Bitcoin Forum

This argument has been made popular within the last year or so, and I haven't really done a lot of research into it this time around, but in the past when I saw this brought up, the data had ignored that men just tend to do jobs that are valued more by the market, and it wasn't necessarily an issue of sexism.

What I mean is that men do things like construction, crab fishing, trucking, plumbing, etc., things that women simply choose not to do. This can be because of social norms, but there's probably some biology to it, such as men generally being physically stronger than women and strength being something that's valuable when it comes to, say, lifting heavy shit? Fuck if I know. Anyway, women just don't do these jobs or go for them. Instead, they choose cushy office jobs, and many of them choose to be homemakers whereas fewer men choose cushy office jobs and being homemakers and teachers and shit.

So I'm wondering if this same counterargument applies today. When we talk about women making $0.77 for every $1 a man makes, is it for the same job? Does the study control for other variables?


Just to be clear, here, I completely agree that sexism is a very real problem in our culture, including the workplace. When women are assertive, they're called "bitchy" or "bossy" whereas men are "confident" or "possess leadership qualities" and so forth. I read about one study that showed biases in hiring managers, and even when they were made aware of their biases, they still fail to properly compensate for it. I agree that we live in a culture that blames rape victims for being raped. Etc. It's not much of a stretch for me to buy into this argument about how much women make vs how much men make. But I know that there have been problems with the argument in the past, and I wanna see someone back it up with real data.

It's for the same exact job, otherwise it does not make sense...

you just debunked 3 paragraphs with a terse 1 sentence response  :D

Womans allways find a way to start a fight when their  "rights" are wronged, and when its other way around, then its because they are the gentle ones.
I find it stupid in general. If they make less for the same job, then every manager would hire only woman and made profit 23% in one move.
But that isnt the case, which prooves that this is yet another pro women campaign with apsolutely no valid arguments.

Women are less likely to take abuse on a long term basis, fight for a promotion or a raise; they value more a stable life and their social life and they want a family life more than men in average plus they stop working more when they have a child and it is why they are paid a little bit less, surprisingly not that much less

LOL WHAT?

Everything you just said is ridiculously sexist and outdated. There are more stay at home dads today than ever before. More women in executive positions than ever before. It is just recently that the glass ceiling has been lifted in some areas for women.

They are paid less because they have a child at some point in life and have to take maternity leave? LOL. And it's surprisingly not much less? Are you a god damn retard?

Any sources on this? I want to know what all countries affect this statistic. I hope countries like USA/Canada have less of this effect.

I'm pretty sure this happens everywhere, it should be better in some European countries and worse in muslim countries.

Most of these effects go away once you adjust for years of experience and the job.  The latter is far more important than the former. 

However, the 77 cents headline gets attention, even though it does not stand up to careful examination.  This is not to say that women don't face discrimination and challenges, they do, serious ones, and they also bear a disproportionate burden making sure the human race continues, but consistently being underpaid to that degree is not supported by the empirical evidence.

But i think they are not counting the billionaires, i mean, in the list of top 100 millionaries there are only a few women there, but yeah, if you count only people who have jobs, that would be the amount.

of the few female billionaires, most of that money was inherited. the male species is the alpha that destroys things. women are the ones who nurture. i think the reason why there aren't many women who hold power is in part due to sexism, and also due to nature.

It is for the same job, that's why it's a fact to be known. The spread is probably coming down though, more woman are getting paid what they deserve...at least for equal performance.

From what i understand its a common misconception that men earn more rather women are less money focused vs men and will often quit earlier in their careers/take it easier in order to fulfill other areas of their life.

Over 90% of all workplace deaths are men. Men are working more dangerous jobs, and working more hours. Why shouldn't they be paid more? This "women are paid less" thing is a myth. They don't do the same job, therefore they don't get paid the same. End of debate.

How many women can be contruction workers, handymen, plumbers, all that. I don't mean to be sexist in any way but that is how it should be. Men are expected to run the family anyways and pay for things.

I bet that ALOT of woman have hidden incomes from men in work ;) but ofcourse they won't admit it.

Congrats, my friend!

All of my black 'niggas' are in gangs. I don't mean to be racist, but that's how it should be.

There's so much sexism in this thread it hurts. If your under the belief that ALL women can't be equal as a male in strength, your hilarious. I'm guessing single fathers can't be expected to 'nurture' their kids because they're expected to just run the family and pay for things?

