Can we please put this myth to bed now?

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    so the "counter" argument to this flat-out says that the real wage difference is somewhere between 9% and 13%, not 26%.

    that's exactly the kind of crap that people complain about. they know that the real wage difference is only 9 to 13 percent, yet don't use that number in their pamphlets do they?

    of course, OVER HALF of the wage difference is accounted for because women DON'T STAY AT THEIR JOBS and are LESS EDUCATED.

    that doesn't even account for the difference in hours worked. (35 hours vs. 60 hours)



    lame article.




    There is a lot of hokum in the feminist inspired pay statistics debate. Although I hav'nt kept up with the latest numbers, this debate started in the 70's with the claim that women earned 59% of men - without any factoring for education, seniority, and/or age.



    Economists differ on how much, if any, wage differential is due to discrimination. However, most agree that much of the differences are due to other factors than gender.



    Women drop in and out of work (usually for family and child bearing/rearing) far more often than men. Even fully employed women who work full time, and year around, have an average of one quarter fewer years of work experience than men of the same age. The average age (and seniority) of men in the workplace is greater. Even 16 years ago, the hourly gender wage difference for childless white people (24-44) was only 87-91% (a difference that has since eroded).



    Of course, the real feminist gripe has little to do with the hourly pay of female welders, and much more to do with the vaunted "glass ceiling" for the 1/2% of the population that competes for those executive - leadership positions.



    But even in this elitist crowd, studies have shown that promotion is less due to gender discrimination than life style choices. For example, one study showed that only 20% of female attorneys who had significant part-time, and/or intermittent, experience made partner 15 years after graduation, while 80% of full-time (or nearly full-time) female attorneys made partner over the same period.
  • Reply 142 of 155
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    ok bunge. i was hoping you actually had something constructive to add, but it appears not.



    in which case, yes.



    there might be some percentage that women get paid less than men, which could be due to discrimination.



    granted, that means you've basically said "women get paid either the same as men, more than men, or less than men. and that might be because of discrimination"



    whoop dee do.



    wow, that was sure a stance to take on an issue!
  • Reply 143 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    ok bunge. i was hoping you actually had something constructive to add, but it appears not.



    in which case, yes.



    there might be some percentage that women get paid less than men, which could be due to discrimination.



    granted, that means you've basically said "women get paid either the same as men, more than men, or less than men. and that might be because of discrimination"



    whoop dee do.



    wow, that was sure a stance to take on an issue!




    Is there really any substantive gap ? For example:



    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba392/



    "When women behave in the workplace as men do, the wage gap between them is small. June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's. Women who hold positions and have skills and experience similar to those of men face wage disparities of less than 10 percent, and many are within a couple of points...



    ?A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives and Lifetime television found that 71 percent of women prefer jobs with more flexibility and benefits than jobs with higher wages, and nearly 85 percent of women offered flexible work arrangements by their employers have taken advantage of this opportunity.



    ?Working mothers are nearly twice as likely to take time off to care for their children as are working fathers in dual-earner couples. Yet time out of the workforce is an enormous obstacle to building an attractive resume and working up the corporate ladder. ? Data from the National Longitudinal Survey reveal that women between the ages of 18 and 34 have been out of the labor force 27 percent of the time, in contrast to 11 percent for men. Women ages 45 to 54 who have recently re-entered the workforce after a five- or 10-year break are competing against men who have had 20 years of continuous experience.



    ?Women are also more likely to work part-time. In 2000, one-quarter of all women employees worked part-time, compared to less than 10 percent of men. Nearly 85 percent of those who worked part-time did so for non-economic reasons; e.g., to spend more time with the family or to further their education. In general, married women would prefer part-time work at a rate of 5 to 1 over married men.



    While part-time work usually increases flexibility, the part-time worker loses out on promotions and pay increases. Part-time work also tends to mean lower hourly pay. Shorter labor stints and part-time work contribute to the probability of working for the minimum wage. Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage earners are women.



    However, women's wages hold up quite well to men's wages when comparing specific job categories. [See Figure I.] Among adults working between one and 34 hours a week, women's earnings are 115 percent of men's. Among part-time workers who have never married, and who thus confront fewer outside factors likely to affect earnings, women earn slightly more than men. These statistics suggest that skill level, tenure and working hours - not gender - determine wages.



    Beyond work behavior, women gravitate to sectors of the economy that compensate workers at lower levels. While women hold 53 percent of all professional jobs in the United States, they hold only 28 percent of jobs in professions averaging $40,000 or more in annual compensation. For example, fewer women have chosen to enter such technical fields as computer sciences, math and science teaching, medicine, law and engineering. In 1998, women earned only 26.7 percent of computer science degrees.



