|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wage equity game is yet another game of numbers,numbers that are manipulated to provide feminists with the outcome that their activism requires.
The last study on the matter that i saw was reported on CNN as well as CBC and both networks took the same basic approach of reporting the conclusion of the study.But at one point CNN in a 30 second blurb went a little further and reported the logic of the study as opposed to just its outcome.The setup of the study was to measure the average wage of women when compared to "White Men".The problem with this approach is obvious.When we hand pick the segment of men to average we have hand picked the result.They chose to ignore all male minorities in the study because minorities on average earn less as the article linked here also points out but when it came to averaging the wages of women minorities were included.The study i am refering to also came up with the same result as the ones in this article, that women only make 77 cents per male dollar.And even though i have not seen the "logic" of this particular study the fact that the outcome remains the same suggests at least to me that the structure used was identical.
1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 =55 divided by 10 to average is 5.5
when the bottom 3 are removed to represent the removal of the bottom 30% of wage earners from the average you get a very differant picture
4+5+6+7+8+9+10 =49 divided by 7 to average is 7
The numbers i used are obviously arbitrary i simply used them as an illustration of the impact this sort of chose can have on the outcomes of studies.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:30 AM April 22nd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know if they included the wages of illegal immigrants for women as well? Since illegal immigrants tend to earn much less than normal residents, I figure that could drop the women's average salary.
Oh, I suppose we could also try getting the median and various percintiles to see the distribution of income amongst the population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That information CNN provided was in the form of a visual tacked on at the end of the standard "men make more" report and that was the one and only time i saw it mentioned.I continued to watch for it over the next few days and saw the "standard" reported many times but only saw the visual that one time and all it stated was women vs white men.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number can usually be manipulated to a side's advantage - either sides.
The final answer is in our 'attitude'. Girls are still raised expecting to get married and have kids - and not work at that point. Very few are raised with the idea that they will ALWAYS have to be self succicient with no one to help. I was because my mother was widowed when I was 8 years old and she was determined that I would never have to face the challenges she faced (no education trying to find a job that paid enough to live on). In many 'studies' - the fact that women do not prepare themselves (i.e thru schooling) to be able to obtain a job that payes enough to live on isn't taken into account. The fault lies how the goals we set for our children not so much with a man earns this and a female earns that - study people within the same professions, at the same level of education and the disparity isn't that great at all. They can all afford to live - not saying that things don't need improvement - but the gap isn't there that is professed to be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:00 PM April 22nd, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just me, or do the feminists want women to be paid the same as men even though women generaly do less work than men...?
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Um, yeah, that is about it. Women should get paid to get up in the morning, eat breakfast, take a 30 minute shower, spend 40 minutes on clothes, hair and makeup, the drive to work, work, the drive home, microwaving dinner, laundry, dishes, vaccuuming, spending time with kids, and probably sleeping. Overtime for sex and in-law visits. Men only work 40 hours, but a woman's work is never done.
Where is that roll eyes icon? The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The typical career pattern for most women illustrates that women have far more choices than men with regard to earning income.
Most women still aspire to get married (and "marry up" to a man with higher earning power than her own...), and have children.
Accordingly over the course of their prime income earning years they will usually work full-time for a while, quit working altogether to stay home with kids, then perhaps work part-time at some point.
These greater choices are not cost-free ... floating in an out of the job market results in career disincentives that impede advancement and earnings.
So, instead of depicting the "wage gap" as being caused by the Evil Patriarchy, wouldn't it be more honest (antithetical to feminist logic...)to describe it as a reasonable lifestyle "opportunity and choice" cost?
Ooops, sorry! I forgot. The feminists "want it all" cost free. All the privileges with none of the obligations.
This demented mindset explains why they see a (white male) oppressor behind every tree!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:16 PM April 22nd, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
..."wouldn't it be more honest (antithetical to feminist logic...)to describe it as a reasonable lifestyle "opportunity and choice" cost?"