It's hilarious, buddy.


So, your saying since some men work more dangerous jobs, they should get paid more in a office job than a female office worker? My job isn't really that dangerous. Your being strictly biased if you think because there's a male construction worker, than a male office worker should get paid more than a female worker, because his gender takes on 'more dangerous jobs'.

LOL, so true!

I don't think those guys hang around women very often. :D

I agree with the OP this is the way I look at it also.  Women tend to do more jobs like physical therapy, nursing, teaching and not so much construction or technical engineering type jobs.  This is not saying they don't make a fair wage based on the work they do in most cases.  Their are more women then men so I think the study that came up with these numbers doesn't take all these things into consideration.  I see many wealthy females and females in positions of power in our society.  Can't really say that is the case all over the world.  I just think the discussion has become more about a issue of sexism.  When if anything it should be about getting females into more fields they aren't already in.  

Whites earn more than other ethnicities (in Western society)
Straight people earn more than gay people
Handsome more than ugly
Tall more than short

Its about employers prejudicing to some level what they want employees to represent, which is the most upsetting thing of all.

Women are generally valued less on the marketplace (as minorities, freaks, etc) because bosses subjectively value them less (or at least they know other bossies value them less so that their market value is lower than that of, let's say, males). It's mostly an assimetry of information "problem" that the economic rationality of the market would solve this way: bosses who "discover" that they can buy female worker at a cheaper price than male ones but without decreasing productivity would be praised on the market (lower costs, lower prices of your goods, or, in case of unchanged prices, higher returns). The signal would be noted on the market, eventually the marketed value of males would lower (competition), ergo your almighty equilibrium. Information would be updated because of bosses experiencing that females are more valuable workers than thought before. So let female prices fall, for female sake. Otherwise if the setting is libertarian, females could associate to work in only-females enterprises or secede XD!


Problem? It happened in the end of 19th century thanks to overproduction crises in Europe, do you know what has been the reaction of male workers? Mobbing against females, crying the corruption of familiar order, etc. Nothing so distant from what has be done toward minorities and immigrants. Rules to raise the minimum wage has been found good means to reduce females's invasion of the marketplace and the side effect of having to rethink family roles. Humans suck.

I had few long term relationships and currently i'm in one so exclude me ;)

That's disrespectful/sexist. Why would you assume "A LOT" of women offer sexual services? They have a self image to keep up too.

Well, i'm sorry for it but i had experience and heard/saw it quite alot times.

I think this is exactly why women tend to make less then men in the workplace. It really has nothing to do with anything other then qualifications and experience. One way to explain the difference in experience is that women tend to take time off from work to raise a family and during this time off they are not gaining additional experience. Also when women  do return to work they have a much higher rate of changing career paths, resetting the total amount of related experience in a particular field.

I think this more or less sums it up. By spending more time in the workforce men have more overall experience and more opportunities for advancement.

Exactly. Just because there is a discrepancy automatically assuming it is because of sexism is unscientific at least and disingenuous at worst. I say this type of assumption is sexist against men. Having equality doesn't mean everything is exactly equal and the same like when you and your little sister argued about your toys and such. In reality no one is equal to anyone else, that's why they call us individuals.

Men work longer hours, and work in more dangerous jobs. They should be paid more for that risk, a risk most women clearly don't like taking in general. No one says they can't, but just because they aren't doesn't mean some shadowy unnamed misogynist boogeyman somewhere is stopping them.  

Do you have any basic concept of how statistics and averages work or is that whole math thing not important to you when looking over statistics?
More men working dangerous jobs and longer hours = higher average pay.

 I don't know what your personal observations are, but that's all they are, personal observations (ie not statistically relevant). Just because women choose to work safer jobs with more flexible hours doesn't mean someone somewhere is oppressing them and preventing them from making more sacrifices to meet an equal pay level.

The Gender Equality Paradox - Documentary NRK - 2011  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70
In Norway, considered one of the most gender equal places on earth, in spite of extensive programs to create workplace gender diversity, what actually happened was when given more choices people actually separated by gender MORE. They also found that in developing economies there are an exceptional amount of female engineers and scientists. This leads one to the conclusion that those kind of jobs are taken as matter of economic necessity, not by choice. When all that is available is an engineering job, that is what you take like it or not.