    Despite all these factors, the gap between men and women's wages has been closing. Figure II illustrates that over the last 20 years women's earnings have jumped at least 12 percentage points relative to men's earnings, closing the wage differential at every level of education. A change in women's work expectations also has tended to close the gap. Until the 1970s, a minority of women expected to work after marriage. Today, almost 75 percent of young women expect to be working at age 35.



    Changing work expectations are an apparent cause of women's increased focus on education, and the enrollment of women in higher education has grown much faster than that of men. Women were awarded more than 50 percent of associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees in the 1990s. Women currently earn more than 40 percent of Ph.D.s, medical and law degrees.



    The narrowing of the gender wage gap approximately one percentage point a year since 1980 is particularly significant, since during the 1980s and '90s the overall wage level rose little and the wage inequality between skilled and unskilled workers grew. Without enhanced skills, women's wages likely would have fallen further behind men's. However, market pressures have helped to generate corrective mechanisms, and as the costs of denying employment to women mounted, prejudices were set aside.



    Women's work-life patterns and their occupational preferences are significant factors in determining wages. Rather than being "funneled" into low-wage, low-prestige and part-time positions, women often choose these occupations because of the flexibility they offer. After adjusting for these factors, scholars find that the difference between men's and women's earnings is very narrow.



    Those who still cite women's 76 cents for every male dollar as evidence of sexism fail to take into account the underlying role of personal choice. The "wage gap" is not so much about employers discriminating against women as about women making discriminating choices in the labor market."



    And supposing, for example, there is a meaningful gap between pay rates for women and men, after the factoring of age, seniority, education, profession, and work experience are accounted for. Is it necessarly related to discrimination?



    Although the feminists blindfold refuses to ascribe cultural or biological gender differences, it is self-evident that women do make different choices than men, and tend to have differing attitudes towards job benefits and ends (flexability, advancement, leadership, etc.). Such differences are not solely deterministic, but do tilt wages.



    BTW, I remember reading the Civil Rights and Rhetoric (Sowell) that black women, of the same age, education, etc. do better than black men (i.e. a reverse wage gap)...



    I guess the new feminist buttons ought to read:



    "Women make 90 to 115% of what men make"
  • Reply 144 of 155
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    there might be some percentage that women get paid less than men, which could be due to discrimination.



    ...



    wow, that was sure a stance to take on an issue!




    No, the fact that people would argue against that makes them incredibly silly.
  • Reply 145 of 155
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Here we go, I had read this a while ago and have found a working link to a PDF of the story. It is a very good read that discusses some of the issues I have mentioned in this thread regarding choice, satisfaction and success not only being defined in male terms. When women choose a different definition of success, it isn't discrimination. Hopefully society will become more receptive to men being given more choices as well.



    The Opt-Out Revolution



    As usual it doesn't have all the answers, but it asks some good questions and gives some insight.



    Nick
  • Reply 146 of 155
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Yeah that's a terrible article that had been roundly criticized back when it was written. Although it seems like it was written longer ago than late October. Hmm. I guess I'm just getting older. *shrugs*



    Rebuttal Articles:



    There They Go Again by Katha Pollitt (The Nation)

    Quote:

    Belkin's thesis is that "women" are turning away from demanding careers because they realize that there's more to life than work-work-work. As Joan Walsh points out in her witty riposte in Salon, Belkin hedges her argument with the sorts of qualifiers editors tend to insist on: Yes there's discrimination, yes Princeton isn't Everycollege, yes black women (they get a whole parenthesis to themselves) are working more, not less. But none of the caveats seem to matter as she states her central conclusion: "Why don't women run the world? Maybe it's because they don't want to." Any woman who has ever been passed over for a deserved promotion in favor of a less qualified, but maybe louder, schmoozier man can just leave the room quietly, please.



    Clueless in Manhattan by Joan Walsh (Salon)

    Quote:

    There's an arrogant assumption in Belkin's piece that she's doing something better than running the Times: raising her kids. It's her life, it's her choice, if that's her path I'm glad she's happy with it. But the notion that she and her venerated "Opt-Out Revolution" subjects are making the right choice for all mothers, let alone all women, is really pernicious. I think it's great that she and these groovy book-group moms are putting their kids first. I put my daughter first, too. But don't speak for me. Don't say this is the way we all added it up and decided it was going to be. Most of us are actually trying to do both, raise our kids and do the best job we can, whether or not it leads us to the top of the New York Times. And many of us are going to get to the top, in our own time and according to our definition of the top, whether the Times magazine notices or not.



