

Its the poor against the privalaged now days..

[auburnblu]

77. Equal pay in the UK, Don't think so

http://www.union-network.org/uniwomen.nsf/0/788171bdcbdbdee8c1256aa2004715c4/$FILE/background%20report-e.pdf


http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/capitalwoman/brochure_03/capitalwoman03_pt2.pdf

Damn this thing called the internet is great for finding out reality. Please do tell, do tell how the UK has more equality in pay than the U.S.


Yet one more link for good measure.

45 Years For Gender Pay Gap To Close
The gender pay gap in Britain is so wide and progress towards closing the gap is so slow that it could take up to 45 years to achieve, according to research from the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Out of 15 EU countries studied, the UK was ranked the twelfth poorest for equal pay. In Britain average weekly earnings for women in full-time employment are only 75% of those for their male counterparts, and 82% if they are paid weekly. In addition, the pay gap has only narrowed by 4% in the past ten years, meaning it could be 'a working lifetime before equality is achieved'.

(Equal Pay A Lifetime Away?, Transport and General Workers' Union press release, 8 March 2002. http://www.tgwu.org.uk/tgonline/newsrelease/2002/pr0080.htm)

[minto grubb]

94. Equal Pay in Britain

look, I am a Trade Union Rep, and I am telling you that if a woman takes a job in any reputable company, she will not usually be told on application that her salary is 'negotiable'.
If she is working in a sales office, she will be paid on commission, and there are a few other anomilies in the system, but if Ms Average gets a job where she is paid by the hour, and if she finds a guy on her grade getting a penny an hour more, she can sue the company.
The problem is that we have achieved equal pay in jobs- but not equal opportunities in Careers. Perhaps someone will pull out the statistics and prove me wrong, but most women - most people -who work in the UK are not soccer players or TV celebrities, or even CEOs. Most workers of either sex are working in shops and factories, and my personal experience, based on over 25 years in retail, manufacture and public services, is that when you get a job, you get a grade. if you take a position in Macdonalds selling fries, you get that grade pay, male or female. You want more? You get yourself promoted! Even as a Supervisor or Manager, your pay will be graded, you cannot, as a company, pay some of your staff less than some one else on the same grade- its the LAW!
The problem rises when you look at who gets to the top. Women ARE under represented at the top. not just in business, but in the police force, the judiciary, Medicine, you name it. We even have trouble getting women as Labour MPs and Union Reps. The point is though, that the unskilled and junior grades are equally open to women, and they never used to be. We just got a big intake of women Train Drivers on the London Underground. The next thing Union Reps Like me had to fight for was proper toilets and changing facilities for them. Of course I backed strike action! Of course there will be other battles, but the point is that I cannot say to the woman who is earning less than the guys in her office 'sue your company', because you are in America, and although it may be immorral to discriminate, it is not illegal over there.
In spite of the 'Glass Ceiling' effect, we do have equal pay for equal grades here. We now need to get more women into higher grades. Part of the problem is that women must still choose between families or careers in a way that men don't. But that is the only logical reason I can see for it. Apart from sexism, of course.

[dawn]

80. I am all for equal pay for equal work!

It's sad when it ends up not being the case, more often than not.

[KFC]

88. Sure, in a robot society

But I'm not sure that ro-bots would give a shit.

We do not have to legislate everything.

[Pithlet]

98. Myths about equal pay

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/000907.html

This is a link to a series of posts on a liberal blog that very nicely dispel a lot of the myths about equal pay that have been given in this thread. The fact is, there IS a gap, even if you take into consideration all of the factors mentioned, such as experience, seniority, and motherhood. Studies have born this out. Really, anyone who still thinks that pay is now equal between men and women, and sexism no longer exists in the workplace should take the time and check out this link. It is a real eye opener. I never thought it was equal, but I really had no idea how bad it still really is.

I especially like the section on The Motherhood Myth because it rightfully points out that yes, motherhood does account for SOME of the inequality, but you can't get away from the sexist reasons why this is so.

[Yupster]

108. Very good pithlet

"yes, motherhood does account for SOME of the inequality"

The question is how much is because of such factors as motherhood and how much is due to discrimination. That is the question that needs answering to see how big a problem we have.

I take to task those who assume the entire 76-100 pay gap is discrimination which it clearly is not, and it's good to see even sights that push the discrimination angle conceding that there's more to the numbers than discrimination.

However, a week from now, we can still expect someone to post on DU that due to discrimination, a woman only makes 76 cents on the dollar to what a man makes, even though everyone, even those trying to fight the discrimination knows it isn't true.

[Pithlet]

113. Here's an excerpt

from the link I posted:

"Finally, to whatever extent some women freely choose to stay out of the labor market, the choice isn't made in a void. The fact that women - even non-mothers - get rewarded less for wage-work than men means that women give less up if they choose to trade off paid work for motherhood. Women's lower pay means women have less reason to stay in the paid work market; it also means that when a married couple decides that the lower-paid spouse should give up work for children, the spouse who happens to be lower paid will almost always be the wife. Economists call this a "feedback effect"; it's likely that women earn less because they work less, but it's also likely that women work less because of lower earnings.

To sum up, motherhood can account for a significant part of the wage gap. But motherhood doesn't account for all of the wage gap. Nor is it safe to assume that the "motherhood penalty" has nothing to do with discrimination or sexism."

The very last sentence especially sums up how I feel. I would say that a great percentage of that 76-100 gap is due to discrimination. To simply point at the motherhood factor as part of it and say "Ah, well, that's it then" does a disservice to the equal rights movement. The fact that the gap exists to the extent that it does clearly needs to be addressed and fixed.

The reason why there's a motherhood gap is because it's next to impossible for a man to get the kind of leave and concessions required to be the primary care giver. Couple that with the fact that our society expects the women to be the primary givers, and I would say that the motherhood gap is largely due to discrimination.

[Yupster]

118. You make it sound like

staying home with the kiddoes is some kind of an awful thing.

My wife loves it. She has no intention of going back to work barring a financial emergency.

We have one kid, and he's in school most of the day. My wife is lucky enough to not have to work outside the home -- and she's supposed to feel discriminated against? I guess she's suffering it well.

Anyway, I'm glad your site recognizes as it says that ...

"To sum up, motherhood can account for a significant part of the wage gap. But motherhood doesn't account for all of the wage gap..."

I think it right to come down on anyone who says there is no discrimination, and equally come down on anyone who says the wage gap is entirely because of discrimination. The answer is in between somewhere. I guess any argument would be between how much of the 24 % gap is discrimination and how much is other issues. Some might argue 4 % is discrimination and others may argue 10 % s discrimination, but someone who says there's no duscrimination or someone who says it's 24 % discrimination would be equally ill-informed.

[Pithlet]

122. Guess what?

I stay at home with my kids, too. I love it. Definitely not an awful thing. Wasn't my point at all. I really don't see where you got that, frankly.

It doesn't matter if only one percent of it isn't discrimination. Looking to make any excuses for the gap, which is what you seem to be doing, only prevents people from taking it seriously. Only after the gap has been aggressively attacked in every area that it could conceivably be discrimination, then and only then is it work talking about whether or not there are other reasons besides discrimination for the gap. Trying to find those other reasons now is to merely make excuses for not aggressively attacking the gap.

[Yupster]

138. I'd like to know how nig a problem we have

before I propose solutions to fix it. If it's a 2 % wage gap, I'm not going to be as worried as if it's a 10 % wage gap. Also I'd like to know if it's closing by itself just over time.

I don't think it helps matters when people exaggerate the problem saying discrimination causes women to only make 76 % of what men make. That's just dishonest.