The gender wage gap is a myth  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFjPHwF6To

Really "freaks,etc".  Not really a good way to make you point when you put women, blacks in the same category as "freaks & etc".  Maybe I'm missing your point but it is hard to take a post seriously after that first sentence.

I've gone over a number of those studies and they only really compare rough sectors (full time employment vs. part time employment seems to be the most common breakdown). So the "same pay for same work" line is really misleading. Sexism absolutely exists, but a lot of what hinders female professional development is having babies and a family. It creates other traditional duties for women (generally since women are more often relegated to such domestic responsibilities which I also think has a biological component associated with child rearing, but part is cultural as well) that prevent them from going the "extra mile" in their careers. It is tough to put in an 80 hour work week to get ahead when you have to take care of your children after they get home from school. You also have things like maternity leave, which isn't suppose to affect professional potential and advancement, but does. For really successful men they can get ahead AND have a family, for a lot of working women, there comes a point in their career where they have to choose between the two.

problem with 'real' data is who is doing the collecting and editing and how honest are they?

Anymore can you really trust any 'data' that comes from any source that is has NOT been cherry picked, etc.


Fact is that women get pregnant and men do not and you would have to take every pregnancy or child care factor out of all the data in order for it to be more of an apple versus apple comparison then what it is now.

Fertility rates have a direct statistically significant correlation with relative wage earnings for women.

There are a lot of other factors though, sexism is one, and what I believe you are talking about: stream divergence or grouping of female labor into specific markets is another (though its impact varies by country). Of course one could make an argument that such grouping of female labor exists largely because of ingrained professional gender roles within society where women are culturally steered toward say nursing and teaching than they are to engineering, and tech fields. But I've never spent as much time looking at that discussion.

I thought that statistic was long ago corrected to $0.95 for every $1 men earn. And I'm especially curious what this stat is for the millennial generation and beyond where women are graduating college at a significantly higher rate. Feminism is going to fuck over the next generation of men.

You're always free to examine the data and look at the methodology yourself to find data sets that meet your standards. If you're willing to do your due diligence then yes. We have very good access to this data in the United States.

I don't really know anything about how it's being used, but I could see there being a use for it to illustrate the ways in which men are treated unfairly in our culture and in the eyes of our laws.


I know a few women who didn't know that when everyone is given their papers to vote when they turn 18, boys are also a second packet to register with Selective Service so they can be enslaved by the government should the USA military need more cannon fodder.

Who really gives a fat flying shit. I bet midgets on average make less than women, and blacks make less than Hispanics, who make less than midgets, but more than Native Americans.

It's not as big of deal anymore, but it obviously was throughout the 20th century. It wasn't just those who were enslaved either. Those who weren't enslaved were manipulated into it based on these barbaric notions of "honor" and "heroism" and so forth that go centuries back. "Brave" and "honorable" men fight for their land. Women might have been viewed as property, but men were viewed as less valuable than property, as they were expected to be willing to die to protect their property, their land, their country, etc. Men who weren't willing to die were labeled as cowards and ostracized; they were disowned, divorced, and died alone ... if they weren't immediately killed for their egregious crime of being risk averse.

Good analysis does exactly this. Or rather doesn't rely on a single variable model and can see which explanatory variables most impact the constant variable. One might explain 7% of the differences seen in relative wage rates, another might explain 3%, etc

Getting back to the 20th century, and what still directly affects our culture today, is that if the men came back alive but injured or otherwise affected by the horrors of war, those whom they had the "honor" of "serving" would fight like hell to deny them treatment and care beyond that which was politically expedient. Once the wars were "over," everyone tries to forget about it. The former slaves receive substandard care if they receive any at all. These days they're fighting with backlogs and waiting lists that might take years before they get treatment.

This has created a culture wherein men are viewed as disposable. Men believe themselves to be disposable. And if they dare to assert their rights, then they're wimps, sissies, cowards, etc.

Yesallmen is a feminist hashtag that some women use when complaining about things that guys do. They are angry that some guys interrupt with "not all men do that" and see it as an attack on the hardships that women have to put up with via their interactions with the male gender. It became a feminist meme and one that is actually pretty damaging to feminism. It really means pretty much what it says: all men do XYZ. It's sexism.

Here's the slightly deflating caveat: this reverse gender gap, as it's known, applies only to unmarried, childless women under 30 who live in cities. The rest of working women — even those of the same age, but who are married or don't live in a major metropolitan area — are still on the less scenic side of the wage divide.




