U.S. gender pay gap emerges early, study finds

[LiberalNation]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/ts_nm/work_dc;_ylt=AgULkrdTtMQfjQkmppMMdEx34T0D

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A dramatic pay gap emerges between women and men in America the year after they graduate from college and widens over the ensuing decade, according to research released on Monday.

One year out of college, women working full time earn 80 percent of what men earn, according to the study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, based in Washington D.C.

Ten years later, women earn 69 percent as much as men earn, it said.

Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said.

"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no.

"These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force," it said.

Specifically, about one-quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender -- 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation, it said.

One year out of college, men and women should arguably be the least likely to show a gender pay gap, the study said, since neither tend to be parents yet and they enter the work force without significant experience.

"It surprised me that it was already apparent one year out of college, and that it widens over the first 10 years," Catherine Hill, AAUW director of research, told Reuters.

Among factors found to make a difference in pay, the choice of fields of concentration in college were significant, the study found. Female students tended to study areas with lower pay, such as education, health and psychology, while male students dominated higher-paying fields such as engineering, mathematics and physical sciences, it said.

Even so, one year after graduation, a pay gap turned up between women and men who studied the same fields.

In education, women earn 95 percent as much as their male colleagues earn, while in math, women earn 76 percent as much as men earn, the study showed.

While in college, the study showed, women outperformed men academically, and their grade point averages were higher in every college major.

Parenthood affected men and women in vividly different ways. The study showed mothers more likely than fathers, or other women, to work part time or take leaves.

Among women who graduated from college in 1992-93, more than one-fifth of mothers were out of the work force a decade later, and another 17 percent were working part time, it said.

In the same class, less than 2 percent of fathers were out of the work force in 2003, and less than 2 percent were working part time, it said.

The study, entitled "Behind the Pay Gap," used data from the U.S. Department of Education. It analyzed some 9,000 college graduates from 1992-93 and more than 10,000 from 1999-2000.

[Little-Acorn]

"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no."

That's a pretty big "If".

Among the thousands of women in the group that supposedly made the same choices as the thousands of men in the study, I wonder if the study-ers took into account the projected attendance records of each. It is something that a hiring manager must look at, of course. This article doesn't mention it.

Specifically, when a woman gives birth to a baby, she is typically out from work for months. Her husband is typically out for days, or a week or two. This disparity is gradually narrowing, but it's still very significant. Worse, a single mom who gives birth will also be out for months. A single man, won't be out at all for childbirth purposes. This difference is GROWING since more single moms are having babies.

Hypothetical example: If a hiring manager has twenty positions open, and has a hundred men and a hundred women applicants to choose from, all else being equal, which (if any) will he favor)?

Many of the applicants honestly don't know if they are going to have children in the next five years, or ten or whatever. But statistically, it's very likely that some of them will. The manager knows that. And the women who do, will miss a lot more work than the men whose women do.

Skill levels being equal, the manager may (in fact usually will) hire men at the going rate; but hire only the (equally-skilled) women who ask for less pay, knowing that if he hires twenty women, some of them will be out for long periods, sooner or later, more so than men.

"If a man and woman make the same choices", said the article. They might both swear on a stack of Bibles that they aren't going to have kids during the entire time they work for the company. That would be the "choices" the article talks about in this case. But the manager knows that (stuff) happens. They may change their minds. They may miss the pill one month, or whatever. Basically, the manager would be a fool, and negligent in his duties to boot, if he were to assume he would get equal work, with no schedule disruptions, skill losses, extra training for temporary replacements etc. from twenty women as he would from twenty men. Only if the pays ALL the women less (since he doesn't know which one(s) may go out for childbirth) will he show the same bottom line as if he had hired twenty equally-skilled men.

A few of those women may also later make the decision to leave work and stay at home to raise their kids, later on. Men can make that decision too, but the brute fact is that far fewer men than women do.

The hiring manager knows these things. And he is under to gun to produce as much profit (work done per dollar paid) as possible. If he doesn't, HE might be out the door, and he knows that too.

Will he pay twenty equally-skilled women, the same as twenty men? Probably not.

Can he justify that decision to the Board of Directors? And the stockholders? Absolutely.

Is it the politically correct thing to do? Of course not.

Is it fair to the women who, forty years later, can look back and point out that they NEVER had a baby or left home to raise a family? Of course not.

But how can the hiring manager know which ones they will be today?

It's probably one of the factors in the wage gap the article talks about. I wonder if the study took this phenomenon into account?

[Birdzeye]

That's a pretty big "If".

Among the thousands of women in the group that supposedly made the same choices as the thousands of men in the study, I wonder if the study-ers took into account the projected attendance records of each. It is something that a hiring manager must look at, of course. This article doesn't mention it.

Specifically, when a woman gives birth to a baby, she is typically out from work for months. Her husband is typically out for days, or a week or two. This disparity is gradually narrowing, but it's still very significant. Worse, a single mom who gives birth will also be out for months. A single man, won't be out at all for childbirth purposes. This difference is GROWING since more single moms are having babies.

Hypothetical example: If a hiring manager has twenty positions open, and has a hundred men and a hundred women applicants to choose from, all else being equal, which (if any) will he favor)?

Many of the applicants honestly don't know if they are going to have children in the next five years, or ten or whatever. But statistically, it's very likely that some of them will. The manager knows that. And the women who do, will miss a lot more work than the men whose women do.

Skill levels being equal, the manager may (in fact usually will) hire men at the going rate; but hire only the (equally-skilled) women who ask for less pay, knowing that if he hires twenty women, some of them will be out for long periods, sooner or later, more so than men.

"If a man and woman make the same choices", said the article. They might both swear on a stack of Bibles that they aren't going to have kids during the entire time they work for the company. That would be the "choices" the article talks about in this case. But the manager knows that (stuff) happens. They may change their minds. They may miss the pill one month, or whatever. Basically, the manager would be a fool, and negligent in his duties to boot, if he were to assume he would get equal work, with no schedule disruptions, skill losses, extra training for temporary replacements etc. from twenty women as he would from twenty men. Only if the pays ALL the women less (since he doesn't know which one(s) may go out for childbirth) will he show the same bottom line as if he had hired twenty equally-skilled men.

A few of those women may also later make the decision to leave work and stay at home to raise their kids, later on. Men can make that decision too, but the brute fact is that far fewer men than women do.

The hiring manager knows these things. And he is under to gun to produce as much profit (work done per dollar paid) as possible. If he doesn't, HE might be out the door, and he knows that too.

Will he pay twenty equally-skilled women, the same as twenty men? Probably not.

Can he justify that decision to the Board of Directors? And the stockholders? Absolutely.

Is it the politically correct thing to do? Of course not.

Is it fair to the women who, forty years later, can look back and point out that they NEVER had a baby or left home to raise a family? Of course not.

But how can the hiring manager know which ones they will be today?

It's probably one of the factors in the wage gap the article talks about. I wonder if the study took this phenomenon into account?

The study lists FACTS. You provide SUPPOSITIONS to justify your apparent approval of sex discrimination.

During my years in the workforce, I have covered for women on maternity leave, and also men on leave to have bypass surgery. I've also covered for men in the National Guard who were called up for active duty.

Using your logic, these guys should be paid less as well.

[avatar4321]

The study lists FACTS. You provide SUPPOSITIONS to justify your apparent approval of sex discrimination.

During my years in the workforce, I have covered for women on maternity leave, and also men on leave to have bypass surgery. I've also covered for men in the National Guard who were called up for active duty.

Using your logic, these guys should be paid less as well.

He is disputing the so called "facts" with reasonable questions. There are severe problems with the premises of the conclusions. When have men and women ever made the same decision about anything let alone carreer wise?

It might be nice to point to average pays of college grads and saying there is some sort of discrepency but it completely ignores the fact that there are far likely to be more women than men being stay at home moms and pulling in $0 Significant numbers of $0 are going to pull down averages. its simple mathematics.