[Pithlet]

143. No

It's dishonest to pretend that just because the entire problem is not caused by discrimination you are excused from dealing with the problem. You are not. All your talk about "we don't know what the percentages are" is so much chop logic designed to make you feel better about your unwillingness to deal with a very real problem. That is dishonesty.

[Yupster]

153. Okay, I agree that there is some discrimination

in employment, though maybe much less than you.

Regardless of the number, what should we do about it.

My own view is that it is correcting itself rather quickly over the last 20 years, and will accelerate over the next 20. My evidence for this is that women now graduate in greater numbers from high school. Women go to college in greater numbers. Women graduate college in greater numbers. Some colleges are even having outreach programs to try to find male students. Women go to grad school in greater numbers. Almost every company in the nation is trying to recruit women into their adminitration. School districts are being particularly aggressive in increasing the numbers of women principals and other administration.

It may take some time for the high school and college rates to filter through to top management positions since most people hired for these jobs are in their 50's-60's, but it will filter through. Also, regardless of all the rest, women will continue to have family and other responsibilities and choices upsetting their average salaries, so the next question would be, when do we declare wages equal? If women got within 15 % would they be equal then? 10 %? If they get to 100 %, of men's salaries, and many more still work part-time, and take years off interrupting their careers, then they will be far above 100 % in actuality.

Or maybe this is good. Maybe women should make 15 % more than men for 50 years to make up for all the years that men made more than women.

Anyway, as a mathematical person, that's why I'd like some idea of what kind of problem we are facing.

But that's my opinion. Since I agree that discrimination does exist, I'd like to hear your proposals for fighting it.

[Pithlet]

154. Well, for starters

passing an Equal Rights Amendment would be nice. Rearranging our thoughts on parenting so that it isn't assumed that the mother will be the primary care giver, and it isn't assumed that the mother will be the one to sacrifice her career for childrearing. Frankly, if we changed the relationship between businesses and childrearing to the point that raising a family was not seen as a choice that took away from one's career for ANY gender, we would go a long way to removing the wage gap. More stringent enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, and modifying the laws to prevent businesses from paying female dominated jobs less than their functional equivalent but male dominated jobs would also help.

[Muddleoftheroad]

155. Now, how do you legislate that

Why is a separate Equal Rights Amendment needed?

Isn't the 14th good enough? "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How do you propose to rearrange "our thoughts on parenting so that it isn't assumed that the mother will be the primary care giver, and it isn't assumed that the mother will be the one to sacrifice her career for childrearing?"

Lots of women prefer to be caregivers and that will ALWAYS impact the wage gap. In my experience, more women desire parenthood than men. How do you plan to legislate around that?

The problem with your next point is that "raising a family" IS a choice that takes away from one's career.

Which anti-discrimination laws do you want more heavily enforced? How?

Lastly, how do you wish to modify "the laws to prevent businesses from paying female dominated jobs less than their functional equivalent but male dominated jobs would also help?" Which laws, which jobs equate to others?

[Pithlet]

157. First of all

the 14th amendment does not address equality in pay.

"How do you propose to rearrange "our thoughts on parenting so that it isn't assumed that the mother will be the primary care giver, and it isn't assumed that the mother will be the one to sacrifice her career for childrearing?"

Why exact is that assumed? Do women naturally make better parents than men? I, individually, can't single handedly rearrange anyone's thoughts; I was stating that a change in how society views gender roles, including child rearing, would help reduce the wage gap. Newsflash: not all women want to be mothers, and of those that do, not all of them want to be the one in a partnership that caries more of the burden of childrearing. But that is the misconception, which you yourself hold, that many have. Your statement that more women, in your experience, desire parenthood then men speaks to that. Got anything else to back that up? The ONLY reason why I am the one that stays home with the kids, and not my husband, is because his salary is more than 3 times as high as mine was. He and I are both equally educated. It's just that his skills are valued more in society than mine are. Mine was in a field dominated by women. Funny how that works. Our scenario is very common. It's not that I don't enjoy staying home with them, but my husband would enjoy it equally as much, and has more than once stated that he wishes he were the one staying home. He didn't desire parenthood any less than I.

"The problem with your next point is that "raising a family" IS a choice that takes away from one's career." You're absolutely right. Guess which gender that affects more often. And why is that? Even among those who decide to work, women are oftentimes the spouse that has to leave when a child is sick and sent home from daycare. It is more often the women who take personal days to attend parent conferences. And, overwhelmingly, it is women who take breaks from their careers and stay home to raise children. If a couple decides that one parent should stay home, why is it almost always the mother? Is it because that is what is ingrained in us; that women are naturally the better caregiver? If all things were equal in pay and perceived gender roles, I believe more men would be staying home with their children. Why does that idea seem so foreign to so many? The pay gap would lessen overall if more men were taking breaks from their careers and if men were picking up more of the burden in two-income households.

"Which anti-discrimination laws do you want more heavily enforced? How?" The Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C. § 206(d)) for one.

"Lastly, how do you wish to modify "the laws to prevent businesses from paying female dominated jobs less than their functional equivalent but male dominated jobs would also help?" Which laws, which jobs equate to others?" Actually, The Equal Pay Act does cover that one as well, although only within the same corporation. It doesn't address the overall trend of female dominated positions getting paid less than male ones. There may not be a way to effectively make a law do that. A change in perceived gender roles would help.

"Lots of women prefer to be caregivers and that will ALWAYS impact the wage gap. In my experience, more women desire parenthood than men. How do you plan to legislate around that?" There's that gender role assumption, again. First of all, I don't recall saying that everything could be legislated. A lot of the reasons for the wage gap go beyond legislation and into attitudes which you express right here. Talk to enough women, I mean really discuss these issues, and you might find there are a lot more of us out there who resent the fact that we're perceived as the childrearers. As a stay-at-home mom, I'm lucky that my husband doesn't view me in that way, but I'll tell you that I encounter that attitude a lot. My whole point is that just because one of the reasons that there is a wage gap is that women take time out of their careers is based on the sexist assumption that they SHOULD be the ones who do that, and also the fact that theirs is often the lesser paying job, so they're the only ones who can.

[Yupster]

159. Pithlet - my situation and yours

are very similar.

My wife stays home, and it was an easy decision because I make four times what she made.

I guess the difference is that while I see our situation as one that my wife and I chose as being what was best for us, you think (pardon me for putting words in your mouth if they're not right) it was dictated more by society.

I see myself and my wife both going into public school teaching over 20 years ago, knowing full well that teaching didn't pay well. In fact, teaching has made great strides pay-wise in the last 20 years relative to other occupations. It used to be much worse. I don't think either of us was trapped into teaching or funnelled into it. We chose to go into it.

Also, about 13 years ago, I decided to take the plunge and quit teaching to go into commission sales knowing full-well that 2/3rds of the people who do this are out of business within three years. It was an incredible gamble, but I took it. My wife said she would never try anything so risky. She stayed in teaching, but I don't see that as sexism or society pushing her down. It was each of our choice, and btw, I switched the year before I met her.

Anyway, though we're in very similar situations, I guess we disagree on how we got there. To me it was choices we made.

My wife could have gone into a field that paid much more. She has a master's degree, but she liked teaching. She loved having the summers off, and she loved working with the first graders. I felt the same way, but at some point, I wanted more money so I switched. She didn't, but I really don't think it was because of our sexes. I think we each went for what we wanted more.