IE women who are married are likely to quit, back off work, take time of for kids,. etc... and people in rural areas aren't getting degrees at the same rate.
http://content.time.com/time/busines...015274,00.html

It depends on what you mean for "freaks". A freak is anyone that in the context of a particular culture is considered deviant or just unusual. If "deviant" it's more probably devalued than "unusual".
 It has nothing to do with an alleged objective way to be a freak (it's just don't exist). You couldn't know my point of view just by a post (you are probably too ignorant in philosophy and have probably frequented too few places and kind of people to imagine my point of view on culture and society; I hope not to be offensive but the average american is a bit ignorant about the world and what is thought and has been thought..)


I'm not a reactionary, neoreactionary or conservative anyway. Nor white XD

Ahh, I see. I didn't realize that #YesAllMen was being used by feminists. I figured it was probably being used by men to try to counter the #YesAllWomen activism.

For the most part I have very little appreciation for third-wave feminism. I don't think it will end well when equal rights movements that address racism, homophobia, ageism, heightism, men's rights, etc. are co-opted and bundled under the "feminism" umbrella. I mean, I can sympathize with the notion that feminism has more political clout, and I think they often mean well, but putting feminists in charge of handling all social injustices is the same as having old rich white men in charge of it.

Two guys are drinking at a bar. The first says "Do you ever start thinking about something, and when you go to talk, you say something you dont mean?" The Second guy says "Yeah, I was at the airport buying plane tickets, and the chick behind the counter had these huge tits, and instead of asking her for two tickets to Pittsburgh I asked for two tickets to Titsburgh. The First guy says, "Yeah, well I was having breakfast with my wife last week, and instead of saying Honey can you please pass me the sugar?, I said Youve ruined my life you F..... Bitch....!

Engineers, Scientists, CPAs, Investors, etc... all sit on the right side of the income curve. Just because women are getting more degrees doesn't mean it will remove income disparity. Income disparity will only be leveled by having more women pursuing the aforementioned fields instead of going to school to work in primary education or just because their parents said they had to (most 4 year business degrees have been described as high school 2.0).

Then there is the argument that true income equality still has women on the slightly lower side because of the fact that they play a necessary biological role which anchors stable family life.

They're just not going to be able to articulate the plights of others quite as well as those on the shitty end of the social inequalities, and calling all social equality movements "feminism" also waters down the various movements to an extent.

There are obviously other aspects that are positive about third-wave feminism, but it's the absorbing of other equal rights movements that I find to be problematic.

I only have an outsider's perspective, but I notice in some of my female and minority colleagues a defeatist and attributionist attitude. They tend to attribute any slight (some of them perceived, some of them real) or any failure to external factors--the boss is racist or sexist, or the system is. This shields them from having to take any responsibility for their shortcomings.

Women are genetically more nurturing than men. Why wouldn't they tend to chose fields of study more akin to their genetic disposition? Very little income disparity exist in fields where men and women are performing the same job, with the same level of expertize. Income disparity between sexes is such a 70's thing.

In many institutions, the actual practice is not especially damaging compared to the perception. It's tough to make much of anecdotal evidence, but I offer a recent one. A close colleague of mine recently had a baby. That is, his wife had a baby. Our firm offers equal paid parental leave for men and women, up to 18 weeks. As the delivery date approached, he was advised by one of our superiors to not take more than 2 or 3 days. He ended up taking just the delivery date because it fell on a Friday, and was back to work Monday morning.

Putting aside whether this is fair for right, it raises several interesting questions. Would the male supervisor have advised a woman the same? How would the woman have reacted compared to my friend (who had planned to take 2 or 3 days in any event)? Putting aside the advice, if the woman took several weeks of leave and it affected promotions, salary or bonuses, what would she attribute it to? What would a male in a similar situation?

If I had two exact resumes in front of me. One a woman asking for $770 for the project and one a man asking for $1,000 I would hire the woman.

So...does that mean that unemployment is higher for men?

If I have a project that requires programming and an American and an Indian apply for it. I check both of their work. If they are both the same I would hire the American. Not for any patriotic reason but because I have found that Americans tend to work to achieve what you want...not what you ask. If you know what I mean. I am speaking of programming here.

However, more often than not the Indian is about half the price of the American so I go with the cheaper rate.

