Originally posted by ShawnJ
Um. The table shows median weekly earnings. That's not a flaw. It's a valid statistic.
Valid in that it states that there is a gap. It does not state nor is it correct to state that the gap is caused by sexism. The numbers can be correct, but that doesn't mean your conclusion about how those numbers add up has any merit.
Well, here you're plainly wrong. Table 17 (PDF) in Women in the Labor Force: Databook (BLS) (PDF) shows that full time working women on average work 36.2 hours compared to 42.4 for men. You overestimated the gap by nearly 2/3rds. Men put in longer hours outside the home, to be sure, but women work what's known as a "second shift" of unpaid labor, which includes domestic responsibilities and childcare. Sociologists Hochschild and Machung found that women work an extra 15 hours longer than men each week. More than that unpaid.
You're correct. I attempted to simply recall the numbers from memory and did so incorrectly. My general conclusion was correct though in that weekly salary would not take into account the fact that men work more hours than women and that any salary measure that does not take this into account is not going to be accurate. You've proven that my memory wasn't exact with the weekly hours worked, but that doesn't change the outcome of those numbers.
If we take the just the pure number of hours worked and assume equal pay, we already have a pay gap of 15% just because women work fewer hours. All other variables could be equal and they would still make 15% less. Simply math dictates that you have to work the same number of hours to earn the same amount of pay.
As for your second shift assertion, it has been disproven by studies from the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Additionally that old study used definitions of housework that do not include tasks that men often undertake. Sure a man may not have cleaned the toilets, but if he washes both the family cars, that is considered "housework" in this modern age. Your study would not define it as such.
Let's measure in pennies and nanoseconds. Preciso, no?
Hey, there is a reason your local gas station charges you 9/10's of a penny. You should consider that.
We can discuss how small a measure would be unreasonable, but the point remains that looking at hours alone accounts for 15% of the 22% gap, we should be willing to remove that from the catagory of gender bias.
BTW, your own link here,
puts the gap at 22% and you asserted in the first post it was 26%. Those darn slippery numbers.
As far as being "politically motivated," my only concern is egalitarianism. And it's a cheap, horribly compromised concern at that given our economic system. This course has done far more to turn me off to feminism than anything. The issues here are almost exclusively about equal access to an inherently unequal system. Blegh. And I have to argue with people here and elsewhere about that even. It's enough to make me sick-- or apathetic.
You mean they didn't address why women avoid high paying death industry jobs and don't care to be "equal" in those fields?
They didn't address that men are 16 out of every 17 work related deaths and yet women don't care to come into fields like Oil Rig Worker and even things out?
Women do care about the glass ceiling, but they don't seem to care much about getting down into that high paying glass cellar where you trade money for risk of life. Perhaps when you have seen a few of your male friends mauled while working as say, a tow truck driver, you'll start to question if those men are truly as empowered as feminists claim they are and if they really are actively working to keep women out of their fields.
Ahem. I quote that table from the REPUBLICAN administered DOL-- the same one that eliminated the department's "Equal Pay Matters Initiative, removed all information about narrowing the wage gap from its Web site, and refused to use available tools to identify violations of equal pay laws," according to the National Committee on Pay Equity.
There are pages and pages of tables on the databook I linked to.
And if that same Republican Administered DOL suddenly changed the previously published criteria you don't think the same groups that benefit from creating that wedge would create some sort of outcry? You show the same reasoning yourself. Any change in the criteria that the previous groups used to create their wedge issue is declared an attempt to harm the people with whom they have political designs. The headline on the DOL study that showed say a 1-2% gap when hours, education, experience, etc are factored in wouldn't be "Equality Achieved" it would be "Republicans distort studies in attempt to lie about gender gap."
It always comes back to intent with folks such as yourself.
I know. It's ridiculously impractical-- but I'm fortunate enough to have the opportunity to study what I love. I intend to be personally responsible by not wasting the opportunity and socially responsible by broadening that opportunity to more people.
Yes, well I was equally impractical if not more so at your age. I was accepted into electrical engineering department at my university but instead ran off to toot my horn. I do hope you follow through with the teaching as it would be quite an experience widening opportunity for yourself.
So certain factors cause women to choose certain occupations over another. Of course.
Of course that also means that those factors do not have to be sexism. That is the contention with measures like the wage gap.
You're trying to tell me that gender has absolutely *nothing* to do with experience, hours worked, and educational level (as well as educational concentration)? Gender doesn't inform those factors one bit? They exist totally separate from gender? So while men choose higher-paying math and science related majors while women choose lower-paying humanities related majors, it must be a mere koiny-dink? *Zero* correlation? Or when women work a "second shift" at home, which detracts from their paid labor in the marketplace? Gender must be hiding under the bed with the dust bunnies for that one. Or structuring work time to care for the kids and what not. You get the point.
No, I'm trying to tell you that the results of those choices don't indicate sexism or an unempowered state among women. Very often they indicate quite the opposite and we should ask why women are allowed to make lifestyle choices that treat earning money as a secondary concern while men are not. To me, that indicates power, not weakness.
When a woman goes through life making decisions that indicate that she knows that she can choice a less demanding field of study, or choose a career where long gaps in work history do not affect your ability to be employed later, it says to me that she knows some other variable is going to pick up the slack there. That variable of course is the man who will be subservient, not empowered, subservient to the needs of that woman.
Choice is empowerment. Women show a wider range of choices because they are more empowered.
I always find it strange that this is so easily understood when we talk about employer and employee with power and not man and woman with power.
If your boss is able to spend more and work less because of his employee, that is not seen as a helpless state. When a woman can choose a certain career or part time work and not have it affect what she can spend (not earn) it is also not a helpless state.
No more gibberish than using a 20+ year old second shift study which relied on even old studies and definitions for its conclusions. You dismiss that which you know would easily be true if you cared to do the survey.
I don't. I haven't implemented a comparable worth policy so I have no idea how the two occupations really compare. I haven't thought about it.
You are enlightened and intelligent enough to know which job you would choose and explain your reasoning behind it. You also know several equally enlightened and intelligent females (at least I would hope so) from whom you could seek the answers regarding their own choices and rationales. I'm sure they, like you, are probably pursuing their education and as a result won't have to weigh such options in their personal life. However you could ask them about a hypothetical and see their reasoning.
Funny. Sociologists note the exact opposite phenomenon-- that comparable worth policies partially stem the flow of women into traditionally male and higher paying occupations, chiefly because the pay is now good in their own. Some consider it a limitation.
It could also be a reflection of men entering the female fields and as a result women now being less empowered to leave their own professionals and feel they can easily come back to it now with more competition. Often the case is the higher the rewards, the higher the risks. When the reward becomes higher, leaving becomes riskier. Women now become another rat trying to climb that corporate ladder. Doesn't that sound empowered?
I cannot field my own university research department. I don't even have the time to say, pursue a second degree in Socialogy. However that doesn't we can't have a nice LONG discussion here.