Women earn $0.77 for every $1 men earn.

[sana8410]

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

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.

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

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

[umair127]

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.

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).

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.

[Elwar]

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.

[wrongpassword]

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.

[Mike Christ]

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.

[srgkrgkj]

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

[Timetwister]

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.

[counter]

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?

[JazzCouncil]

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.

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

[Fabrizio89]

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.

[Timetwister]

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?

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.

[itsAj]

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?

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. 

[profitofthegods]

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. 

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.

[Timetwister]

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. 

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.

[panju1]

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

[profitofthegods]

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?

[itsAj]

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. 

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.

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.

[panju1]

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?

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

[grendel25]

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

[counter]

Women are generally valued less on the marketplace (as minorities, freaks, etc)

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.

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

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.