It may also be difficult to understand, but there actually are differences between men and women. In fact, there are even studies that say there are differences between men and women (personally I could have saved them lots of time and money).

[Birdzeye]

It looks like this bears repeating, since some people who are so eager to rationalize sex discrimination seem to be ignoring these facts:


One year out of college, women working full time earn 80 percent of what men earn, according to the study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, based in Washington D.C.

Ten years later, women earn 69 percent as much as men earn, it said.

Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said.

"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no.

"These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force," it said.

Specifically, about one-quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender -- 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation, it said.

One year out of college, men and women should arguably be the least likely to show a gender pay gap, the study said, since neither tend to be parents yet and they enter the work force without significant experience.

"It surprised me that it was already apparent one year out of college, and that it widens over the first 10 years," Catherine Hill, AAUW director of research, told Reuters.



Discrimination not only hurts the women affected, but also their families, because of the lower income they get because of that discrimination.

[Little-Acorn]

As I said, the article mentions none of the facts I noted. Even Birdzeye is able to provide none, beyond his bizarre implication that women don't take time off for childbirth. I wonder if the study examined the points I noted, but the article didn't mention them for some reason?

[darin]

It looks like this bears repeating, since some people who are so eager to rationalize sex discrimination seem to be ignoring these facts:



Discrimination not only hurts the women affected, but also their families, because of the lower income they get because of that discrimination.

You seem to WANT to find discrimination.

[Birdzeye]

You seem to WANT to find discrimination.

Listen, Bub, I quit a job because of discrimination. Other women there also quit for the same reason. It sucks.

They say the best revenge is success, and I got a job in an organization that walks the walk of equal opportunity, and I have done very well since I quit working for that sexist asshole.

So don't tell me that discrimination doesn't exist; it does. And if you don't believe it, EEOC data and court records will show you're wrong.

[Birdzeye]

As I said, the article mentions none of the facts I noted. Even Birdzeye is able to provide none, beyond his bizarre implication that women don't take time off for childbirth. I wonder if the study examined the points I noted, but the article didn't mention them for some reason?

I made no such "implication." I was pointing out that the article says that all things being equal, women STILL get paid less than men.

For instance, the article points out that, one year after college graduation, when the graduates are least likely to have become parents, there is already a wage gap between men and women, despite the fact that women have higher grade point averages upon graduation. Clearly, having the higher GPAs did not work to the advantage of women.

Oh, yeah, and I'm a woman who has quit a job because of sex discrimination.

[Birdzeye]

It might be nice to point to average pays of college grads and saying there is some sort of discrepency but it completely ignores the fact that there are far likely to be more women than men being stay at home moms and pulling in $0 Significant numbers of $0 are going to pull down averages. its simple mathematics.


It does not explain the wage discrepancy of college grads just one year out of college.


Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said.

"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no.

"These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force," it said.

[darin]

Listen, Bub, I quit a job because of discrimination. Other women there also quit for the same reason. It sucks.

They say the best revenge is success, and I got a job in an organization that walks the walk of equal opportunity, and I have done very well since I quit working for that sexist asshole.

So don't tell me that discrimination doesn't exist; it does. And if you don't believe it, EEOC data and court records will show you're wrong.


How do you know it was gender-based discrimination? You speculate - but maybe you were passed over simply because a man was better. Not because he was a man, but perhaps because he really was 'better' in the eyes of the person making the award? Discrimination happens where people let it happen.

MOST of the time, every woman I have known who says "It's because I am a woman that so-and-so doesn't respect me, or listen to my suggestions" is oblivious to the fact that her suggestions are crap.

[darin]

It does not explain the wage discrepancy of college grads just one year out of college.

Are women asking for the same amount? There are MANY unknown variables which COULD explain a perceived gap.

[Mr. P]

It does not explain the wage discrepancy of college grads just one year out of college.

What does explain it is the employers freedom to pay what they want to pay.
Maybe more for blue eyed people than green eyed people, more for men than women. I don't have a problem with that freedom at all.

[Birdzeye]

How do you know it was gender-based discrimination? You speculate - but maybe you were passed over simply because a man was better. Not because he was a man, but perhaps because he really was 'better' in the eyes of the person making the award? Discrimination happens where people let it happen.

MOST of the time, every woman I have known who says "It's because I am a woman that so-and-so doesn't respect me, or listen to my suggestions" is oblivious to the fact that her suggestions are crap.

A number of things: the women (not just me) got ALL the "scut work," were not listed as co-authors in the publications our lab published in scientific journals while the men were, the ease with which the men got promotions while the women got excuses, more professional enhancement opportunities given to men but denied to women. The pattern of discrimination was pretty evident, not just to me, but to the other women.

The organization I left has also been sued for sex discrimination several times, and many of the lawsuits were successful.

[Birdzeye]

What does explain it is the employers freedom to pay what they want to pay.
Maybe more for blue eyed people than green eyed people, more for men than women. I don't have a problem with that freedom at all.


The Equal Pay Act of 1963

SEC. 206. [Section 6]

(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this
section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such
employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying
wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at
which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment
for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill,
effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working
conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority
system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by
quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any
other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is
paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not,
in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage
rate of any employee.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/epa.html

[Birdzeye]

Are women asking for the same amount? There are MANY unknown variables which COULD explain a perceived gap.


A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that female job applicants who tried to negotiate a higher salary were less likely to be hired by male managers, while male applicants were not.


http://www.komotv.com/news/local/7134711.html

(Heh, DMP, it's the link YOU provided earlier on another thread! :laugh2: )

[darin]

WORST for of sex-discrimination:

"We need to promote x-many females this year...all eligable men are not in consideration"

Bird - you have your sex-descrimination enforced by law. Don't cry about feeling women need MORE special rights.

/sexist pig hat = on: "Women...what do they have to bitch about? they have HALF money, and ALL the P#$@!."

[Mr. P]

The Equal Pay Act of 1963

SEC. 206. [Section 6]

(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this
section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such
employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying
wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at
which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment
for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill,
effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working
conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority
system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by
quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any
other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is
paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not,
in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage
rate of any employee.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/epa.html

They wouldn't be equal..that's easy..less hrs for example. Sorry but a business should be run the way the owner wants it run, NOT from the outside.

But see even the Gov says it's ok..
except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority
system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by
quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any
other factor other than sex:

[Birdzeye]

They wouldn't be equal..that's easy..less hrs for example. Sorry but a business should be run the way the owner wants it run, NOT from the outside.

But see even the Gov says it's ok..

And it's already been pointed out that factoring in hours worked, for example, does NOT explain all of the discrepancy in pay between men and women. In fact, nobody has been able to explain away the entire wage gap, even when they factored in hours worked, time taken off to take care of kids, etc.

[darin]

And it's already been pointed out that factoring in hours worked, for example, does NOT explain all of the discrepancy in pay between men and women. In fact, nobody has been able to explain away the entire wage gap, even when they factored in hours worked, time taken off to take care of kids, etc.

Maybe women, as a whole, just aren't GOOD enough to perform as well as men? Maybe women ACCEPT lower-paying jobs, willingly? Maybe if women would spend less time SPECULATING about assumed gender bias, they'd have MORE time to get work done?

:)

[loosecannon]

One year out of college, women working full time earn 80 percent of what men earn, according to the study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, based in Washington D.C.

Ten years later, women earn 69 percent as much as men earn, it said.

Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said.

"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no.

"These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force," it said.

Specifically, about one-quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender --

OK it seems unreasonable to argue that this study doesn't reveal a discrimination in the workplace that punishes women unfairly.

The last comment in the quote appears to say that 3/4 of the pay gap is attributable to other factors other than discrimination.

So if the average salary was $45,000 ten years out of college a woman is penalized about $3600/year or a buck 80/hour just for being a woman.