[Pithlet]

160. I'm talking about society as a whole, of course

My husband and I also made choices that were best for us. I'm not saying that every single woman who decides to stay home is only doing it because hers is the lower paying job. And, I certainly didn't go into my field with blinders on. And, most importantly, I do not feel resentful that I stay at home with my kids. As I've said, it is very rewarding, and I do enjoy it. But, I do believe that the overall trend of more women choosing to stay home is dictated by how our society views the roles that men and women are expected to take. I don't believe it is because women are just naturally better at it, because being one myself, I know that just isn't true. I don't believe that all, or even most women, feel that it is naturally our responsibility to shoulder more of the burden when we are working mothers. Therefore, the argument that women being primary caregivers means that the wage gap isn't all discrimination isn't entirely accurate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

168. Nor should it

The Constitution amply addresses the issue. If you find outright discrimination, you should sue or go to the EEOC.

I don't assume all women want to be mothers, but of the women I have known, very few didn't and even those strongly considered it. I know numerous men who don't want kids.

Who cares for the children is up to the couple. As long as they are OK with it, I couldn't care less. But, inevitably, it ends up with being the woman.

Now, you said it not me about your husband. "It's just that his skills are valued more in society than mine are." I don't know what those skills are, but men are drawn to such fields. Perhaps it is a desire to earn enough to pay for family, perhaps it is simply greed or competitiveness. But you can't legislate things in such a way that all jobs pay equally. Jobs that involve great skill, great risk or generate great profits will always pay more.

You asked your own question in the next area, "Why is it almost always the mother?" Hell if I know, but it is. How do you change that? You can't legislate it away.

If you wish to see the Equal Pay Act is fine, but it is law now and has been for some time. Why don't women make more complaints if everything is so unfair?

Again, you advocate a "change in perceived gender roles," but that could take centuries or might never happen.

Women don't have to take time out of their careers to raise children. Having children is entirely voluntary in our society. If women don't wish to do so, that is also their choice.

[Pithlet]

171. OKay

"If you wish to see the Equal Pay Act is fine, but it is law now and has been for some time. Why don't women make more complaints if everything is so unfair?" I don't know. I scratch my head over that one every day. Conservatives have been deriding feminism, coining terms like "feminazi". Could have something to do with it. I think a lot of people, women included, have the wrong idea about the feminist movement.

"The Constitution amply addresses the issue. If you find outright discrimination, you should sue or go to the EEOC." The fact that the wage gap persists, even in the 21st century and that it is demonstrable that the wage gap is largely due to discrimination speaks very clearly to the fact that existing laws, and the EEOC are not sufficient to deal with the problem with gender discrimination. The same applies to 14th amendment jurisprudence. They have not been sufficient to deal with this problem. After 25 years of trying them, and only them, it seems reasonable that we ought to see if something else will work.

"Now, you said it not me about your husband. "It's just that his skills are valued more in society than mine are." I don't know what those skills are, but men are drawn to such fields. Perhaps it is a desire to earn enough to pay for family, perhaps it is simply greed or competitiveness. But you can't legislate things in such a way that all jobs pay equally. Jobs that involve great skill, great risk or generate great profits will always pay more." Men are more naturally drawn to the higher paying jobs, eh? I just don't think there's anything this little woman will be able to tell you to change your mind. God knows there is absolutely no social pressure for women to go into nursing as opposed to medical school. God knows no one has ever mocked a man for being a nurse. That NEVER happens.

"Who cares for the children is up to the couple. As long as they are OK with it, I couldn't care less. But, inevitably, it ends up with being the woman." My whole point. Why is that? Do men really not want to also make that choice? I just don't think that is so. which leads me to...

"...you can't legislate it away" You're right. I can't legislate attitudes. But, that is a meaningless sentence. I don't care if I can change the way people think, but I can damn well make sure that they behave themselves in public. It doesn't matter if a CEO goes home every night and complains about all those women that work for him, and that they're no good for anything else than having babies as long as the law prevents him from discriminating against those women. I don't care what he thinks. I care what he does.

[Muddleoftheroad]

177. Feminism

If a lot of people have wrong ideas about feminism, then the major feminists have to accept some blame for, if nothing else, bad marketing.

Here we disagree on the second point. I don't consider the wage gap as demonstrable as you do. If you recall, women were not full-fledged members of the workforce until quite recently. For them to have totally closed the gap in that time would require them to have climbed in equal numbers to top spots, which is unrealistic in a short time period.

Add to it, both the child and parent care issues and the difference in physical abilities and the wage gap will continue to persist.

Yes, men ARE more drawn to higher paying jobs. Women gravitate to teaching, men to investments or engineering. How much is nurture how much nature, I don't know. But it is still the case. The explanations for this that you cite all involve societal realities and not legal ones. And, no I am NOT saying women can't do these jobs generally, it is often their choice. (There are jobs women can't generally do. Sports, for instance. I am answering this while watching football. Men have an advantage there and in other fields of heavy athletic endeavor -- construction, mining, etc.)

You end by saying that you don't care what a CEO thinks, but what he does. But it isn't just the CEO you are fighting, you are fighting societal attitudes, many of them held by women. Many women want to be stay at home moms. That is their right. Many others want to leave jobs for a few years to be caretakers. That is also their right. Those will continue to impact the wage gap.

[Pithlet]

178. Look

Even when controlling for taking time off for caring for children, the wage gap still exists! Sorry to have to shout, but apparently you haven't been paying attention to the rest of this thread. And if society pressures women to taking less prestigious jobs in less prestigious fields, then the law is absolutely the only way to deal with that situation. Only if you do things like provide incentives to women That go into these higher paying fields, such as free education, subsidized health care, etc. can you overcome societal pressures. If society refuses to change, then legislature may have to force them to.

As far as wrong ideas about feminism: How is it the fault of feminists that Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, and phony women's groups like Concerned Women for America, backed by billions of dollars of old rich white men's conservative money, calling feminists "feminazis" and publish studies that ignore the wage gap by writing it off as a child care gap, their fault?

You may have missed it, but I am a stay at home mom. I'm certainly not questioning their right to make that decision. You're missing my point. First of all, society doesn't give that choice to men. You can't tell me that there aren't more men out there who would love to stay home with their children. I've said it before in this thread; my husband would love to be the one to stay home. I don't think he's some weird genetic anomaly. It often forces women to make that choice whether they want to or not.

Men are not uniquely talented to or drawn to engineering (which happens to be my husband's profession) but there is a perception that men are better engineers. My husband sees it at work all the time. There are women in his department who aren't considered as good as some of the men in the department despite the fact that they have more concrete accomplishments. That has as much to do with the wage gap as childcare does. As far as sports goes, I think the WNBA is a much better brand of basketball than the NBA. At least the women understand the meaning of the word pass.

You really don't have to tell me who it is I have to fight. Believe me, I am more than well enough aware of it. I, like almost all women, have encountered it enough in my lifetime.

[Muddleoftheroad]

179. I am paying attention

And I have seen the surveys and think they are mightily flawed. This is an incredibly complex topic and hard to chop down into component parts.

Why do we need law to offset societal pressure? If women bow to societal pressure, that is their choice. If women are PREVENTED from certain jobs, then the law should definitely intervene.

It is not the fault of feminists that blowhard boy mouths off about them. It is the fault of feminists that they have not done a good job of mounting a counter offensive. It is THEIR fault that many young women who have benefitted from femnism now could consider it a dirty word.

I didn't catch that you were a stay-at-home mom and I think that is admirable. But having kids IS a choice. And how you choose to handle it your couple is also a choice. OK, your husband makes a lot more. But there are many families that don't need tons of money to get by. If your husband truly wanted to be the stay-at-home type and you didn't, then you should try and work it out.

Actually, I have known some SWE members. (Society of Women Engineers.) To me, all engineers do what I cannot and I give them equal props.