    The least worst choice: Why mothers ?opt? out of the workforce by Judith Stadtman Tucker (The Mothers' Movement Online)

    Quote:

    The New York Times could have featured a serious investigation of systemic factors that limit the upward mobility of mothers in the workplace. Or a more philosophical piece about why our society is still locked into the idea that mothers, above all others, are responsible for caring for the nation?s children and how this attitude impacts women both in and outside the workplace. Even an in-depth commentary about how U.S. social policy lets down working families time and time again would be welcome. Instead, the Times gave pride of place to an article that resorts to pop science to make a case that mothers -- even the really brainy ones -- are biologically hard-wired to prioritize caregiving over competition.



    My disclaimer: RTFA.
  • Reply 147 of 155
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    You can't do both. You can either pay attention to your kids or you can work your ass off like a typical male in an office building 10 hours a day. I'm sorry, but there simply isn't enough time in the day to do both effectively.
  • Reply 148 of 155
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Of course, women get pregnant and give birth and breast feed and men don't, so they're going to need more time off. But in my experience, I don't believe that most women are any more hard-wired for maternity than men are for paternity. At least, my wife wants to have a career and do something other than breast feed and play Candyland all day long for 8 years. Not to get a bigger SUV or to keep up with the rat race, but just to not go crazy staying at home full time doing nothing but kid stuff. To be around adults and to be intellectually challenged and to do something to advance your own goals at least some of the time.



    Staying at home full time kicks your ass. My wife will often have a couple days in a row of full time, 10-hour-day work, and I am killed staying home with the kids for that time. My mind turns to jelly, I'm emotionally exhausted, and I just don't feel like a human being anymore. She feels exactly the same way. Maybe some women can do it for years and years without it taking a toll, but there's a reason why valium was called "mother's little helper."
  • Reply 149 of 155
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member




    "What a drag it is getting old

    "Kids are different today, "

    I hear ev'ry mother say

    Mother needs something today to calm her down

    And though she's not really ill

    There's a little yellow pill

    She goes running for the shelter of a mother's little helper

    And it helps her on her way, gets her through her busy day"
  • Reply 150 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    {B]Yeah that's a terrible article that had been roundly criticized back when it was written. Although it seems like it was written longer ago than late October. Hmm. I guess I'm just getting older. *shrugs* My disclaimer: RTFA. [/B]



    Of course the article was criticized by the left - as could be predicted. Belken hit a nerve and provoked a fury that any accomplished woman should expect if she offer a non-PC viewpoint.



    What is more interesting is how beside themselves her PC critics are. Pollit for example, admitted her fury in a list email at Bucknell and asked for supporting views from her peers (to help prepare her article). So with all this assistance (from Joan Walsh) what does she come up with?



    ?(Belkin) hedges her argument with the sorts of qualifiers editors tend to insist on: Yes there's discrimination, yes Princeton isn't Every college, yes black women (they get a whole parenthesis to themselves) are working more, not less. But none of the caveats seem to matter as she states her central conclusion: "Why don't women run the world? Maybe it's because they don't want to."



    Ms. Pollit is angry, so much so she intentionally misquotes the articles central conclusion: ?Why don't women run the world? ? In a way,? Amsbary says, ?we really do.? ?



    And we should take this as credible criticism?



    Tucker is also beside herself, ignorant of the nature of literary exposition. She fumes: ?The New York Times could have featured a serious investigation of systemic factors that limit the upward mobility of mothers in the workplace. Or a more philosophical piece?Even an in-depth commentary about how U.S. social policy? Instead, the Times gave pride of place to an article that resorts to pop science to make a case that mothers -- even the really brainy ones -- are biologically hard-wired to prioritize care giving over competition.?



    The less emotional (or perhaps educated) observer would have noted that Ms. Belken was writing an essay, a personal narrative based on interviews and conversations. It is, in fact, the most common form of journalist investigation (field interviewing) combined with her personal reflections on the subject.



    Tuckers complaint that her work is not a scientific, nor a philosophical study, is a desperate irrelevancy.
  • Reply 151 of 155
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member




    The angry, emotional, and hysterical woman? I read a few of Strindberg's plays too.



  • Reply 152 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ





    The angry, emotional, and hysterical woman? I read a few of Strindberg's plays too.







    Yes it is unfortunate when someone mimics a stereotype; i.e. of the feminist left. None the less, such theatrics contrast with the reflective insightful work of Belkin.



    Thank's for introducing me to Strindberg - although the bio I read suggests a far more nuanced author than "women are emotional and hystrical", etc.
  • Reply 153 of 155
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Of course the article was criticized by the left - as could be predicted. Belken hit a nerve and provoked a fury that any accomplished woman should expect if she offer a non-PC viewpoint.



    What is more interesting is how beside themselves her PC critics are. Pollit for example, admitted her fury in a list email at Bucknell and asked for supporting views from her peers (to help prepare her article). So with all this assistance (from Joan Walsh) what does she come up with?