Personally I think our society is biased towards men in leadership positions. As evidenced by the fact that we have had no female presidents. I don't believe even one has run as a candidate for either party.

Let's not deny the obvious, but maybe talk about whether that bias is worth eroding, as it is clearly illegal.

And it really hurts the children of single parent households with female HHs.

[loosecannon]

Maybe women, as a whole, just aren't GOOD enough to perform as well as men? :)

That is the very definition of sexism. The belief that one sex is superior while the second is inferior.

Are you trying to prove Birdz' point?

[darin]

That is the very definition of sexism. The belief that one sex is superior while the second is inferior.

Are you trying to prove Birdz' point?

www.hop.com

Re-read what I typed, then come back again and see if your reply makes sense.

[gabosaurus]

Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one. Some even become one.

[Mr. P]

That is the very definition of sexism. The belief that one sex is superior while the second is inferior.

Are you trying to prove Birdz' point?

Nahhh I'll discriminate in a heartbeat and it's not sexist. Take two women, but one has inherent issues or risks over the other that must be addressed.

For example..I wouldn't hire a women of child bearing age that has been recently married over a women that has a grown family.

[loosecannon]

www.hop.com

Re-read what I typed, then come back again and see if your reply makes sense.


Sure, with some sarcasm included.

Your first rationale was pure unfettered sexism posed as an "exception" to claims of sexist bias in the work place.

The study accounted for all of that and still found a wage disparity.

[Hobbit]

All I have to say is, quit bitching that there should be a law. If you think a company has unfair hiring and payroll practices, don't shop there and tell your friends to do the same. It's a private business and, like Hooters, should be able to fire women just because the boss doesn't think they're hot enough. Better yet, start your own business that hires only women to make up for the alleged gap. This is a free society, and just because something isn't fair doesn't mean there needs to be a law against it.

[darin]

Sure, with some sarcasm included.

Your first rationale was pure unfettered sexism posed as an "exception" to claims of sexist bias in the work place.


Then you didn't read my reply. It's possible you did read my reply, but you seem to equate "asking questions" with sexism. That'd mean you believe anyone who even ASKS questions about 'why' are fundamentally sexist.

[loosecannon]

Nahhh I'll discriminate in a heartbeat and it's not sexist. Take two women, but one has inherent issues or risks over the other that must be addressed.

For example..I wouldn't hire a women of child bearing age that has been recently married over a women that has a grown family.


And you didn't try to pass off unbridled sexism as an exception to your criteria.

I oppose being forced to hire employees you don't want as a rule.

But women are being paid to do the same jobs as men and being paid less almost universally in the US.

Do we want to maintain that?

I know quite a few women in corp america who are hired because they are a bargain comparing output to cost. But that is the very meritocracy capitalists always crow about.

How come women are not rewarded by meritocracy as much as men are?

[loosecannon]

Then you didn't read my reply. It's possible you did read my reply, but you seem to equate "asking questions" with sexism. That'd mean you believe anyone who even ASKS questions about 'why' are fundamentally sexist.


I didn't perceive your question as a mere question but as an interjection that "the reason women may be paid less is that they simply aren't good enough".

If that isn't what you were implying then I will withdraw my comment and ask wtf were you trying to say then?

[darin]

I didn't perceive your question as a mere question but as an interjection that "the reason women may be paid less is that they simply aren't good enough".

If that isn't what you were implying then I will withdraw my comment and ask wtf were you trying to say then?

I was just asking questions. Those questions could very-well have legitimate answers, or hold legitimate cause as to why some women are paid less for having like-responsibility as some men.

[Birdzeye]

Nahhh I'll discriminate in a heartbeat and it's not sexist. Take two women, but one has inherent issues or risks over the other that must be addressed.

For example..I wouldn't hire a women of child bearing age that has been recently married over a women that has a grown family.

And if you hired some man of child bearing age, recently married, you'd be breaking the law.

[loosecannon]

I was just asking questions. Those questions could very-well have legitimate answers, or hold legitimate cause as to why some women are paid less for having like-responsibility as some men.

Sure on a case by case basis.

But when a societal wide trend is discovered, that happens to be worldwide in scope, you can no longer treat the polarized pay scales as the result of meritocracy.

If women on the whole are paid less after hours and all the constributing factors are accounted for, the only remaining conclusion is societal sexism.

Which isn't automatically a bad thing. Whether or not it is bad or good is a judgement.

But truth is women are 51% of the voting public. So it seems to me that we as a society are choosing to be unfair and that, that national decision is being revisited now, on this page.

Do we want a sexist bias in our pay scales? If so, what is an acceptable bias?

If we choose to favor men because we prefer them in leadership, I spose that's fine.

But I don't hear a unanimous voice supporting that position.

[Little-Acorn]

And it's already been pointed out that factoring in hours worked, for example, does NOT explain all of the discrepancy in pay between men and women.
Correct. And as I pointed out, and you keep diligently ignoring, factoring in FUTURE HOURS EXPECTED TO BE WORKED has not been done... or if it has, the article made no mention of it. Yet it is a very important factor.

The article did point out the end result: that 37% of college-grad mothers either reduced their work to part-time, or left the work force entirely after 10 years; while only 4% of college-grad fathers did the same. A HUGE discrepancy - so much for "making the same choices". And that does not include women who take months off for childbirth and then come back to work full-time, necessitating a substitute while they are gone.

37% of mothers chose to do it, while only 4% of fathers. How does this make the managers and paymasters "sexist"? They are responding to events they have no control over, but are required to deal with. If anything, if "sexism" can be ascribed to this situation at all, isn't it the women themselves who are guilty of it, by freely making such different choices than the men? That's a silly charge, of course... almost as silly as the charge by hysterical leftists that the managers are the "sexist" ones.

With this study in hand, what is a hiring manager to do? He must necessarily view such high attrition and absenteeism among prospective women employees, as a squandering of the training and experience he gives them, regardless of the good and beneficial reasons for the attrition.

A sensible manager who is charged with getting equal profit from male and female employees alike, must make up the difference he'll spend in training replacements and building new experience among them, by paying less to those who make the additional training necessary: the women employees. The more women he hires, the more likely it is that he will have to spend extra money and resources later, training substitutes or replacements for them - money he will have to make up for somewhere. And since he cannot know which women will go out and which ones will stay, he has no choice but to offer lower wages to ALL women of childbearing or family-raising age. Though he can be much more sure of the men's continuous attendance and longevity, and so can offer them higher wages, reliably expecting to train far fewer subs and replacements for them.

Women and men of equal skill and experience, still do not get equal pay... because their performance will NOT be equal in the long run, taken as a whole. Flaming equal-rights firebrands can wave their fists and chant slogans all they like, but only if they ignore this fundamental truth (something they are good at). Or if they come up with a real, WORKING solution for it - which no one has ever been able to do.

[Hobbit]

And if you hired some man of child bearing age, recently married, you'd be breaking the law.

Which law? Please quote me the statute that says a private business may not descriminate on whatever basis it wants? I know that here in Georgia, your reasons for hiring or firing a person are the business's business, and nobody else's, and I like it that way.

[darin]

Sure on a case by case basis.

But when a societal wide trend is discovered, that happens to be worldwide in scope, you can no longer treat the polarized pay scales as the result of meritocracy.

If women on the whole are paid less after hours and all the constributing factors are accounted for, the only remaining conclusion is societal sexism.

Which isn't automatically a bad thing. Whether or not it is bad or good is a judgement.

But truth is women are 51% of the voting public. So it seems to me that we as a society are choosing to be unfair and that, that national decision is being revisited now, on this page.

Do we want a sexist bias in our pay scales? If so, what is an acceptable bias?

If we choose to favor men because we prefer them in leadership, I spose that's fine.

But I don't hear a unanimous voice supporting that position.

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies. Damn-Lies. And Statistics."
- Mark Twain.