I will gladly defer the WNBA vs. NBA conversation. The reality is fans don't give a damn about the WNBA and that is all that matters.

[Pithlet]

184. First of all

Why are those studies flawed? It isn't enough to just say they are, and I'm supposed to take your word for it.

Societal pressure, by definition, is a pressure that is extraordinarily difficult to move against. We're not talking about having options. We're talking about a type of pressure that makes it almost impossible to go against. There is a reason we celebrate people who manage to do that, because it is extremely hard to.

As far as the stay at home issue, you are still completely missing my point: the point isn't that we chose to have kids. The point is that our two companies made it very difficult for my husband to stay home with the kids and for me to go to work. For example, I was on bed rest through both of my pregnancies, and my husband had an extraordinarily difficult time getting his company to let him work from home to take care of me. That is the kind of pressure we're talking about. Because he was a man, he wasn't supposed to be providing care for the family.

Your NBA comment proves my point. If you follow sports, then you know that the vast majority of sports writers are men. And you know that the vast majority of sports commentators talk down the WNBA for the simple reason that it isn't men playing the game. That's what we're talking about. That is why the WNBA is less successful. In fact, when first time fans were surveyed, the WNBA came ahead in both men and women.

"It is not the fault of feminists that blowhard boy mouths off about them. It is the fault of feminists that they have not done a good job of mounting a counter offensive. It is THEIR fault that many young women who have benefited from feminism now could consider it a dirty word." So, what you're saying is that it is the feminists fault that they don't have control of a major news network, and almost complete control of the AM radio dial. It's the feminists fault that conservatives have used billions of dollars to lock out opposing viewpoints in almost every major media channel. That doesn't make any sense.

Irony of ironies: spell check wanted me to change WNBA to NBA.

[Muddleoftheroad]

204. The studies

Every study I have looked at seems at best incomplete and at worst wildly so.

There are an enormous number of factors here from societal pressure, to women's own desires to have children, to the fact that women have only been major players in the workforce for a few years and lack the role models or mentors. I haven't found any study that seems to compensate for all of what I can come up with just sitting down staring at my computer.

It seems common sense to me that this would result in a gap that appears to be closing over time. I do NOT expect it to ever close completely because many of those factors seem unchanging.

I don't care if societal pressure is hard to go against. If it is a personal choice, that is still the personal choice of the person involved.

As for kids, you are missing my points. First off, you chose to have kids. You didn't have to, so it seems odd to do that and then complain that the company is not making life easy on you.

As to your husband, why should the company make it easy for him to stay at home? Many firms still view work at home to be less productive and, in some cases, they are probably right. Telling an employer you will be at home so you can watch the children doesn't instill confidence that work will get done. Instead, it conjures up dreams of massive amounts of family time and little work product.

I am sorry that you were on bed rest through both of my pregnancies, but again you seem to think that companies should bend over backward to help families raise their children and I do not. If it is in a company's best interests to do so, then great. If they choose to do so to attract top talent, even better. But if they feel that going above and beyond the call (above what is legally required) to accommodate an employee is more than they care to do, that is also fair.

The essential component of this is that they obey the law. If they did not, then I will agree they were both morally and legally wrong.

Yes, the vast majority of sports writers are men. I have worked with a few women in this field, but most are put off by the male dominated sports world. I talk down the WNBA for the quite obvious reason that no one cares. While I am not a huge NBA fan, I know of no one -- man or woman -- who will watch a WNBA game. The can't shoot well, they can't dunk. In short, ick. Not because they are women, but because of the quality or lack thereof.

The market tells the story on the WNBA. If you can't make money, then there is no market. The same goes for women's soccer, etc.

Ultimately, what I am saying about feminists is that they are bad getting their word out. Based on surveys that appear here about negative reaction to the word, I would say that is obvious. There are many ways to get the word out and, since this nation is roughly half women, that should be easy.

[CivilRightsNow]

240. WNBA...

I guess you haven't watched any of the grown men in the NBA East coast divison play. ;)

My cousin played for and now coaches in the WNBA. They have only been around for a short amount of time. They pay like 30k a year. It reminds me of that movie with Rosie O'Donnell and Madonna. The players are also told to dress femininely. Make sure to do their hair, wear make up.. etc. Have you seen the WNBA commercials where they have the prettier players all dolled up?

I admit that every WNBA game isnt action packed dunk fest. But it's a great thing to support. Give em a little time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

242. Scarily enough

I used to live in D.C., land of the Wizards. OK, maybe some of the WNBA teams could beat THEM, but they are only semi pro.

Ultimately, I am not a huge basketball fan, but I find the WNBA (I have watched a bit) to be awful.

[Pithlet]

280. I don't have time to address every point

I'll have to come back. I did want to address the issue of feminists getting out the word, however. You state that because women make up half the population, then this should be easy. You seem to think that because we can't outmarket a foe who has billions more in money, and control of most of the outlets that we could use, and therefore can scream a lot louder than we can, that we aren't trying hard enough. And because, so far, we have a tough time overcoming that, that it is OUR fault. I don't understand that reasoning, and have no idea really how to counter that.

I was using my examples to point out how things often work; I was not saying that anyone should bend over backwards for me. I'm sorry, but that is yet another example not only of you completely missing my point, but ascribing things to me that I did not say.

I will come back when I have more time, and when I'm not feeling so damned frustrated.

[Yupster]

207. Why studies flawed?

Well, there are many different studies that have tried to address this issue.

The most ridiculous are the ones which just say that the average woman makes .76 for every dollar the average man makes. The reason they're ridiculous is that they make no attempt to factor out any of the variables involved to get close to an apples to apples comparison. Women on average work more part-time jobs, work two jobs at once less often, have fewer years experience for their age as men, in some jobs work less overtime and fewer hours. If you're going to do a study without even trying to compensate for these important variables, then you're not even trying to be honest.

Then there are the studies that try to factor out as many of these variables as they can with more or less success depending on the study. The more variables they factor out, the more the wage gap narrows. Still, there are always more variables that one side will say was left out and the other side will say are being over-compensated for. At least these studies are making an honest attempt though.

The study that made the biggest impression on me was a longitudinal study which followed some college graduates. The conclusion was that women started at .97 for every dollar men made in the same jobs, but already within 2-3 years the gap began to widen as some of the women began to get married, have babies, and either leave the workforce or go to part-time work. The conclusion was that the gap would continue to widen each year, but the study had only gone 3-4 years when I read about it, so I don't know anything more. That was probably 3-5 years ago.

[Yupster]

208. Oh and the WNBA

While I agree that the basketball can be interesting because of the slower pace so you can actually see the offense developing, the problem is that the WNBA can't make enough money to keep itself solvent without millions of dollars a year gifted to them from the NBA. They just haven't been able to break even yet. Maybe they will someday.

And it's not because sportswriters and broadcasters look down at them. Professional wraslin has made millions of dollars for generations despite universally bad press. They are still able to fill the seats for the Texas Death Steel Cage Match because when it comes right down to it, who doesn't want to see a guy hit another guy with a folding chair.

On the other hand, even the best chess grandmasters in the USA cannot make a living from their talents. People just aren't willing to pay enough to see them, and I say that as a tournament chess player (though far from a grandmaster).

[Selwynn]

201. Bad marketing - no. How about, refusal to accept under any "marketing."

Feminism isn't so much misunderstood as it is wrongly rejected.

You make so many stereotypes in this post. Of all the women that I know, none of them are teachers, and most of the make more money than me.