Those aren't equivalent scenarios. The man is expected to come back into work pretty much ASAP and he has significant freedom of choice to do so (generally speaking).

The woman in your scenario on the other hand essentially has to choose between both her health and the health of her child / having a family vs getting ahead at work.

While males can face those choices too, they are MUCH more common and on average MUCH more impactful (negatively in the work sphere) on females. The cost of going into work is far different for each of your two examples as is the cost of staying home.

I'd also argue that simple blatant discrimination would also be worse than the costs of those choices that you presented. Your scenario with blatant discrimination wouldn't even exist because the woman wouldn't be able to get ahead in the job regardless of whether or not she went in the day after giving birth or stayed at home for a couple of months. Which still leaves your previous assertion rendered false.

Got any proof on that, because I'm postive they skew it to make it look horrible.

In basically every other culture (including America before we moved to the cities), it's normal for a woman to have a kid then go back to working almost immediately. I completely understand the idea of BOTH parents taking time off just because they would be so frazzled from lack of sleep that they wouldn't make good workers, but you have to know that missing work for that long of a period will affect your job.

Hmm.

So given the option of me punching you in the face, or me not punching you but giving everyone the perception that I did, which would you pick?

I think you are making my point. There is no substitute for "being there," whether at work or on the home front. That's why people who have breaks in their careers, for whatever reason, have a harder time advancing and make less money. Think of it like Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours requirement. If you miss a substantial amount of work, which is roughly equated with experience, you are worth less to most employers.

If someone chooses to take parental leave--paid or unpaid--and loses out on experience, there is always a penalty. If you leave work early on a regular basis or are otherwise not available because of family obligations, there is a penalty, just the same as if you work too much, there is a penalty with your family. Society makes women more likely to incur the penalties because of expectations for women. But it's not a particular institution that is creating the problem. There are women who forego families or at least the majority of the day to day of family life and, I'm willing to bet, their careers and salaries end up comparable to men with like experience.

Short of employers or the law treating men and women differently, there is no way to correct this other than a remodeling of societal expectations, which are hard-coded into our culture, if not our DNA. I, for one, do not want to see the law treat people differently based on race or gender or any other immutable characteristic, so I am opposed to anything that would attempt to level the playing field, especially since negative side effects are very tough to gauge.

As to your last point, I would just say that men and women are and should be equal, but they are not interchangeable. There are certain tasks and jobs that men are better suited to, just as there are some that women are better suited to. That said, I am opposed to any discrimination that does not have a basis in merit.

then dont have a baby if you cant afford it but dont want to miss out on career, god damn it. giving in to peer pressure and then bitching and blaming instead of taking responsibility for your action.
almost every woman i know wants to have babies just because other women do, although she has no fucking career or any idea what she would do to provide a decent life for them. worse, some of them were still in the ages where they haven't finished being children themselves (16-24), still living at home, yet they keep talking about having baby NOW as if it was like getting a doll from the store.

In most other cultures historically speaking when that is done the baby is taken with them directly to work, and I would also point out that it wasn't exactly healthy for the mothers and children. Developing economies generally aren't bastions of child and maternal health.

When men get equality in child raising, which means they need to have boobs and a uterus and the ability to get pregnant, then women will get equality in the workplace. Until then I guess we just have to accept that we are different.

Just because women on average earn less, doesn't mean a particular woman will earn less if she does the same as a man - it just means women are a bit more likely to have family commitments which reduce the commitment they can put into a job (or want to put into a job).

Of course it can, which makes women naturally disadvantaged and leads to the exact scenario that I pointed out above and to a culture where we have a very real wage gap between genders as a result.

You are not framing the issue correctly. It should be phrased "given the option of me punching you in the face, or me not punching you but giving you the perception that I did, which would you pick?" And you're not Hobson and this isn't a horse we are talking about.

Says the person who doesn't have to choose between having a career and having a family.

The entire point here is that women have these costs to their ability to be successful in their career and are forced to make these expensive tradeoffs that many men don't have to. It represents a mathematical disadvantage to women in the work place, compounded by our cultural perceptions that it should be women who handle the bulk of unpaid domestic work as well.

I don't see how that is "making your point" when your attempted point was that perceptions of discrimination are more damaging than discrimination. The example you gave has nothing to do with what your attempted point was.

The scenario you painted isn't the result of direct discrimination from the employer, nor from perceptions of discrimination from the employee.