[Birdzeye]

Correct. And as I pointed out, and you keep diligently ignoring, factoring in FUTURE HOURS EXPECTED TO BE WORKED has not been done... or if it has, the article made no mention of it. Yet it is a very important factor.

The article did point out the end result: that 37% of college-grad mothers either reduced their work to part-time, or left the work force entirely after 10 years; while only 4% of college-grad fathers did the same. A HUGE discrepancy - so much for "making the same choices". And that does not include women who take months off for childbirth and then come back to work full-time, necessitating a substitute while they are gone.

37% of mothers chose to do it, while only 4% of fathers. How does this make the managers and paymasters "sexist"? They are responding to events they have no control over. If anything, if "sexism" can be ascribed to this situation at all, isn't it the women themselves who are guilty of it, by freely making such different choices than the men? That's a silly charge, of course... almost as silly as the charge by hysterical leftists that the managers are the "sexist" ones.

With this study in hand, what is a hiring manager to do? He must necessarily view such high attrition and absenteeism among prospective women employees, as a squandering of the training and experience he gives them, regardless of the good and beneficial reasons for the attrition.

A sensible manager who is charged with getting equal profit from male and female employees alike, must make up the difference he'll spend in training replacements and building new experience among them, by paying less to those who make the additional training necessary: the women employees. The more women he hires, the more likely it is that he will have to spend extra money and resources later, training substitutes or replacements for them - money he will have to make up for somewhere. And since he cannot know which women will go out and which ones will stay, he has no choice but to offer lower wages to ALL women of childbearing or family-raising age. Though he can be much more sure of the men's continuous attendance and longevity, and so can offer them higher wages, reliably expecting to train far fewer subs and replacements for them.

Women and men of equal skill and experience, still do not get equal pay... because their performance will NOT be equal in the long run, taken as a whole. Flaming equal-rights firebrands can wave their fists and chant slogans all they like, but only if they ignore this fundamental truth (something they are good at). Or if they come up with a real, WORKING solution for it - which no one has ever been able to do.

Then women (such as myself, who never had kids) are being punished for future behavior that may or may not happen.

Meanwhile, men are not penalized for the time they MAY take off to recover from bypass surgery, or military service.

I have covered for employees on maternity leave, recovering from major surgery, and even one MAN who had to take a pretty long leave of absence to care for his seriously ill daughter (his wife also had to take a leave of absence; the kid was that sick). Maternity leave was the easiest to deal with; at least it was possible to plan ahead, to minimize disruption. The unexpected medical absences were more difficult to deal with, because it wasn't possible to plan ahead.

A sensible manager will make employees feel that they are being fairly treated, based on the merits of today's work performance and not holding them back because of some future concern that may never materialize. Otherwise, that manager is going to lose good employees. My former employer lost a lot of good female employees because, one by one, we got fed up with the sexist crapola that we had to deal with.

[Birdzeye]

Which law? Please quote me the statute that says a private business may not descriminate on whatever basis it wants? I know that here in Georgia, your reasons for hiring or firing a person are the business's business, and nobody else's, and I like it that way.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
An Act

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon
the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief
against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney
General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public
facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights,
to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a
Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

--snip--

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.

(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency
to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate
against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on
the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

[loosecannon]

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies. Damn-Lies. And Statistics."
- Mark Twain.

Granted. But in this particular case the evidence is overwhelming that we have societal wide bias in our wage compensations according to sex.

It makes no real difference why. Because women need income as much as men. It is not automatically acceptable to just allow men to make more money just because they can when the need for income is as high or perhaps higher for women.

It is a decision that we make as a society.

[darin]

Granted. But in this particular case the evidence is overwhelming that we have societal wide bias in our wage compensations according to sex.



But the study shows No cause-and-effect...there's not a diagnosis as to 'why' - these studies point out the difference, and people LOVE to assume it's wide-spread gender-bias.



It makes no real difference why. Because women need income as much as men. It is not automatically acceptable to just allow men to make more money just because they can when the need for income is as high or perhaps higher for women.

It is a decision that we make as a society

I agree.

[Birdzeye]

Granted. But in this particular case the evidence is overwhelming that we have societal wide bias in our wage compensations according to sex.

It makes no real difference why. Because women need income as much as men. It is not automatically acceptable to just allow men to make more money just because they can when the need for income is as high or perhaps higher for women.

It is a decision that we make as a society.

:clap:

[loosecannon]

But the study shows No cause-and-effect...there's not a diagnosis as to 'why' - these studies point out the difference, and people LOVE to assume it's wide-spread gender-bias.

Like I said it matters not why. Causation is not relevent if the effect is society wide.

The fact remains that women are paid less. A LOT less. It isn't even close.

And they rely on that money just like men to provide for themselves and kids.

If it is a society wide effect that happens along lines of gender it automatically implies gender based causation.

[darin]

Like I said it matters not why. Causation is not relevent if the effect is society wide.

The fact remains that women are paid less. A LOT less. It isn't even close.

And they rely on that money just like men to provide for themselves and kids.

If it is a society wide effect that happens along lines of gender it automatically implies gender based causation.

I disagree - the WHY is everything.

[Hobbit]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
An Act

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon
the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief
against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the attorney
General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public
facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights,
to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a
Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.

--snip--

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.

(b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency
to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate
against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin, or to classify or refer for employment any individual on
the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.


Ok, I see that, and thanks for backing it up. The SEC statute clearly lines up ways that a person may no descriminate in his private business, and I think it's a gross invasion of individual rights, but that's beside the point. As for the 1964 civil rights act, nothing in what you quoted said it applies to anyone but the government.

Going back to the original topic I addressed, the employer could claim that a married woman of child-rearing age has potential availability issues, and that it is a strike against her. It would be like failing to hire somebody because you suspect that they have or may soon get another job. Granting maternity leave potentially costs a lot of money, and I can see that as a legitimate, business reason for not hiring a woman who looked like she was going to have children in the near future. Then there's the question of if she'll quit her job to raise the kids. It's long and expensive to train somebody, only to have them waltz off a couple of years later.

[loosecannon]

I disagree - the WHY is everything.


OK, you do disagree. But the statistical probability that a society wide effect that plays out radically along gender lines is NOT a society wide gender bias is astronomically improbable.

Like needing to be expressed with numbers close to 10 to the power of 15.

The control group and sample group are simply too large, and the subsequent margin of error too small, to discount the relationship.

[Birdzeye]

There seem to be a few skeptics who don't want to believe that discrimination against women is real. Here are a few press releases from EEOC that should dispel any doubts:

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-5-07.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-22-07.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-8-07.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/2-1-07.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/press/1-8-07.html

And these are press releases only from this year!

[Birdzeye]

Ok, I see that, and thanks for backing it up. The SEC statute clearly lines up ways that a person may no descriminate in his private business, and I think it's a gross invasion of individual rights, but that's beside the point. As for the 1964 civil rights act, nothing in what you quoted said it applies to anyone but the government.

Going back to the original topic I addressed, the employer could claim that a married woman of child-rearing age has potential availability issues, and that it is a strike against her. It would be like failing to hire somebody because you suspect that they have or may soon get another job. Granting maternity leave potentially costs a lot of money, and I can see that as a legitimate, business reason for not hiring a woman who looked like she was going to have children in the near future. Then there's the question of if she'll quit her job to raise the kids. It's long and expensive to train somebody, only to have them waltz off a couple of years later.


And I consider it a gross violation of an individual's rights to be discriminated against in job opportunities, pay and promotions. This law got passed because employers were letting their bigotry - thinly disguised as some kind of management "concerns" - influence their hiring practices.

I'm sure that if employers started discriminating against political conservatives the way they discriminated (and sometimes still do) against women, we'd have a big conservative push to amend the civil rights laws.

