Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study

With this news, it would explain why there are so few women directors: What company is going to overlook the bottom line and hire HIGHER paid women instead of lower paid men? Most people (especially the shareholders) would call that fiscal responsibility, not sexism.

But, that leads to the opposite side of this coin: since this is the only career that pays women more than men, how can sexism be the cause of that? What company would employ so many higher paid men, rather than firing them all and hiring ALL lower paid women? Obviously, it isn't sexism here, either...there must be other considerations in the decision to pay more men more money. Or maybe the whole, "Women make only 69 cents to mens dollar," claim is crap.

This article has both sides of the fallacy in it...it's a lovely thing. The only problem? They don't teach critical reasoning in schools anymore, so the true message that's hidden in the bs will be lost on most.

The claim is crap. Women aren't working as long or as hard as men.

""This makes being a director one of the few jobs in the U.S. economy where the pay differential is reversed," between men and women, the study found."

Of course the "researchers" had to fuck up and include this stupid comment. So presenting this study as an arguement AGAINST the wage gap really only serves to reinforce existing myths.

Just once, I would like to see a responsible report done on gender issues without having landmines buried in it.

....It's very unfortunate that the only way to teach these women the reality of the privelegde they are now getting in America..Is to give them what they want...equality!!!
...99.9% of cars are fixed by men!!..men need to stop fixing womens cars until this "labor gap" is addressed!!

When we finnally start mandateing equality...most women are going to wish for the days of ole...The days of priveledge which they are in right now!!

There are a couple of bills in Congress right now to legislate PAY EQUITY, or what has been cleverly titled FAIR PAY. (Who's against anything "fair?")

Here's a definition from a Minnesota commission web site -

"Pay Equity is a method of eliminating discrimination against women who are paid less than men for jobs requiring comparable levels of expertise. This goes beyond the familiar idea of "equal pay for equal work" where men and women with the same jobs must be paid equally. A policy to establish pay equity usually means: 1) that all jobs will be evaluated and given points according to the level of knowledge and responsibility required to do the job; and 2) that salary adjustments will be made if it is discovered that women are consistently paid less then men for jobs with similar points."

Under this scheme (supported by all major American feminist groups and by candidate Hillary Clinton), a new government bureaucracy would be created to evaluate and rank every job to determine its "worth."

It's a bold attempt to expand the "equal" pay concept across radically different occupations, based on some as yet undetermined rating criteria for "comparable levels of expertise."

Expect to see "stay-at-home-single-mother" rated at 105% of "mechanical engineer," "flight attendant" as equal to "air traffic controller," and "prostitute" at 96% of "commodities broker."

And BTW, Sweden recently passed a national law requiring companies to achieve numerical parity between men and women on their corporate boards - or face stiff financial penalties.

Feminists' definition of financial equality hasn't really changed that much in 40 years - "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine if I want it!"

"that salary adjustments will be made if it is discovered that women are consistently paid less then men for jobs with similar points."

But it does NOT say that adjustments will be made if it is found that women are being paid MORE than men doing jobs with similar points.

One almost suspects that the Minnesota commission has an idea about what they might find.

Wasn't it norway and 40%...