But it absolutely is unfair, and is the type of thing that one would naturally and justifiably complain about. There are a lot of other factors though outside of mere maternal leave, ways in which our work institutions are set up that are harder on women than on men and ways our cultural perceptions of what women should do is also a contributing factor (and one easily observable across cultures).

The 2 reasons are:

1) They spend less years in the workforce overall, due mainly to having children <----This is a statistical FACT

2) They tend to work in lower paying occupations, like teaching, retail work, etc

This is actually addressed directly in the article that I posted on the first page. There are institutional items that can be changed.


Yes and no, they ultimately have to make the choice and if work is chosen it tends to have negative consequences for the children which is a social problem.

you think men don't have to choose between having a career and family?

yes, women have just as many choices as men do. or are you telling me the same women who can choose to have sex and then scream rape the next day can't choose to not get knocked up?

No one forces you to have baby. no one forces you to do unpaid housework. many of you want to have baby only to be "in the club", to remain in your social circle. matter of fact, many women these days have wise up to that fact and decided to make the same choice men did, which is not to have baby, at least until both of them together can afford it. many couples i know share the house work. the wife cooks, the husband washes the dishes. the wife does the laundry, the husband takes out the trash. the wife cleans the house, the husband mows the lawn

Yes and no. Changing the work week schedule wouldn't have to be gender specific but I also think that culture is absolutely something that we can, and have changed over time. We no longer measure women's skirts at the beach to ensure modesty compliance, or escort girls when they go on dates.

Mathematically not nearly in the same way. They can, but due to cultural gender norms and I think also motherly biology, it, on average does not. We actually have mathematical proof of this in (drum-roll please) our wage gap. You realize that it is the woman, and not the man that has to get "knocked up" yeah? Can you choose to give birth?

This doesn't in any way, counter anything that I have posted. Perhaps you should try reading my post again while not frothing at the mouth and rambling on about rape.


What you are talking about are egalitarian marriages, and yes, they are becoming more common, but they, socially speaking, have not been the norm in the US, nor do they solve all of the issues associated with opportunity costs when it comes to women and the workplace.

AGAIN for the umpteenth time, no one can force the women to be pregnant.

Your man can choose to have more freedom in his career, or have babies and be anchored down, and limited to whatever career options that leaves him with, in order to support you AND the babies. even after you divorce him and choose not to work, he still has to pay.
Likewise, you can choose to have your career, or have the babies and be limited to whatever career options the babies leave you with.
Even then, you can still choose to go to work and hire a nanny. regardless of what you choose, his only choice is to pay.

your inability to have babies without being pregnant (let's assume novelties like adoption or surrogates are out of the question) is a part of your gender package, just like his inability to not pay after knocking you up is part of his. each package has its own advantages/disadvantages. you can't use feminist rhetoric to compare apple to orange so that you can have your cake and eat it too.

I'm pretty sure abortion is still legal in the United States, as are Plan B, female condoms, and IUDs.

To act like pregnancy is something that men do to women is absurd. The "blame" (for lack of a better word) goes both ways.

what she wants is a world where both partners just spit into a bottle, and then baby would grow out of it. that way her gender would still get to have all the privileges that women are enjoying without having to have the responsibilities that entitled them to those privileges in the first place

Well, women tend to get less rewarded from men.
But it is justified by many factors.
To start with, women tend to get a child inside them, which makes them unsuitable for work in the last 4 months of pregnancy. Also, they are less productive than men in jobs requiring physical fitness.
On jobs which require mental abilities rather than fitness, the differences are almost non-existent.
But hey, we live in a free market, and the successful men are many more compared to women as women don't like taking risk, which is required to succeed as a businessman!
So yes, women really get rewarded less, but it's perfectly natural.
Inequality is natural.
Women tend to have pussies while men have balls, making them much better at taking decisions.
If women are so unhappy with inequality, they have better complain to God or Mother Nature.

The End ;)

No one is talking about that. You should really look up the concept of opportunity cost so that you can understand what I am saying. Or just understand the basic concept of tradeoffs and how different genders experience different (and unequal) sets of tradeoffs when it comes to decision making.

so even when a woman can choose not to have babies, and the husband sharing the housework with her, it still "doesn't solve all of the issues associated with opportunity costs when it comes to women and the workplace"? what else do you want????