[Hobbit]

And I consider it a gross violation of an individual's rights to be discriminated against in job opportunities, pay and promotions. This law got passed because employers were letting their bigotry - thinly disguised as some kind of management "concerns" - influence their hiring practices.

I'm sure that if employers started discriminating against political conservatives the way they discriminated (and sometimes still do) against women, we'd have a big conservative push to amend the civil rights laws.

It already happens at college campuses, and unless they're owned by the government, I have no problem with that.

You also don't have a right to not be descriminated against.

And while we're on decrimination, let's talk about one where there are no outside factors. No matter how much you claim to, you cannot fully discount the biological differences between the genders when it comes to jobs. Men are, biologically, more aggressive and ambitious. Far more men than women put in 60+ hour a week to get ahead. It's simply in the genes. But what about short people. It's been statistically proven that, on average, tall people are paid more than short people. They get more raises, more promotions, and more recognition. Tall people have not been shown to be any more or less effective at most jobs, but they get paid more, anyway. Do we need a law for that?

[Little-Acorn]

"Discrimination" simply means, choosing according to criteria. You discriminate when you wear a coat instead of a sweater.

Tell me again what's wrong with discrimination?

If it's "unfair discrimination" you mean, then say so... and point out WHY the examples you have in mind, are unfair.

[darin]

It already happens at college campuses, and unless they're owned by the government, I have no problem with that.

You also don't have a right to not be descriminated against.

And while we're on decrimination, let's talk about one where there are no outside factors. No matter how much you claim to, you cannot fully discount the biological differences between the genders when it comes to jobs. Men are, biologically, more aggressive and ambitious. Far more men than women put in 60+ hour a week to get ahead. It's simply in the genes. But what about short people. It's been statistically proven that, on average, tall people are paid more than short people. They get more raises, more promotions, and more recognition. Tall people have not been shown to be any more or less effective at most jobs, but they get paid more, anyway. Do we need a law for that?


Further - Better-looking people tend to make more, too :) Maybe that's why I'm poor :(

[Birdzeye]

It already happens at college campuses, and unless they're owned by the government, I have no problem with that.

:link:


You also don't have a right to not be descriminated against.

The law says otherwise, and I agree with the law.



And while we're on decrimination, let's talk about one where there are no outside factors. No matter how much you claim to, you cannot fully discount the biological differences between the genders when it comes to jobs. Men are, biologically, more aggressive and ambitious. Far more men than women put in 60+ hour a week to get ahead. It's simply in the genes. But what about short people. It's been statistically proven that, on average, tall people are paid more than short people. They get more raises, more promotions, and more recognition. Tall people have not been shown to be any more or less effective at most jobs, but they get paid more, anyway. Do we need a law for that?

Please provide some evidence that men work harder to get ahead. I worked 60+ hour weeks for the sexist boss but got nothing out of it, so I left.

You should also have some empirical evidence to back up your claim that men make more because they work harder. I've seen some seriously workaholic women, and worked with some seriously lazyass men. From what I saw, working hard didn't guarantee success, and being lazy didn't always have negative consequences.

[Birdzeye]

Further - Better-looking people tend to make more, too :) Maybe that's why I'm poor :(

Ok, now that was witty!

[Hobbit]

:link:

Professor and columnist Mike S. Adams is currently in the middle of a lawsuit with his employer (can't remember which school he works for) over descriminatory promotion and hiring practices. I guess you also missed the Duke University president saying he doesn't think that there's a conservative smart enough to work for him.


The law says otherwise, and I agree with the law.

Actually, it doesn't. The law says that certain people cannot descriminate against you for certain reasons, but you certainly don't have a right not to be descriminated against. If you had the right not to be descriminated against, ever, for any reason, then society as we know it would cease to exist. For example, when I am looking to date girls, I tend to prefer caucasian women to those of other races. That's descrimination, and I'm entitled to it. There are also some people who prefer blondes, and thus descriminate against brunettes and redheads. Hooters doesn't hire male servers, nor does Chippendale's hire female dancers, but I don't see anybody throwing up a fuss there. Basketball teams hire tall guys. Football teams hire large guys. While descrimination for the sake of descrimination is definitely a bad thing, descrimination itself is neede, and trying to seperate the grain from the chaff, in this case, is very difficult.


Please provide some evidence that men work harder to get ahead. I worked 60+ hour weeks for the sexist boss but got nothing out of it, so I left.

You should also have some empirical evidence to back up your claim that men make more because they work harder. I've seen some seriously workaholic women, and worked with some seriously lazyass men. From what I saw, working hard didn't guarantee success, and being lazy didn't always have negative consequences.

First off, individual counter-examples do not a trend disprove. I've known guys who wear body-hugging pastel shorts and hot pants, but that doesn't disprove the trend that guys tend to prefer knee-length shorts and loose-fitting clothes, but anyway, I found one study in particular that you might find interesting.

http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2003/09/10/do_men_really_work_harder_than_women_ii.html

It cites a study that shows that men do, indeed, tend to work harder on most traditional jobs, but also cites the fact that the number of female-owned small businesses is on the rise, indicating that women aren't averse to hard work, as long as they're working for themselves. I found it fascinating, and it is just another way that men and women are, get this, different.


Further - Better-looking people tend to make more, too :) Maybe that's why I'm poor :(

I figure it offsets my shortness.

[Birdzeye]

Professor and columnist Mike S. Adams is currently in the middle of a lawsuit with his employer (can't remember which school he works for) over descriminatory promotion and hiring practices. I guess you also missed the Duke University president saying he doesn't think that there's a conservative smart enough to work for him.

:link: :link:


Actually, it doesn't. The law says that certain people cannot descriminate against you for certain reasons, but you certainly don't have a right not to be descriminated against. If you had the right not to be descriminated against, ever, for any reason, then society as we know it would cease to exist. For example, when I am looking to date girls, I tend to prefer caucasian women to those of other races. That's descrimination, and I'm entitled to it. There are also some people who prefer blondes, and thus descriminate against brunettes and redheads. Hooters doesn't hire male servers, nor does Chippendale's hire female dancers, but I don't see anybody throwing up a fuss there. Basketball teams hire tall guys. Football teams hire large guys. While descrimination for the sake of descrimination is definitely a bad thing, descrimination itself is neede, and trying to seperate the grain from the chaff, in this case, is very difficult.

OK, I misspoke. The law says an employer may not discriminate against an employee or prospective employee on the basis of sex. The law establishes equal opportunity as a civil right, and a person who believes that his/her civil rights in this area have been violated has the option of taking legal action.

The law also says this:


(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall
not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ
employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment
any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to
classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor
organization, or joint labor*management committee controlling
apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ
any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or
national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or
national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably
necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or
enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a
school, college, university, or other educational institution or
institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular
religion if such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial
part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or
by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the
curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation
of a particular religion.


So, much to my dismay, apparently Hooters CAN hire only buxom women, and there will be no muscular guys I can ogle there.


First off, individual counter-examples do not a trend disprove. I've known guys who wear body-hugging pastel shorts and hot pants, but that doesn't disprove the trend that guys tend to prefer knee-length shorts and loose-fitting clothes, but anyway, I found one study in particular that you might find interesting.

http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2003/09/10/do_men_really_work_harder_than_women_ii.html



It cites a study that shows that men do, indeed, tend to work harder on most traditional jobs, but also cites the fact that the number of female-owned small businesses is on the rise, indicating that women aren't averse to hard work, as long as they're working for themselves. I found it fascinating, and it is just another way that men and women are, get this, different.



I figure it offsets my shortness.


The number of "examples" published in the media has gotten to the point where it is ludicrous to dismiss them out of hand. Yet the people who have some investment in justifying lower pay for women persist in that practice.

Could you tell me which peer-reviewed journal accepted the O'Neill study for publication? I couldn't find it when I googled it.

[loosecannon]

[QUOTE=Birdzeye;45504Please provide some evidence that men work harder to get ahead. I worked 60+ hour weeks for the sexist boss but got nothing out of it, so I left.