Oh. But wait a minute. This would assume that feminism embraces the free market system. NOT! Feminism has its roots in Marxism and communism. There is no way in hell that feminist will admit that there is an opportunity cost for their choices.
What the communists are really looking for is the gubment to literally seize all wages from the "white male" segment of the population, and for the gubment to redistribute the wages to women first and the "White male" lastly.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roy, you make a valid point - when a woman CHOOSES to interrupt her carrer (to raise children or any other reason) - she is going to take a hit on the career path (note I have used 'career' and not 'job'- they are different) and this should be a factor in the studies. No sane person (male or female)would expect to earn the same as someone who has not taken 10 years out of their career path - there may be an exception for high demand fields and specialized fields - but if I'm 'missing' tens years of 'experience' then the person with that experience should be my boss or earn more than me.
To illustrate a point - I have always earned more than anyone I was involved with (I am in IT) and I earned the right to my salary with 2 BS degrees and a Master's - plus working my tail off to 'prove' myself even in college. I am very good at what I do and earned my CIO position including the respect of the CEO/President of the Company.
I personally have worked since I was 19 (I am now in my mid 40's) without a 'break'. The feminist movement was about being able to make CHOICES rather than 'profiled' into having children or working - and it should apply to both men and women. And, yes, if I worked side-by-side with you doing the same job to the same level of excellence, then I should be paid the same as you. With telecommuting becoming more available, even men will have the choice to spend time at home (with or w/o 'kids'), to have flexibility in their life.
I will illustrate a 'disparity' on a personal level: In 1979, when I was hired by major corporation, a male was also hired two days earlier - six months down the road I learned that his 'starting' salary was $5K more than mine - he had no college degree (only vocational school) and no work experience when he was hired (I had 2 degrees and 1 year work experience) -- that is disparity -- and we were doing the same 'job'. Needless to say, I went job hunting. This is the stuff that gets 'feminists' all riled up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will illustrate a 'disparity' on a personal level: In 1979, when I was hired by major corporation, a male was also hired two days earlier - six months down the road I learned that his 'starting' salary was $5K more than mine - he had no college degree (only vocational school) and no work experience when he was hired (I had 2 degrees and 1 year work experience) -- that is disparity -- and we were doing the same 'job'. Needless to say, I went job hunting. This is the stuff that gets 'feminists' all riled up.
That so called disparity is the due to the fact that he was going to support a wife and kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By trying to smash down Sandy's example of a woman who honestly did have a pay gap, you are falling into the same cesspool as the radfems, trying to change history to fit your views. For whatever reasons, the gap was there for her. Why not accept it and move on to the fact that it is no longer there and try to educate people to that fact.
When you go on and on trying to verbally bitchslap people, you are alienating supporters for not having exactly the same views as you, which is what the rad fems are doing. We all have slightly different views, and as non-feminists, we should respect that.
In-fighting is the worst enemy we have, let's not give the rad fems another weapon against us.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, he was single - no wife, no kids.
Wife, kids or none --- does not justify paying differently (especially LESS) for the same job someone who has more experiene.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The point here is your experiance was in 1979 we are now 25 years on and the feminist movement is still using the experiances of the past to exploit the system on behalf of women when in todays world no company large or small could ever afford to think of paying men more let alone act on it since the threat of lawsuits is so constant.Yet the same arguments keep being made with the aid of distorted studies and arguments in order to push disparity not any form of equality.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, he was single - no wife, no kids.
Wife, kids or none --- does not justify paying differently (especially LESS) for the same job someone who has more experience.
Well, that depends. Were you going to be supporting a man and kids? and if you were, would you honestly not want first priority?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that depends. Were you going to be supporting a man and kids? and if you were, would you honestly not want first priority?
This reveals the mentality of women who supported feminism in the 60s and 70s, when it was as much a hate movement as it is today, and who refuse to admit even to themselves that it was a hate movement then.