A man generally doesn't have to pick either having a family or having a successful career though. They might, and some absolutely do, but traditionally women have had to bear the brunt of that. It forces them to choose in ways that men often aren't forced to choose which is one reason why men can dedicate themselves more fully to work: lower costs to doing so. No one is arguing that they don't have a choice, so I'm not sure why you keep ranting about that.

This comment doesn't even make any sense within the context of this thread.

I think you're just threatened by the strength of my sexuality. You keep us women down because you're jealous of the fact that my body can turn heads while still being capable of doing work as well as (or better) than you can and yours can't.

then dont put yourself in a position where you have to choose. dont waste too much time in front of the mirror and in shopping malls, get educated, have a career, rely on yourself, dont have kid just because everyone and their mother do. matter of fact, all non stupid or non lazy women these days do that.


this is the scenario when the women have to make the choice:
1-she wants to have a baby
2-he wants to have a baby
3-both of them want to have a baby
4-she got knocked up by accident
tell me how often each happens, and who is the ultimate decision maker in all cases

there you go, exactly what i wanted you to understand when i said that it's all part of a gender package. congratulation on grasping the concept

That's how #yesallmen was started. i'm not a very big twitter person, so I haven't followed its evolution, but it seems that guys are appropriating it now as the male version of the other hashtag #yesallwomen. Personally (and I'm sure this will come as a surprise) I'm more inclined to more in depth / long winded discourse than twitter can provide.

But I agree that a very important part of feminism is tackling the inequalities and gender stereotypes that men face too. It's gender equality really more than pure feminism even if women have historically been more vulnerable and restricted under patriarchal social structures.

I can't stand angry feminism, especially that feminism which targets males as an enemy because it alienates a group of people who it is vital to secure positive buy-in from if true and sustainable change is what is desired.

An executive was interviewing a young woman for a position in his company. He wanted to learn something about her personality, so he asked, "if you could have a conversation with anyone, living or dead, who would it be?"

She quickly responded, "The living one."

Except that I was making fun of you for not reading my posts before replying to them since you seem to think that I was a girl when in fact it has been stated multiple times already that I am a white male.

So I repeat my earlier advice: take a moment to actually read my posts before responding to them

I agree that we can and should change the culture, but I do not agree that it should be done through positive law.

Further, I am not concerned with absolute fairness, which is merely a synonym for equality. I am not sure you are advancing it, but the type of equality that flows from trying to correct unfairness is legislative equality and it is a very poor substitute for actual equality.

I don't think the difference has much to do with pregnancy as it does with the culture/human nature and what is valued more by men and woman.

While there are certainly exceptions, men mainly seek beautiful women when seeking a mate. Women tend to seek a man that can provide security (today that is mainly financial security).

Consider Oprah...how many men would seek her out as a mate? She's super wealthy, she would provide for your every need. Do you buy magazines checking out pictures of her and keep up with her latest relationships?

Look at Nick Cage...he is one ugly dude. Yet he is successful and some women would love to be married to him.

Just like a woman will go out of her way to make herself look beautiful in order to attract a mate, a man will go out of his way to become successful to get a mate.

Also, you need just look at the IT industry where the salaries are much higher on average and you will see very few women. I know my computer science classes were usually all men except for about 2 or 3 females...and 2 were Chinese or Indian.

It will be interesting to see how women's incentive structure will change introducing artificial wombs in the market. IMHO their tradeoffs on choosing hard (mostly intellectual) works wich requires long investments in time will lower.


Anyway, if the free market would be allowed, more solutions to parenting and housekeeping would be affordable (and existent, in many cases). Obviously culture plays a role too, for example in some countries, as Rwanda, is customary to have young people (mainly students, mainly males) working as cookers and housekeepers even for poor families, to gain what they need for schooling, which is mostly private (but not so expensive as in the socialist USA). This affect positively the burden of many women to invest in a career in the marketplace or in the public.


The lack of risk taking is effectively, as many of you noted, a real issue. It may be genetically defined, but genetics can be changed even now, and nothing of that could be stopped in an unregulated free market.

I'm not surprised, considering women are primarily raised to be housewives and mothers.  Someone's gotta raise the kids, and the mother is in the best position to do so being the one with the breast milk.  Anyway, that means the market is over-saturated with women who have these skills (thus lower wages), but not the skills the market desires like engineering, for example.  If you look at any engineering class, it's predominantly male; males are raised to be bread-winners and need an edge in the market to do that, ergo they're far more common in careers which will make money: they respond to the market directly, whereas women typically don't take such risks (some do, certainly, but many don't; the woman must give up her ability to have children for however long she pursues a career, the man does not.)