[/QUOTE]

I think there is little doubt that men are more aggressive and ambitious overall.

I also think there is little doubt that women work harder overall.

Aside from hard manual labor i have never seen men keep up with women in terms of overall effort and competency.

But we still prefer men in leadership roles.

[Hobbit]

:link: :link:

So, let me get this straight. A nationally syndicated columnist, who talked about said lawsuit before, published this thing, and a highly controversial statement made by a university president that made national news, because it was related to the Duke lacrosse case went completey by your face without you noticing, and it's now MY job to go sifting through news archives on my day off because you're too blind to see the obvious hiring preferences of universities? Have you even BEEN to a college campus since, oh, about 1960?

Even if I did provide you with a link, you'd probably do the same thing you're doing to all of the scientific studies indicating the differences between men and women and just say it isn't valid. I'm through with this. There's no way I'm going to convince you of anything here, and trying is a waste of my time, so just go back to wallowing around in your self-righteous sense of self-pity while you tell yourself that 'the man' is keeping all of the women down just because he sucks. Excuse me if I don't join you, I have something more worthwhile to do.

[darin]

Aside from hard manual labor i have never seen men keep up with women in terms of overall effort and competency.

wow...can you be serious?

[Mr. P]

And you didn't try to pass off unbridled sexism as an exception to your criteria.

I oppose being forced to hire employees you don't want as a rule.

But women are being paid to do the same jobs as men and being paid less almost universally in the US.

Do we want to maintain that?

I know quite a few women in corp america who are hired because they are a bargain comparing output to cost. But that is the very meritocracy capitalists always crow about.

How come women are not rewarded by meritocracy as much as men are?

Honestly, despite the womens lib movement for equality, I think society still, deep down, views women as nurturers/nest builders and men as the providers.

I think that's human nature and no movement will change that.

[Hobbit]

I think there is little doubt that men are more aggressive and ambitious overall.

I also think there is little doubt that women work harder overall.

Aside from hard manual labor i have never seen men keep up with women in terms of overall effort and competency.

But we still prefer men in leadership roles.

It depends more on the type of work, from what I've seen. If the job itself favors aggression, ambition, risk-taking, and other, more masculine traits, then men tend to get it done more efficiently. The best fits here would be such things as soldiers and stock brokers, where aggression and risk can lead to great success. In slower, more calculated efforts which require a slower, steadier, more methodical pace, women tend to excel. Excuse me for being stereotypical, but these traits make women extremely good at housework and child-rearing, as those require patience and a steady hand, and more so than most men have before hitting about 60.

That aside, one of the reasons men tend to, or at least seem to, get more promotions and pay raises is that even in jobs which men and women are equally suited for, the men are more competitive and aggressive, and will sacrifice time and health to get a promotion if they want it. Unless you have a way to somehow factor out the aggressive and competitive nature that comes with a 'y' chromosome when considering promotions, there's really no way to change that.

[Birdzeye]

So, let me get this straight. A nationally syndicated columnist, who talked about said lawsuit before, published this thing, and a highly controversial statement made by a university president that made national news, because it was related to the Duke lacrosse case went completey by your face without you noticing, and it's now MY job to go sifting through news archives on my day off because you're too blind to see the obvious hiring preferences of universities? Have you even BEEN to a college campus since, oh, about 1960?

Even if I did provide you with a link, you'd probably do the same thing you're doing to all of the scientific studies indicating the differences between men and women and just say it isn't valid. I'm through with this. There's no way I'm going to convince you of anything here, and trying is a waste of my time, so just go back to wallowing around in your self-righteous sense of self-pity while you tell yourself that 'the man' is keeping all of the women down just because he sucks. Excuse me if I don't join you, I have something more worthwhile to do.

You made the claim. It's not my job to verify it.

And if you want to show that the "scientific studies" you cite are valid, show us where those studies have been published in peer reviewed journals.

Your snarky retort is typical of pugnacious men who can't abide having women stand up and declare that they deserve better. Your attitude is not dissimilar to the pigs in the early days of "women's liberation" who declared that the only thing those women needed was a "good screw."

When a woman stands up and doesn't accept your bullshit, then you declare that you have "better things to do." I'll take that to mean you don't have a reasoned argument to present. No problem.

[Mr. P]

And if you hired some man of child bearing age, recently married, you'd be breaking the law.

No, I can hire whom ever I want.

[Hobbit]

You made the claim. It's not my job to verify it.

And if you want to show that the "scientific studies" you cite are valid, show us where those studies have been published in peer reviewed journals.

Your snarky retort is typical of pugnacious men who can't abide having women stand up and declare that they deserve better. Your attitude is not dissimilar to the pigs in the early days of "women's liberation" who declared that the only thing those women needed was a "good screw."

When a woman stands up and doesn't accept your bullshit, then you declare that you have "better things to do." I'll take that to mean you don't have a reasoned argument to present. No problem.

No, my attitude is a typical male response to a nagging harpy who can't accept reality and would rather just bitch about being kept down by the man. Your response is the typical liberal idiocy of saying, "Well, if you can't provide me with half a dozen peer-reviewed scientific resources supporting a claim that is accepted as truth by anyone with half a brain, then you're wrong." You missed a major news story that would take hours for me to dig out now. What next? Are you going to ask me for a link that shows that OJ was found inncent? How about a peer-reviewed scientific study showing that humans breathe oxygen? Maybe you'd like me to provide an entire annotated bibliography along with a 20-page long thesis to prove the point "The Penis: Women Don't Have One."

[Birdzeye]

No, my attitude is a typical male response to a [INANE PERSONAL INSULT REMOVED] who can't accept reality and would rather just bitch about being kept down by the man. Your response is the typical liberal idiocy of saying, "Well, if you can't provide me with half a dozen peer-reviewed scientific resources supporting a claim that is accepted as truth by anyone with half a brain, then you're wrong." You missed a major news story that would take hours for me to dig out now. What next? Are you going to ask me for a link that shows that OJ was found inncent? How about a peer-reviewed scientific study showing that humans breathe oxygen? Maybe you'd like me to provide an entire annotated bibliography along with a 20-page long thesis to prove the point "The Penis: Women Don't Have One."

You've run out of arguments so you resort to personal insults. Let me know if you have something substantive and I'll be happy to discuss.

[Hobbit]

You've run out of arguments so you resort to personal insults. Let me know if you have something substantive and I'll be happy to discuss.

Hey, I ain't the one who's denying what mother nature has set right in front of my eyes and calling it a chauvanistic conspiracy. Hell, even loosecannon isn't asking me for links that tell how men are more aggressive and competitive, and she? is usually a jerk about that kind of thing. You don't have a high ground to go to here, missie. I also seem to remember something about 'pugnacious men who can't stand having a woman blah blah blah.' That seemed like a personal insult.

Oh, and you are a nagging harpy. Inane means empty. My personal insult has meaning.

[loosecannon]

Hey, I ain't the one who's denying what mother nature has set right in front of my eyes and calling it a chauvanistic conspiracy. Hell, even loosecannon isn't asking me for links that tell how men are more aggressive and competitive, and she? is usually a jerk about that kind of thing. You don't have a high ground to go to here, missie. I also seem to remember something about 'pugnacious men who can't stand having a woman blah blah blah.' That seemed like a personal insult.

Hobbit lets take a step back and look at this without any sexist allegations.

Women earn less. They certainly work hard. They certainly need the income.

So even if you remove all sexism, and discrimination elements to the discussion, you are still left with irrefutable gender bias in compensation paid for time and labor.

Gender bias is a neutral term.

Are we willing to pay women 2/3 or 3/4 the wage of men under any circumstances?

They need the money and so do their kids.

They earn their money just as much or more than men.

???