"Many women want to be stay at home moms" -- so say MEN. No woman that I know - literally ZERO of them want to be "stay at home moms." I'm not saying that none do. But I question your claim that "most" do. Maybe this is a generational thing? I'm 26, and I know a lot of woman. None of them want to be stay at home moms, and none of them currently are that. Many have kids, all still have careers as well and their partner shares responsibility for the child with them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

205. Take a look at the world

It is clear most women are stay at home moms.

Perhaps feminism is wrongly rejected, but again I would blame feminists for that as much as Rush Dimbulb..

As for stereotypes, I covered education in my career. I interview numerous teachers -- almost all women.

[Selwynn]

227. None of the woman I know are stay at home moms

So I don't know what planet you live on, but we don't live on the same one...

[pmbryant]

257. I didn't use to know any stay-at-home moms. Now I know many.

It has been amazing to me to see how many of them there are still. Earlier in my life, I didn't know any and had come to think of the 'stay-at-home mom' as a relic of another era. But they are still here. I don't know them very well, though , so I have no clue what percentage of them actively chose that life.

:shrug:

And the attitudes of many of their husbands are even more amazing. One thinks he is being terribly modern in his treatment of his wife by letting her have her own credit card.

:wow:

--Peter

[CivilRightsNow]

243. Who needs to take a look?

I mean, truly.. we all have different perspectives. And I can recognize that.

Take a look at the worlds of others through these posts. It's like you wish to prove their life experiences wrong, to take away something rather then take something from them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

245. When I said the world

I meant the world. America is only a tiny, tiny piece of the world. Women are moms and having kids in most of that world.

As for the women here, DU is inherently self selecting. We are vastly more likely to have women who are the most feminist of all and, consequently, the most likely to have kids and work at the same time.

[Selwynn]

262. We're talking about equal pay in America though, right?

So I'm more interested in what goes on in the US when it comes to the issue of equal pay in the US.

No one I know is a "stay at home mom." I don't believe it is the "norm" in this country anymore.

[Muddleoftheroad]

263. The norm in the country

probably not in the city. Part of the urban/rural divide.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

265. 64% of women with children work

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/work/articles/030224/24women.htm

"In 1955, only 18 percent of mothers with children under age 6 worked. By 2001, that number had jumped to 64 percent--with about 2 million mothers of infants less than a year old holding down full-time jobs. As education and housing costs have soared, many women work not only because they want to but to keep their households afloat on the shifting tides of the American dream. By 1989, 80 percent of home buyers were two-income couples. And according to the U.S. Census Bureau, a family in the 1990s needed two paychecks to maintain the standard of living it had enjoyed two decades earlier. "Today," says Weiner, "most women work because they have to." "

You are right in that the percentages are probably higher in urban areas-but that is also where the largest populations are.

[Muddleoftheroad]

266. Work doesn't mean full-time

So already one third of women with kids don't work and of the remainder, how many work part-time, or in less career-driven professions?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

267. What does it matter?

Less career-driven? How many men work in career-driven professions? In rural areas or places with a smaller job market or less skilled workers, not many. In places with more job availability and a larger educated work force, probably many.

Same goes for women. Depends on where you live.

[pmbryant]

269. Getting sidetracked from the issue of pay discrimination

However many women choose not to work should not affect the pay of those who do choose to work.

Yet working women are paid significantly less for equivalent work than working men. Even after accounting for differences in experience etc.

Women (and men) who don't work by choice are irrelevant to this discussion.

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

270. Addressing multiple points

Some posters were making an issue about whether women chose to work or not with kids. So it's really separate issues.

What the 64% stat doesn't show is how many women who have kids allow it to impact their careers. Even more, I don't see any stats about how many adults, by gender, are caregivers for other adults such as their parents.

[CivilRightsNow]

272. Umm.. how bout confusing points.

I guess we have all been arguing different issues then, right? Cause I could give a hoot less how people who make choices impact their careers. I think very few people engaged in this debate have been discussing that point, you however, have been interjecting it repeatedly.

What I care about is how sexism impacts my career. What Im talking is bout is how discrimination exists. What's really bizarre is that...

That's what you are talking about too.

You are just trying to justify it.

The rest of us are saying it is not justifiable.

[Muddleoftheroad]

273. Yes, discrimination exists

The question remains is whether is it sufficiently systemic to account for a 24% gap or so between the genders. I continue to argue that it is nowhere near that bad. However, I am not justifying discrimination in any form. But it is silly to assume that women, who by and large entered the salaried workforce in the '40s (they have ALWAYS worked, just not always gotten paid), took steps back in the '50s and re-entered in the '60s and later, would now be on exactly equal footing under any circumstances.

Then, if you throw in the many other issues related to this topic, there are numerous reasons for a gap.

As for what we are arguing, I think there are actually several points and subpoints being debated, as with all big threads.

[Yupster]

It does affect it,

because the group of non--working and woking moms are not stagnant.

A non-working mom may be working again three years from now, and will make less than her more experienced peers because she has that gap where she didn't work.

A working mom now may be making the same as a man, but in two years, she may take a few years off to have a kid and then her pay will lag when she comes back.

Of course that's not true for every non-working mom, but statistically, you only need a small portion of them to lag to throw off the stats.

[minto grubb]

211. I dissagree...

I don't consider the wage gap as demonstrable as you do. If you recall, women were not full-fledged members of the workforce until quite recently.
I get the feelin that when you say "the workforce", you mean white collar ocupations.
Like most people with jobs, I am actually a blue collar worker myself, and I can show you that women have been working in mines and factories, shops and other premises since the dawn of the industrial revolution.
Women are naturally angry at the {B}obvious injustices that the system has inflicted, and continues to inflict, upon them. Closing your eyes to this will not make it go away.

[Selwynn]

200. I know numerous women who don't want kids, and never did...

In fact I know more woman like that than men like that currently.

So there goes your theory.

[Yupster]

156. But interrupting your career

does hurt your career. It just does.

Let's say my wife goes back to teaching after our kid graduates high school. That would mean she's coming back after 19 years. Should she be paid the same as a person who worked all through those 19 years? That seems crazy to me. In many ways it will be worse than a beginning teacher, because my wife will return to the classroom with her notions of teaching a generation old, and from what I hear talking to teachers, the students today aren't the students of 20 years ago.

In my case, I'm in commission sales. The value of my career and my paycheck are the relationships I have with my customers. I can't expect to walk away from that for five years and then pick right up where I left off.

It would be nice if we could all take years off to raise our kids and not suffer business-wise, but just looking from my own family's point of view, that just seems so unrealistic.

PS -- I am about to see how strong my business relationships are. I have just notified my company that I will be quitting as soon as arrangements can be made. I will be switching to a competitor and trying to bring many of my accounts with me. We'll see how good my relationships are then. IF they aren't too good, my wife may be working again long before she wanted to. I'm kind of jumping off a cliff into ???? -- Wish me luck.

[Pithlet]

158. First of all, good luck to you

I hope things work out, and that your wife doesn't have to go back to work before she wants to.

Yes, taking time off from your career does hurt. I can attest to that. I don't think it necessarily always has to, and I don't think that it necessarily always has to be the woman that makes the choice to do that. I bet a lot of women who stay at home, if working and parenting were more compatible, would choose to work. I am one of them. Not all; I do understand that some think it is better for the children. And, I do believe more fathers would choose to stay home if they could, if they weren't the main breadwinners. If I could work, and make the kind of money my husband commands, I'd be happy to let him stay home. Raising my kids is very fulfilling work, but it's not the only thing I'm good at, and it isn't the only thing that meets my needs socially and intellectually.

My whole point is that the reasons behind women's careers being affected more by childrearing are based on sexist ideals in society. It's always the woman who suffers, because it is perceived that it's the woman who's supposed to shoulder most of the childcare responsibilities.