In the past, a man had a tremendous amount of difficulty advancing his career, or couldn't advance it at all, if he wasn't supporting a woman and her children. The man worked outside the home for the money, but the money went largely to care for the woman and her children. The balance was that men were paid more than women. Feminists refused back then, and refuse now, to see that, imperfect or not, this served to provide for women.
Feminists in the 60s and 70s claimed that they wanted justice and fairness, but the members of every hate movement claim the same sort of thing. Sandy may have had the workplace experience that she describes, but I've seen women being given extreme amounts of preferential treatment in the workplace. If anything, the scales are tipped in favor of women.
I must say, Sandy, that since you are incapable of seeing the hatred that was rife in feminism during the 60s and 70s, you are probably unable to see extreme amounts of preferential treatment that you, in all probability, have been given in getting your current CIO position.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not believe that anyone should be paid any less for doing the same job. It is true that this was over twenty-five years ago, and much has changed in those twenty-five years.
Supporting a family does not mean anything anymore. They removed those in the 1960's before feminism was started, it removed the living wage, allowing women to work out of the home and earn a decent salary.
If they were paying him so much more, why did they hire him. Why would they not hire more women where they can save $5,000.00 per person in salary, if they can get 20 people at the lesser rate can they not save $100,000 dollars a year?
Companies, and investors like it when companies save money. Why spend more money to hire men if they can hire women for less money?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I grant it is 25 years later - the disparity did exist - and you are right, the only reason it doesn't happen now to the same extent is because of the lawsuits. And I am not saying that the studies are accurate - just that I know from first hand experience that it did happen. That is not to say that there should not be an end to the arguements and everyone just do their job - and let's try to change the 'attitude' that people (male and female) are indoctrinated with from birth bevause that is the only way to effect true change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because back then - very few women had a BS in Computer Science (actually there were only 2 colleges in the country that offered one at the time) and a BS in Mechanical Engineering. Even finding a female that could do the job was a 'chore'. So stacking the office with women so they could pay them less wasn't an option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, a friend of mine in school was (and still is) and out-spoken ardent feminist - and I have never agreed with her. Oh, I saw it - didn't like what I saw.
Wven now, I do not expect to be 'provided for' by a man -- I can provide for myself. So if I don't "need" you to feed, clothe and shelter me that I must hate you?
It did provide for the family, I grant that. But it be the couples' choice of who gives up their job to provide full time care to children rather than a societal belief that it should be the female? Would you like to have the OPTION to spend time with your children if your wife earned enough to provide for the family?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know a smart woman who got her master's degree in engineering in the early 1980s. I remember her telling me years ago that it was easier for a woman with her engineering credentials to get a suitable job than it was for her male counterpart because companies were eager to hire women engineers and there were so few of them. I never heard her complain about being victimized by any anti-female discrimination or bias in her profession.
Since we're on the subject of the "pay gap" does anybody have any comment about the recent court case re Merrill Lynch in which the panel ruled in favor of the female ex-employee who claimed that she had been the victim of sex discrimnation and (I think) sexual harrassment? If I'm not mistaken she charged that the company gave fewer brokerage accounts to women employees than men. The company is faced with numerous other female plaintiffs who are making the same charge including sexual harassment charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:40 PM April 24th, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
As a man who cooks, cleans, and works..I'm wondering why you think the woman does all the housework.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've not seen 3 other things mentioned.
1)Usually this kind of "study" measures "total of all women's salaries" versus "total of all men's salaries". Now that, in and of itself, is very misleading. If you have two people in different jobs, but you try to compare their salaries it's ludicrous.
2) Also, don't forget the "mommy track". I saw a post on SYG where it had a link to a "mom's rights" site. One of their complaints was that women were being "punished" for having children. How so? If a woman decides to take 1-3 years off for having a child (and she may have more than one, it's been known to happen) many feminists believe that she should come back to her job and be paid the same as her male (and female) peers who were WORKING during that time. Same advancements, same raises, everything. And what's ridiculous is how feminists will say that if a woman doesn't get that that she is being punished. Funny how "my body, my choice" and length of time staying HOME is a choice men DON'T have, but it's our fault, and that we should pay someone with LESS EXPERIENCE who WASN'T WORKING the same as someone who has EARNED their raises and promotions.