[Birdzeye]

Hey, I ain't the one who's denying what mother nature has set right in front of my eyes and calling it a chauvanistic conspiracy. Hell, even loosecannon isn't asking me for links that tell how men are more aggressive and competitive, and she? is usually a jerk about that kind of thing. You don't have a high ground to go to here, missie. I also seem to remember something about 'pugnacious men who can't stand having a woman blah blah blah.' That seemed like a personal insult.

Oh, and you are a [VACUOUS PERSONAL INSULT REMOVED] . Inane means empty. My personal insult has meaning.

I did not call you a pugnacious man; I said that your snarky remarks were what I'd expect from pugnacious men. I have pointed out that the differences between men and women are NOT legitimate excuses for discriminating against women; you have provided squat to refute.

Now, maybe you could come up with something substantive - for a change.

[Birdzeye]

No, I can hire whom ever I want.

The law says you can't refuse to hire someone for being a woman, or black, or Jewish, or even a Christian evangelical.

[darin]

The law says you can't refuse to hire someone for being a woman...

Unless you own a mens' underwear store...

[Little-Acorn]

Then women (such as myself, who never had kids) are being punished for future behavior that may or may not happen.
Sounds like you agree with my point. Were you going to suggest a solution to the problem of forecasting which women will have kids 5 or ten years from now, which will leave work to raise a family, and which won't?


Meanwhile, men are not penalized for the time they MAY take off to recover from bypass surgery, or military service.
Not sure how you jump to that conclusion. Perfect beings who never take time off (neither men nor women fall into this category) would probably get paid more than men OR women. The manager must take into account resources he must spend to compensate for ANYONE who takes time off, regardless of the reason. My point is not that "men never take time off". It's that "On the whole, women take more time off than men".

Or have you seen some study that shows men as a whole take as much time off (or more) than women? Please cite it.


My former employer lost a lot of good female employees because, one by one, we got fed up with the sexist crapola that we had to deal with.
Did it occur to you that, regardless of the reason, this probably HELPED justify the predictions that attrition among women would be higher than among men?

Could it be that, in addition to the justified prediction of women taking more time or quitting sooner due to family matters, even more attrition can be projected due to ignorant so-called "feminists" falsely accusing employers of sexism, spreading unmerited discontent among only one of the two genders present, and thus CONTRIBUTING to the very difference between the sexes they pretend doesn't exist?

It is true that some genuine sexism occurs in some workplaces. I suggest it is far less frequent that the fanatical so-called "feminists" want us to believe. Many cases of disparity that they try to blame on "sexism", in fact occur due to the real actions of the employees themselves, which their managers MUST deal with.

As I pointed out (and the article supports), there ARE differences between the sexes, in their attendance records and the resources needed to hire each on the whole. No one has disproven this, and they certainly haven't found a way to fix it. I suggest that ignorant, or perhaps malicious, so-called "feminists" who shout "sexism" at the drop of a hat, have been making the problem worse, not better.

[Birdzeye]

Did it occur to you that, regardless of the reason, this probably HELPED justify the predictions that attrition among women would be higher than among men?


No doubt it reinforced the preconceived notions they had about women. However, I wasn't about to hang around and keep putting up with their crap to try to change their crappy attitudes.

They lost some very talented (female) professionals who could have contributed a lot to the organization if they hadn't been alienated into leaving because of the pattern of discrimination. They were damned lucky they didn't get sued successfully for sex discrimination more than they did.

As for the article you keep referring to, can you tell me which peer reviewed journal has accepted it for publication?

[darin]

Blah - Broads don't belong in Broadcasting....

[Birdzeye]

Blah - Broads don't belong in Broadcasting....

Proof positive that sexism is alive and well, sad to say.

[Mr. P]

The law says you can't refuse to hire someone for being a woman, or black, or Jewish, or even a Christian evangelical.

True, but the Law does not say I must hire a woman, a black, Jew or Christian either. At least not yet.

[Birdzeye]

True, but the Law does not say I must hire a woman, a black, Jew or Christian either. At least not yet.

That's true. However, if you consistently offer jobs only to white males, you could be vulnerable to being sued successfully for discrimination. And I wouldn't have a shred of sympathy for you if you lost.

[Mr. P]

That's true. However, if you consistently offer jobs only to white males, you could be vulnerable to being sued successfully for discrimination. And I wouldn't have a shred of sympathy for you if you lost.

Nope, not successfully. Hooters does it with Hot girls..No guys. It's legal.

[Birdzeye]

Nope, not successfully. Hooters does it with Hot girls..No guys. It's legal.

I've already pointed out this little nugget in the law:


(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor
organization, or joint labor*management committee controlling
apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ
any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or
national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or
national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably
necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or
enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a
school, college, university, or other educational institution or
institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular
religion if such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial
part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or
by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the
curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation
of a particular religion.


Which means Hooters can get away with not hiring guys to wait on tables. However, if you have, say, a plumber's job opening and a woman with all the right credentials applies, you can't refuse to hire her because she's a woman. And if you refuse to hire her because you just assume that women can't do that kind of job and disregard her qualifications, then you're treading on thin ice, and I'd sincerely hope she'd sue you for all you're worth.

[darin]

Proof positive that sexism is alive and well, sad to say.

Pamela Finklestein: "Broads don't belong in broadcasting"? Is that the kind of professional courtesy you teach your news department?
R.J. Fletcher: Why, that's a terrible thing. I don't know how many time I've told those boys, never call chicks broads.

[darin]

However, if you have, say, a plumber's job opening and a woman with all the right credentials applies, you can't refuse to hire her because she's a woman. And if you refuse to hire her because you just assume that women can't do that kind of job and disregard her qualifications, then you're treading on thin ice, and I'd sincerely hope she'd sue you for all you're worth.

Right - but what if I neglected to hire her because she looked physically weaker than a male-applicant? would that be okay?

[Birdzeye]

I think it would be reasonable to ask her to show her physical strength. Of course, the "test" would have to be reasonable - she shouldn't be required to show more strength than you'd expect from any guy.

And looks can be deceiving. I was having a wall oven delivered and installed by two guys, and one of them looked like the runt of the litter. However, he was as strong as his bigger companion and carried his share of the load.

[darin]

I think it would be reasonable to ask her to show her physical strength. Of course, the "test" would have to be reasonable - she shouldn't be required to show more strength than you'd expect from any guy.


The employer wouldn't have the right to make that assessment up in his own mind? To decide for himself, based upon his impression, which worker he wanted?

[Mr. P]

I've already pointed out this little nugget in the law:


(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor
organization, or joint labor*management committee controlling
apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ
any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or
national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or
national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably
necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or
enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a
school, college, university, or other educational institution or
institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular
religion if such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial
part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or
by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the
curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational
institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation
of a particular religion.


Which means Hooters can get away with not hiring guys to wait on tables. However, if you have, say, a plumber's job opening and a woman with all the right credentials applies, you can't refuse to hire her because she's a woman. And if you refuse to hire her because you just assume that women can't do that kind of job and disregard her qualifications, then you're treading on thin ice, and I'd sincerely hope she'd sue you for all you're worth.

I know you posted that. As far as a plumber goes and hiring a female, I wouldn't...But I'm not so dumb I'd say because yer female..get it? She may not walk the way I like, she may have brown eyes she may stink. Bottom line it's MY decision. When we get to the point employers are forced to hire just because someone applies we're screwed. That's where this is heading, IMO
That's why you won't get a call back. There is no obligation to TELL you why you weren't hired. If you think it's a violation of law it's your burden to prove it, good luck with that.

[Birdzeye]

Of course not. However, if you show what the lawyers call a "pattern of discrimination," then you're vulnerable to being sued - and losing. And you'd deserve to lose.

[Mr. P]

Of course not. However, if you show what the lawyers call a "pattern of discrimination," then you're vulnerable to being sued - and losing. And you'd deserve to lose.

They still must prove it.
If they wanna spend the $$$ have at it. I'll win.