[Yupster]

161. Thanks for the kind words

I've got to get to bed so I can get up for church.

I would be one of those fathers who would like to take a few years off. Unfortunately, that choice is not available to me. I don't think that's because I'm a man though. It's just because my wife would not be able to make enough money for us to have any acceptable standard of living and keep our kid in the school we chose for him. I think she could have made big money if she chose to go into another field, but she didn't want to. We even talked about her getting the licensing to do my job while she's off. That would have obvious advantages for my business, and especially should something happen to me. She looked into the study and testing required and declined to pursue it. I don't think that was because she is a woman. It's just because she's she.

Anyway, enjoyed the talk. I'll look in tomorrow and see if the thread remains extant.

[spooky3]

173. As I have repeatedly posted in response to your posts

and others', there exists a great deal of empirical literature published in top refereed journals that directly addresses the questions you raised. I have urged you to read it. Your posts never seem to suggest that you have done so. Rather than continuing to question the extent of discrimination, why don't you read this literature?

[maxanne]

120. thanks Pithlet

I agree that discrimination accounts for much of the wage gap.

I worked in restaurants for years. Typically waiters are tipped more than waitresses. Even the most inept, bumbling dolt of a waiter makes more money than a woman. The assumption is, "he's got a family to feed."

Like the waitress doesn't??

[Pithlet]

123. Also

The link I used uses waiters as an example. The pricier restaurants prefer to higher male waiters, so a majority of those typically higher tipping jobs go to men, while women typically get work at less expensive restaurants, which means lower tips.

[private_ryan]

125. wrong again

go to NYC and see for yourself...some old Italian restaurants might, but then most trendy ones will hire a lot more women to attract a younger clientele

[Pithlet]

126. I was referring to this

"For example: In Philadelphia, social scientists sent fictional, equally-qualified resumes to different restaurants. The only important difference between the resumes they sent out was if the name at the top was a woman's or a man's. They found that snootier, higher-paying restaurants preferred to hire men, while low-paying places (diners and the like) preferred women. In this way, women were steered into a lower-paying job category: that's job segregation."

[private_ryan]

128. I don't doubt it at all

send a 50 year old balding waiter to a new trendy restaurant downtown NYC and see if he gets a job or not. The owners have a certain clientèle, and in their mind they think the waiters should fit a certain profile. It's not always done to keep women down.

[Pithlet]

130. That is indulging discrimination

and does not belong in the public sphere. We don't allow businesses to not higher blacks because their piece of shit clientele doesn't like dark skin. It's the same thing.

[private_ryan]

131. it is

but they don't tell you why so you can't sue them. Restaurants aren't the only place, airlines, hotels, stores...they all favor good looking people.

On edit: we always hear stories of middle age WHITE MEN who can't get any jobs anymore because IT companies prefer younger people, it was going on in the middle of the internet boom too.

[Pithlet]

132. I know

That makes it all the more insidious. Looks can also be an issue, as well as gender, unfortunately.

[private_ryan]

134. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist

it does. Looks, race (white waiter in a soul food joint comes to mind), gender, age, kids, transportation, etc, etc, etc....all of those matter. The world is not perfect, it has never been and it's fair to say that it will never be.

I just don't think men sit down and plot how to keep women down. If a business owner thinks that having a woman at the counter makes him more money, guess who will he hire next?


Also: I'm done with this thread, I think we covered every point. I think I'm right, you think you're right so no point in going back and forth. I don't take anything personally, just you know.

[put out]

150. Here's my suggestion.

Next time I purchase things I need, I will get a 20% discount, right?

[Yupster]

140. Very heavy people

I'm sure have a very difficult time fnding jobs, as do very unattractive people.

[Pithlet]

145. Actually

fat discrimination is also the topic du-jour at DU, mainly in the lounge.

No doubt those types of discrimination exist also, along with sexism.

[salin]

198. and sadly - in some world views -

it is never about discrimination. Damn whiney women. :eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

186. But most upscale restaurants hire male waiters

and that's where the real money is. Wrong as usual.

[private_ryan]

124. most people tip on service

I'm not saying that you're a bad waitress or had an attitude but people notice things. If you got a chip on your shoulder, your tip is going down, way down. To some it may be normal and you don't notice it, but people do.

Maybe you viewed, and treated them as "oppressors of your gender" since most men pay the check. I knew PLENTY of waitresses who made a lot more money then waiters...and no, they didn't have to demean themselves.

[maxanne]

127. you're not saying

I had an attitude? Sounds like you're saying it pretty loudly to me.
It's nice of you to assume I was lousy at my job. You aren't afraid to stereotype, I'll give you that.

Obviously you have no experience in restaurants, and therefore, what you think you know isn't representative of the workplace reality.

[private_ryan]

129. maybe I do maybe I don't

I'm just trying to see why, that's all.

the only thign I said is: "Maybe you viewed, and treated them as "oppressors of your gender" since most men pay the check", reading your posts, it's fair to assume that you felt that way even then.

[maxanne]

137. perhaps I should

have worn shorter skirts, higher heels, and tighter blouses. I probably should have shaved my legs, and waxed my upper lip, too.

Since you're doing your best to promote stereotypes - why not tell me I should have tried harder to be attractive?

Do you think maybe it was the penis/slash button I wore on my apron?

:eyes:

[brook]

191. Ya know...

if I wasn't so certain that he was dead, I'd swear you're my last, late husband.

I worked at a job where the pay was equal. The boyz just put in phony time cards. No biggie, right? They just pulled in about 10 grand more per project than I did - even though I might have done a couple of months of prep while they double-dealt checks (worked on other projects while being *paid* to prep the one I slogged on).

I could do a few hours on this subject - but I'll put a cork in it now.

Happy New Year. Let us know when you catch up.

[put out]

144. I worked as a server at a lot of places.

The very most high-end place (and friends, it was posh), began weeding out women from working the evening shifts. The rationale was, people spending more money on their meals and drinks (prices between day and evening menus are different), prefer to get served by males. It is so much more exotic.

Plus, since the meals were more expensive, the tips were higher. The shifts were shorter, too. Methinks the fella protests too much.

[prolesunited]

136. Let's get ALL the misogynist

canards out there, why don't we:

Upthread you said we were upset because we weren't born with a penis and now we have some sort of attitude.

Well, let's just get it out in the open what you really want to say:
We hate men because we really want to be men. That is so much B.S. I don't even no where to begin.

Next place you'll go is that we are unattractive and don't like sex either. Doesn't that fit your profile of a feminist.

Well, I can only speak for myself but I'm fairly attractive, like men, enjoy sex and am perfectly happy with my body parts and being a woman. I agree that there can be differences in men and women due to physical capabilities and mental processes, some of them hard-wired, some of them based on societal conditioning.

HOWEVER, if you think that you can sit here and tell me that somehow I deserve to be paid less, that it isn't really an issue, it's too complicated to solve or that's just the way it is, I am going to object — LOUDLY!

I will say that I am glad to find out based on the poll I posted that generally the men here do NOT share your attitude.

[Selwynn]

148. I don't tip on service.

I tip because its decent, and I can afford to, and I give because I want to not because of how "deserving" someone else is.

[Yupster]

139. I would have thought waitresses got tipped more

but then I've never been in the restaurant business, except for Burger King at age 15. Anyway, what would a solution be to people tipping men more than women? Do we want standard tip percentages?

I sure like tipping extra for good service and less for bad.