This would lead to a discrepancy between the wages of male and female; it's certainly no conspiracy against women as the feminists might postulate, as I don't believe parents are consciously aware of what they're doing when assigning roles (nor do I believe there exists an illuminati-esque entity with a specific vendetta against women.)  However, the newer generations whose parents largely gave up those traditions don't have these problems as great, and those people are on equal footing in terms of gender, so it's odd to see so many young feminists; what exactly are they railing against?  Perhaps less time spent on ideology and more time spent on valuable skills would resolve their problem, but again I refer to differences in parenting.

Pretty logical point and with times changing job markets will also be changing

That's because they are less productive. As easy as that. You could also compare people that just started working with people that has been working for 30 years. Or people who have studied and people who haven't.

What if women just aren't getting the opportunity to do what they are capable of doing best in our society.  People like you who have the opinion that they're less productive aren't being open minded and shouldn't be so fast to judge a whole group of people that you've never even met.  We are all individuals and you yourself wouldn't like to be lumped together with every male and then judged buy a complete stranger who claims you not capable of doing the same thing as women?

Yup. Because of some people making statements like this one, women turn into crazy feminists.

In my country, Italy, there are jobs where women earn less, and the majority of these are important roles of leadership in companies and businesses. Lower income jobs as cashiers and in restaurants? Women are payed the same or sometimes even more. Not counting tips which are obviously much bigger for women in restaurants.

That's false. If you were an employer, would be willing to pay more for a male than for a female, considering that the they produce exactly the same?
If they get less in average is because they are less productive.

The issue is not productivity, the issue is generally experience. Since women tend to have less experience then men (due to they tend to take time off work to care for their family) they will earn less. Once you account for the different experience levels the difference between a man's average salary and a women's average salary is statistically insignificant. 

What if women are getting the opportunity to do what they are capable of doing best, but its not making money and therefore, in our warped materialistic world, nobody seems willing to accept that it might be just as important. Some things are more important than money.

And as they have less experience, they are less productive. There's nothing wrong nor unfair with that. People that study are also generally more productive, and nobody complains about people with studies getting higher wages.

Until 2007, women earned less then men even at Wimbledon.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/about_aeltc/201205091336574569863.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6385295.stm

If find it funny that you would say 'even' at Wimbledon. Sport is pretty much the only place where women are clearly and demonstrably not as good as men. If you had a mixed competition instead of separate ones for men and women, it would be rare for a woman to win - men serve faster, hit harder etc. If women aren't as good as men at something, why should they expect to earn the same amount?

Another point to make is that no two people will have the exact same production levels. So it is very hard to hire and pay someone based on productivity. You can only pay someone based on expected productivity.

I say 'even' at Wimbledon because prestigious events like these are expected to be politically correct. :)

The majority of US culture is based in patriarchy which has a lot to do with it.  A lot happens when a woman subjugates herself by changing her last name.  I'm not saying that particular tradition is right or wrong but it can't be easily dismissed.  This seemingly innocent practice of changing a woman's identity isn't really so innocent and is an underlying indicator of how woman are perceived in a world dominated by men.

full disclosure: I'm a man.  I'm also thankful that my wife has my last name because it just makes things easier on me.  However, that's not really fair to any woman and in all fairness I could survive just fine if my wife's name were her own.  It would just be more difficult on others who prefer to identify by common last names, i.e Mr. And Mrs Grendel.  See there, I even placed the Mr. BEFORE Mrs.  Now.. think of South Korea where it's even more male-centered... they say Gentleman and Ladies instead of Ladies and Gentlemen.

interesting topic.  thx

You can be as well traveled as you like but the comment you made needed clarification.  And your inability to understand that is your problem.  Your not understanding why that is clearly, because your used to speaking first and thinking later.  You think your race matters in regards to this topic but it doesn't, its the thoughtless ignorant way you made your comments in both posts.

 You can philosophize all you like and assume I'm not as educated as you but the reality is you've not shown the ability to handle a basic conversation or explain your point of view without being offensive so I have to reply in terms your able to follow.  I'm sure you'll have some shallow and clever(in your mind) philosophical argument that proves my point further and I look forward to reading it.