    ?(Belkin) hedges her argument with the sorts of qualifiers editors tend to insist on: Yes there's discrimination, yes Princeton isn't Every college, yes black women (they get a whole parenthesis to themselves) are working more, not less. But none of the caveats seem to matter as she states her central conclusion: "Why don't women run the world? Maybe it's because they don't want to."



    Ms. Pollit is angry, so much so she intentionally misquotes the articles central conclusion: ?Why don't women run the world? ? In a way,? Amsbary says, ?we really do.? ?



    And we should take this as credible criticism?



    Tucker is also beside herself, ignorant of the nature of literary exposition. She fumes: ?The New York Times could have featured a serious investigation of systemic factors that limit the upward mobility of mothers in the workplace. Or a more philosophical piece?Even an in-depth commentary about how U.S. social policy? Instead, the Times gave pride of place to an article that resorts to pop science to make a case that mothers -- even the really brainy ones -- are biologically hard-wired to prioritize care giving over competition.?



    The less emotional (or perhaps educated) observer would have noted that Ms. Belken was writing an essay, a personal narrative based on interviews and conversations. It is, in fact, the most common form of journalist investigation (field interviewing) combined with her personal reflections on the subject.



    Tuckers complaint that her work is not a scientific, nor a philosophical study, is a desperate irrelevancy.




    With all due respect, you're just completely wrong here:



    Katha Pollitt doesn't "intentionally misquote" Lisa Belkin; she quotes her verbatim. On Page 3 of the Belkin article, she writes: "Why don't women run the world? Maybe it's because they don't want to." We would all agree that that's the central conclusion of her article. That it's all about "choice." You know, "not wanting to run the world" as in the title: "The Opt-Out Revolution." Although the following is a slippery slope fallacy, it just might apply: If you miss the whole point of the Belkin article, what else could you be wrong about?



    Your characterizations of these women are completely unfounded. "Fury, fury, angry, fuming, and emotional" are the terms you use to discredit the articles I posted. Now, I don't see how you could have come to that conclusion when the articles aren't "angry" at all. Um.



    And I'm not even going to argue about "the nature of literary exposition," whatever you meant by that.
  • Reply 154 of 155
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MaxParrish

    Yes it is unfortunate when someone mimics a stereotype; i.e. of the feminist left. None the less, such theatrics contrast with the reflective insightful work of Belkin.







    Prove it.
  • Reply 155 of 155
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    [B]With all due respect, you're just completely wrong here:



    Katha Pollitt doesn't "intentionally misquote" Lisa Belkin; she quotes her verbatim. On Page 3 of the Belkin article, she writes: "Why don't women run the world? Maybe it's because they don't want to." We would all agree that that's the central conclusion of her article. That it's all about "choice." You know, "not wanting to run the world" as in the title: "The Opt-Out Revolution." Although the following is a slippery slope fallacy, it just might apply: If you miss the whole point of the Belkin article, what else could you be wrong about?



    And I would argue that Ms. Belken makes a much more subtle and important central conclusion. In her own words, I've reprinted the concluding paragraphs below:
    Quote:

    This, I would argue, is why the workplace needs women. Not just because they are 50 percent of the talent pool,but for the very fact that they are more willing to leave than men. That, in turn, makes employers work harder to keep them. It is why the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche has more than doubled the number of employees on flexible work schedules over the past decade and more than quintupled the number of female partners and directors (to 567, from 97) in the same period. It is why I.B.M. employees can request up to 156 weeks of job-protected family time off. It is why Hamot Medical Center in Erie, Pa., hired a husband and wife to fill one neonatology job, with a shared salary and shared health insurance, then let them decide who stays home and who

    comes to the hospital on any given day. It is why, everywhere you look, workers are doing their work in

    untraditional ways.



    Women started this conversation about life and work -- a conversation that is slowly coming to include men.

    Sanity, balance and a new definition of success, it seems, just might be contagious. And instead of women being

    forced to act like men, men are being freed to act like women. Because women are willing to leave, men are more

    willing to leave, too -- the number of married men who are full-time caregivers to their children has increased 18

    percent. Because women are willing to leave, 46 percent of the employees taking parental leave at Ernst & Young

    last year were men.



    Looked at that way, this is not the failure of a revolution, but the start of a new one. It is about a door opened but a crack by women that could usher in a new environment for us all.



    Why don't women run the world?



    ''In a way,'' Amsbary says, ''we really do.''



    You are right, Pollit did not misquote, she simply took it out of context on page 3 and made it Belken?s conclusion on Page 11.



    Look, Belkin is saying something far more important than Pollits crass portrait. She is saying that women have exercised the option to not work and that is important, not only for women but for men. She is also saying that this development is not a failure, but the start of a new revolution of choice.



    In that sense, women are not merely defering power, they are actually using and enjoying it.



    I'll have more to say a Pollit et. al. later,...
Sign In or Register to comment.