[private_ryan]

142. they do (most of the time)

Guys always try to impress them by giving them more money. When you have a positive attitude and easy going personality you always get tipped more; that doesn't mean becoming a ass kisser or whore. If something bad happens and you're sad or you're nasty by default, you will get bad tips. Of course, you never blame yourself or your attitude. I am talking generally, you always get some person who tips you 10% regardless...

And this is my final post in this thread.

[prolesunited]

151. Oh, c'mon

I was SOOO looking forward to your response to my post #136. :hi:

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maxanne]

187. Waitresses don't get tipped more

Private Ryan's restaurant knowlege wouldn't fill a thimble. Often the assumption is that women are working for a little extra cash, while big responsible hubby is doing the real job.

I always worked in upscale places - and that was the reality. I worked for a guy once who told us that if it were up to him, he'd only have waiters, because they were better. This guy's wife ran the kitchen, and I ran his dining room - the best help he had were women. The men he valued so much were stealing him blind. The bartender was a coke dealer, and so on.

I've worked with some fine waiters over the years - and some louses. Same is true of female waiters. In all those years, I never saw any reason why a penis made them better at their jobs. :eyes:

[veracity]

135. This might wake up young women...

The complacency of many young women in the US is apalling. Those of us who fought the good fight for women's rights, - and were at the forefront of the Roe v Wade ruling, are seeing women's issues placed on the back burner. The pay schedule is an old and unresolved problem, - that hardly anyone brings up. The bottom line is that this will be a totally MINOR and unimportant issue compared to the setback women will suffer if George Bush is elected next year. The fact is that the next President will appoint at LEAST four Justices of the Supreme Court during the next four years. Right now, liberal causes are sneaking through the Court with 5-4 votes. One change, and women's rights will be history. The Supreme Court appointments should be the focal point of the democratic party's campaign - but the infighting is so severe you wouldn't know it was even an issue. Women had better wake up - and no longer take for granted what the previous generation fought to provide for them.

[Pithlet]

149. Complacency and also outright revulsion

Lately it seems there is a rise in out-and-out disdain of feminism. I used to participate in a online parenting group, and the topic of feminism came up. I couldn't believe how many of them thought feminism was a negative thing for society, and those of us who spoke up for it were flamed. Many thought the movement does and has done more harm than good. I couldn't believe it.

[CivilRightsNow]

249. Hello...

Sometimes I think that feminists are their own worst enemy. Look how pithy people got with the young woman that posted earlier in this thread.

So, not only are the conservatives bashing feminists.. they are denying the oppurtunity to actually educate a member of the young generation to instead engage in a proverbial catfight.

I mean, I know it's frustrating and emotions run high. But perhaps if the feminists of old would try to find a way to reach the women that are currently coming of age instead of doing the.. when I was a child, I walked 10 miles uphill in the snow... thing, we could get somewhere.

This is just a humble suggestion, you may take it or leave it.

[Pithlet]

281. I think the feminists of old

would have far more success if they had equal access to get the word out to those younger women. They're going up against a huge, wealthy, conservative opponent that has the monopoly in all major media outlets.

No doubt that sometimes our reaction can be strong. And I do think that sometimes it can cause harm. But I think that is a very small component compared with the overall picture. We're frustrated because of the types of arguments and outdated viewpoints that we're coming up against, even here on good ol' progressive DU. I also think the reactions are even stronger at a place like this, because it would be one of the last places one would expect it. Posts like that in Freeperland, okay, typical. On DU, from longtime progressive posters? It's like a slap in the face.

[Cleita]

146. I dunno one of these days I will write something about

the myth of the stay-at-home housewife. Most women worked for pay even in the most chauvinistic societies, who claimed they were housewifes. It happened to be less pay.

[minto grubb]

174. right...

The trouble was that those women slaved away for a pittance on terms hande down. Now that women are asking for decent jobs, with decent pay, on terms to suit themselves, some people don't like it.

[Xithras]

193. It'd sure make MY job easier

About two years ago I had a problem at work because of this exact issue. My former employer based starting pay on a scale which factored degree+experience-number of jobs, and as the technical liason to our HR department, I performed the final pay calculations and did the background aptitude checks for new technical hires.

It was a good job until I was tasked to add two new C++ programmers to one of the coding teams. I ended up with one man and one woman, both about 30, both claiming 6 years experience, both holding masters degrees in CompSci from respectable universities, both proving sufficient aptitude for the open positions. The problem erupted when I did the final pay calculations. Though the woman claimed to have 6 years experience, it turned out that she'd had two kids in that period and had taken a 6 month leave for each of them. After calculating that out, she started with the base pay for a 5 year new-hire. On top of that, she'd switched jobs after having her kids to get better hours that would give her more time with her family.

The final tally? Even though both hires started out at the same point and were probably equal from a technical perspective, he sad six years of experience from a single employer, while she'd held 3 jobs in 5 years. Because of that, he started out at $42 an hour and she started at $35.

Was it unfair? Probably. Was it discriminatory? Not deliberately. Can we do anything about it? Not really. When she discovered the inequity (which didn't take long, considering that the two shared a cubicle), she came screaming at me about it, and my supervisors, not wanting to face a discrimination suit, checked her pay and blamed the whole thing on me. So I quit :)

[Shanty Oilish]

206. OMG, some of you don't know any stay-at-home moms!

Sure are lots of them in my part of the world. And most are married to men who would go to pieces if their wives suddenly decided to follow a career, whether it paid a quarter of his pay or four times his pay.
The husbands I see around here, they might grudgingly accept it if it were financially necessary, but for no other reason.
You who know enlightened men, you're living in a rarefied atmosphere. As for equal pay, this remains the Neolithic Age.

[minto grubb]

210. Can I ask you what you suggest...?

It seems to me that Britain, with a strong trade union movement, has pushed thru' legislation and built on it, whereas legislation exists in the USA, but Unions are weaker and workers find it harder to exercise their legal rights.
MidwestMomma (if I got her username right) is saying that feminism and feminists are torn down in the press and suffer a bad reputation. Also that Trade unions actively discourage femele membership. Do you feel that this is accurate? do you feel that there are other factors in play as well?
What do you see as a possible solution to the situation?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

221. Where do you live?

Most of my friends who have children have to work to be able to afford to live here in Boston.

[minto grubb]

231. I'm from London, England

The same problems apply, though, people find it hard to find housing in London. Nurses and police officers, firefighters and many 'essential services' are understaffed because people are moving out into the provincial towns and cities- the price of housing is killing London. We bought our place about 10 years ago, but it's impossible now for a young couple to get on the proerty ladder.

[meow2u3]

213. I say we use Equal Pay as a litmus test

I think we should use Equal Pay for Equal Work (or work of comparable worth) as a litmus test for judges, political officeholders, and candidates, especially Democrats.

Equal Pay is far less divisive and controversial than "choice", the latter now the current litmus test which allegedly proves loyalty to the liberal cause and/or the Democratic Party. Equal Pay as a prerequisite for support of women's rights/equality also can bring back those ex-Democrats (independents and Republicans) who left the Democratic Party in the 70's because of abortion.

In short, economic liberal means is the best way to prove you're for female social and political equality with men, and the Equal Pay issue meets that requirement, something the issue of choice falls short.

[Muddleoftheroad]

214. The stake in the heart

Depending on how you define your terms, this idea could well be the stake in the heart for our party.

[maxanne]

216. are you saying

that the foundation of our party is the oppression of women? That it will crumble if women suddenly are given full equality?

If that's the case, it deserves to die.

[Muddleoftheroad]

218. LOL

Come on. I said, depending on how you define you terms, this could kill the party.

So, to start it off, how do you define your terms? What are you really seeking here?