3) I have read somewhere (I wish I had the link) that Asians are among the top earners for both genders. Soooooo, is there some "great asian conspriacy" out there? Or is it that this "minority" won't take welfare and are taught by their parents a work ethic? If white women are making more than black and hispanic women why isn't N.O.W. and their evil minions making noise about the "great white women conspiracy"?
And what is NOT mentioned is that 80% of consumer dollars are spent by women. If men are in charge, economically oppressive, and HAVE all the money, why are women the spenders of this nonexistant money?
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree that 80 percent of the consumer dollar is probably spent by women. I would like to know if you have a source for this so I can quote it.
I agree. If you walk into a mall over fifty percent (I don't know how much over, probably alot) of the clothing is for women only. Not only that but the women can and do wear almost all of the clothing that is for men. Women's stores outnumber men's stores more than two to one (and don't forget that most of the stuff in men's stores women can use and most of the stuff in women's stores men cannot use).
The money men spend is on tools and equipment so they can do more work to earn more money. Meanwhile women are out buying jewlry and other worthless expensive items that does no one any good but satisfy thier egos.
Not to mention that men have to pay when they take women out for dinner, movie or whatever. Men buy most of the gifts in the relationships and the ones for women are way more expensive than the ones for men on average (if the man even gets a gift).
Women are way more expensive members of society and are way less productive than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spent by women but on who? Let's see women shop for the kids, their husbands, etc...
My SO hates shopping - calls and asks me to get underwear, socks, toiletires, clothes for him -- so yes, I 'spend' it but who's body is it going on?
And I do have the jewelery and furs, etc - and I bought them with my money because I wanted them and because I could. I also paid MY mortgage and car payments, etc. Until this relationship, I always earned MORE than anyone I was involved with - sometimes twice as much. And I didn't dump anyone because they could buy me the ring I wanted or the fur - I went and got it myself and NEVER expected it to be 'given' to me. Its actually a 'strange' experience to be out somewhere and if I comment on something ("Oh, that is pretty" or "I like that") to have my SO say "I'll get it for you" and then have to explain that just because I 'like' something does not mean I want to own it OR that if I did want to own it I wouldn't be commenting on it I would just buy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sandy,
You will find that what you are asserting is supported by many men here. Sure you spend the money on the kids and the spouse. You pay your bills. That's totally responsible.
My point was that for all the "wage gap" MSinformation put out that women are not held financially hostage by men as is often asserted.
I am totally with you that women spend money not only on themselves (for which no excuse is needed - we all get "nice things"), but also their families.
Women do spend money on loved ones. No one is denying that. But many feminist organizations play the "victim" card and talk about how men "hold the purse strings" and are controling. In my family my mother was the "boss". She was just better with the money. It was a non-issue.
Your points are valid. I was just making a different one.
Respectfully,
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing about it Sandy is that women want a pat on the back for buying thier own things. I don't think women deserve a pat on the back until they buy all the things for not only themselves but the men they are in a relationship with. Men have been doing it for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think Sandy is getting the props she deserves people. Let's all give her a big round of applause for paying her own way.
Now you may say that as a male you have to pay your own way and you get no gratitude for it. True. But it looks like this is gonna be as good as it gets fellas. A woman that will actually pay for her own junk. Don't forget to praise her women like this are few and far between.
Should I blow my brains out now or get myself a bucket of popcorn sit back and see just how sick women can make this world?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about the fact that the most dangerous jobs in the world are almost exclusively held by men.
Also that males dominate the work related fatalities and serious injuries by far.
Or how about the fact that the jobs, the machinery know how ext. ext. were almost exclusively designed by men in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