[minto grubb]

237. defining [b]my[/b] terms

I don't know about maxanne, she is an American citizen and I am not.
she is a woman, and i am not, and she may dissagree with me on the practical aspects of some of the specifics. however, I am saying that Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value should be something that we must aim to achieve right around the world. America has it in legislation, but no one pays any heed apparently. it can be done, not just for women shop workers and in manufacturing industries, but for women journalists, IT workers and business leaders as well.
those who work in those industries must start addessing the glaring injustices in the system, instead of shaking heads and saying "too hard, insolvable... nothing we can do". well, look, they said that when someone suggested that kids should be sent to school instead of pushed up chimneys in Victorian England. We must ensure that women can have children and not lose out, and that women get a fair deal in all areas of society.

[Muddleoftheroad]

239. Not exactly

First off, this subthread got started because I responded to a comment about, "Equal Pay for Equal Work (or work of comparable worth)." It was that parenthetical that I questioned. What is work of comparable worth?

As for the first part, I would agree ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. But they seldom are equal. Work includes many factors and I have never encountered work product that was equal to another.

However, you mention something about women having children and not losing out. Having children remains a life choice. Why should someone who has children and takes a couple years off NOT be impacted while others -- men and women -- chose not to do so. Shouldn't those who place career first move ahead faster?

[prolesunited]

235. No kidding!

If it were up to you, I imagine African-Americans would not have achieved equality. After all, that was a complex situation with many variables, such as how to integrate schools and regulate workplace discrimination.

And surely it would have destroyed the party.

Judging by your avatar, I would hope that you were an advocate for equality and social justice. How is the continued treatment of women as second-class citizens acceptable?

[Muddleoftheroad]

238. Not for second class status

But, as with race, some attitudes that hold people back are personal and not professional. In the African-American community, far too much emphasis is placed on sports and not enough on education. This holds us back. It is not something that can be legislated. We need to change it ourselves.

The same goes with some (note I said some) things for women. Many women do wish to have children and that will continue to impact the wage gap.

[VelmaD]

244. Having children only affects the wage gap...

as long as society expects women to be the primary care-givers for children.

[Pithlet]

278. I don't understand

why that is so hard for some here to understand. That has been the crux of my argument as far as explaining how motherhood affects the wage gap.

[Muddleoftheroad]

283. Society is not making that choice

Women make that choice along with their partners. If they don't want to be primary caregivers, then they shouldn't do so.

[pmbryant]

286. It is more complicated than that

Economically, because women are paid less than men (in substantial part due to discrimination), it makes more sense for the woman to sacrifice her career than for the man.

So in part, it is society that is making the choice.

--Peter

[Muddleoftheroad]

287. No, it's not actually

Many women, as has been repeatedly pointed out here by others, make more than the men in their life. The more men choose or are urged to choose caregiver roles at home, the more the gap will close.

But, again, any sort of having children is a choice. It is a choice that the woman has final say over, so how it is handled is up to her in large part.

[Pithlet]

288. People don't live in a vacuum

Yes, they are making that choice, but there are outside parameters that go into making that choice. I've said it before, the only reason I am the one staying home is because my job paid far less. I know I'm not the only one. Yes, no one had a gun to our heads. We are more than aware of this.

It is more common for the husband to make more money in the first place, even before motherhood comes into the equation for a couple. It isn't just because it's a natural choice that the woman stay home! I still don't get why that is so hard to understand.

I believe I read somewhere that there is a rise in the number of men who are choosing to stay home. I think that is a great thing, and shows that it isn't just the automatic, obvious choice that the woman stay home, all other factors aside.

[minto grubb]

246. Sure, but...

get it right and it could take not just your party, but your country to greater heights. Think about it... are you up to that kind of challenge. I do hope so.

[pmbryant]

251. Our first task...

is to convince huge numbers of otherwise progressive men that this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

As can be seen from this thread, and past threads on this issue, and as I have also seen from my personal acquaintances, many progressive men simply refuse to believe that this is a problem. Either they don't think there is any substantive discrimination against women, or they think that what discrimination exists is justified based on 'life choices' or some such thing. All this despite the massive amount of evidence contradicting this very point.

I find that very sad, but it does appear to be a fact of life that greatly complicates this issue politically. It is not simply a progressive vs conservative issue at all.

Another, albeit lesser, problem appears to be the young women who dismiss this as a concern because it hasn't affected them personally yet.

How do we convince these men? How do we convince the young women who have not yet seen the effects of discrimination personally?

--Peter

[CivilRightsNow]

253. Everyone has ideas..

But it all really boils down to consciousness. No matter how hard you try you cant legislate or even teach it.

[pmbryant]

256. Can't teach it?

These men (and women) are progressives on most other issues. They are presumably open-minded about most things, and have a sense of fairness that most conservatives do not. Why can't we teach them?

--Peter

[CivilRightsNow]

259. Well...

Tell me how to "teach" consciousness. Perhaps we can accelerate it, or with misinformation, we can even detour it. But, I just cant comprehend how you teach it, being such a unique and personal thing and all.

:)

[pmbryant]

264. Consciousness

I guess I am assuming these people already have 'consciousness' since they are progressive on most other issues. If so, presumably they will listen to reason, if we have solid evidence (which we do), and if we (especially men who already are convinced) are vocal enough.

If these people cannot be won over, solving the discrimination problem may be insurmountable, at least until new generations take over. I don't want to believe that, though maybe I am just being naive.

--Peter

[CivilRightsNow]

268. Stranger things have happened

I am an eternal cynic. :wink:


I think that our failures lie in attempting to legislate and educate morality and consciousness instead of engaging people to live it :)

[CivilRightsNow]

277. That reminds me of some quotes by George Soros

"Yes, I do have a foreign policy. . . my goal is to become the conscience of the world."

I also enjoy:

"I can already discern the makings of the final crisis.... Indigenous political movements are likely to arise that will seek to expropriate the multinational corporations and recapture the 'national' wealth."

"In old Rome, the Romans only voted. In the modern global capitalism, the Americans only vote. The Brazilians do not vote."

This is what happens when people try to spread consciousness.

[Pithlet]

279. I sure wish I knew

As long as they think it is our fault that feminism gets a bad rap, as long as they think that other factors in the wage gap make it okay to ignore that there is one, and as long as they still have outdated notions of women and their role in society, it's going to be an extremely uphill battle.

Threads like this one really open my eyes to the fact that it isn't a progressive/conservative issue as well as I thought. I would have expected some of the posts in this thread to be right at home in Freeperland.

[minto grubb]

289. Is 'trimtabbing' an answer?

Back in the 80s, someone told me this-
If you want to turn an oil tanker in mid Atlantic, you dont go up to the front of the ship, or even the back where the ruder is and just push. you go to the wheeel house and look for a small dial called the ' trimtab'. Just turn the dial, that will shift the rudder and that moves the boat. Now suppose you want to move your country 'the ship of state' as some would all it, the best thing to do would be to write to Newspaper editors, to speak directly to liticians and influence them.'
he founded a group called RESULTS, and you can google it. they tend to focus on issues around tackling poverty in the 3rd World. I have links with Results UK, but my activities go beyond it's remit.
I had hoped to start something here towards achieving a raising of awarenes of the issue.
my wife informs me that she did a 3 year course in training college, as long as a police cadet, say. But police in Britain are highe paid than nurses, at every level. Jobs that are traditionally female are lower paid than traditionally male jobs.
Or am I wrong? So name an exeption, please. I think that sexism plays a hand here, for sure.
Another point to bear in mind is that women who give up earning so they can raise kids are making a powerful contribution to society in raising these children. And what does the state gie them for raising the citizens of tommorow? I think 'zilch' would be about right. an issue that needs addressing, surely.