[Kathianne]

I'm just jumping in here, only read the two posts above this.

My guess is that women exiting college do not bargain as well as men regarding their salaries. When offered a salary that sounds great out of college, let's say anything above $32k, with benefits, they'll say, "Yeah", figuring they'll prove their worth. Guys on the other hand, will say, "But you want me to be salaried, but available after 5 and some weekends, I think we need to boost that."

Over time, most women marry. To men that 'boosted' their salaries from the get go. The women are gaining, but the men are moving ahead, then the women take off months/years/decade and a half. Yeah, there's a salary discrepancy.

Who makes the most? Men with stay at home wives, some of those wives with degrees and intelligence to match. But the wives staying home, allows the man, supporting the family, to work long hours and make the deals to move up the ladder.

I'll agree with the bias, when the 'women' part is broken down to 'single women from graduation', women with children and no spouse, and women returning to work after a 'time out.'

[Little-Acorn]

I'm just jumping in here, only read the two posts above this.

I'll agree with the bias, when the 'women' part is broken down to 'single women from graduation', women with children and no spouse, and women returning to work after a 'time out.'



"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no."

That's a pretty big "If".

Among the thousands of women in the group that supposedly made the same choices as the thousands of men in the study, I wonder if the study-ers took into account the projected attendance records of each. It is something that a hiring manager must look at, of course. This article doesn't mention it.

Specifically, when a woman gives birth to a baby, she is typically out from work for months. Her husband is typically out for days, or a week or two. This disparity is gradually narrowing, but it's still very significant. Worse, a single mom who gives birth will also be out for months. A single man, won't be out at all for childbirth purposes. This difference is GROWING since more single moms are having babies.

Hypothetical example: If a hiring manager has twenty positions open, and has a hundred men and a hundred women applicants to choose from, all else being equal, which (if any) will he favor)?

Many of the applicants honestly don't know if they are going to have children in the next five years, or ten or whatever. But statistically, it's very likely that some of them will. The manager knows that. And the women who do, will miss a lot more work than the men whose women do.

Skill levels being equal, the manager may (in fact usually will) hire men at the going rate; but hire only the (equally-skilled) women who ask for less pay, knowing that if he hires twenty women, some of them will be out for long periods, sooner or later, more so than men.

"If a man and woman make the same choices", said the article. They might both swear on a stack of Bibles that they aren't going to have kids during the entire time they work for the company. That would be the "choices" the article talks about in this case. But the manager knows that (stuff) happens. They may change their minds. They may miss the pill one month, or whatever. Basically, the manager would be a fool, and negligent in his duties to boot, if he were to assume he would get equal work, with no difference in schedule disruptions, skill losses, extra training for temporary replacements etc. from twenty women as he would from twenty men. Only if he pays ALL the women less (since he doesn't know which one(s) may go out for childbirth) will he show the same bottom line as if he had hired twenty equally-skilled men.

A few of those women may also later make the decision to leave work and stay at home to raise their kids, later on. Men can make that decision too, but the brute fact is that far fewer men than women do.

The hiring manager knows these things. And he is under to gun to produce as much profit (work done per dollar paid) as possible. If he doesn't, HE might be out the door, and he knows that too.

Will he pay twenty equally-skilled women, the same as twenty men? Probably not.

Can he justify that decision to the Board of Directors? And the stockholders? Absolutely.

Is it the politically correct thing to do? Of course not.

Is it fair to the women who, forty years later, can look back and point out that they NEVER had a baby or left work to raise a family? Of course not.

But how can the hiring manager know which ones they will be today?

It's probably one of the factors in the wage gap the article talks about. I wonder if the study took this phenomenon into account?

[Hobbit]

It's kinda like why my car insurance premiums are so much higher than my sister's. Guys my age tend to do stupid things. Now, I don't even have a speeding ticket on my record. I obey the law (mostly), drive carefully, and respect others on the road. However, the insurance company didn't do a full psychological evaluation on me, nor would I want them to. Thus, I get a couple of breaks for having a good driving record and drivers' ed, but, being a male, my premiums are higher because of the likelyhood that I'll try to drive my car up a cliff.

If we had off-road vehicles, the difference between our premiums would be even greater.

No, it's not fair to me, and it's gender descrimination, but it's a necessary part of doing business.

[Birdzeye]

The EEOC's guidelines on sex discrimination are here:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/29cfr1604_02.html


§ 1604.2 Sex as a bona fide occupational qualification.

(a) The commission believes that the bona fide occupational qualification exception as to sex should be interpreted narrowly. Label— ‘Men’s jobs’’ and ‘‘Women’s jobs’’—tend to deny employment opportunities unnecessarily to one sex or the other.

(1) The Commission will find that the following situations do not warrant the application of the bona fide occupational
qualification exception:

(i) The refusal to hire a woman because of her sex based on assumptions of the comparative employment characteristics of women in general. For example, the assumption that the turnover rate among women is higher than among men.


Sec. 1604.4 Discrimination against married women.

(a) The Commission has determined that an employer's rule which forbids or restricts the employment of married women and which is not applicable to married men is a discrimination based on sex prohibited by title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It does not seem to us relevant that the rule is not directed against all females, but only against married females, for so long as sex is a factor in the application of the rule, such application involves a discrimination based on sex.


Bottom line: a prospective employer cannot legally (or morally, IMO) make assumptions about future conduct of a prospective employee.

It would be discriminatory (and illogical) to deny opportunities for women based on their presumed future absences due to childbearing, while not taking into account the men's likelihood of having future long absences due to bypass surgery, which they seem to be more likely to undergo than women.

To condone illegal and immoral sex discrimination based on a woman's presumed future absences due to pregnancy and childbirth is just a pathetic attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Furthermore, employee turnover in general is much higher than it was in my parents' days. Rare is the employee who works a lifetime for the same company. From what I've seen, employers are lucky to get five years out of an employee before he/she moves on.

[Hobbit]

The EEOC's guidelines on sex discrimination are here:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/29cfr1604_02.html


§ 1604.2 Sex as a bona fide occupational qualification.

(a) The commission believes that the bona fide occupational qualification exception as to sex should be interpreted narrowly. Label— ‘Men’s jobs’’ and ‘‘Women’s jobs’’—tend to deny employment opportunities unnecessarily to one sex or the other.

(1) The Commission will find that the following situations do not warrant the application of the bona fide occupational
qualification exception:

(i) The refusal to hire a woman because of her sex based on assumptions of the comparative employment characteristics of women in general. For example, the assumption that the turnover rate among women is higher than among men.


Sec. 1604.4 Discrimination against married women.

(a) The Commission has determined that an employer's rule which forbids or restricts the employment of married women and which is not applicable to married men is a discrimination based on sex prohibited by title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It does not seem to us relevant that the rule is not directed against all females, but only against married females, for so long as sex is a factor in the application of the rule, such application involves a discrimination based on sex.


Bottom line: a prospective employer cannot legally (or morally, IMO) make assumptions about future conduct of a prospective employee.

It would be discriminatory (and illogical) to deny opportunities for women based on their presumed future absences due to childbearing, while not taking into account the men's likelihood of having future long absences due to bypass surgery, which they seem to be more likely to undergo than women.

To condone illegal and immoral sex discrimination based on a woman's presumed future absences due to pregnancy and childbirth is just a pathetic attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

Furthermore, employee turnover in general is much higher than it was in my parents' days. Rare is the employee who works a lifetime for the same company. From what I've seen, employers are lucky to get five years out of an employee before he/she moves on.

Once again, you have to prove it. I also think it's unjust that women may not be descriminated against for the general trends they exhibit when it comes to hiring, but men may be descriminated against for the general trends they exhibit when it comes to insurance.

[Birdzeye]

What's to prove? I quoted from the US Code of Federal Regulations, which outlines each federal agency's SOPs for enforcing the laws they are empowered to enforce. The particular citations I quoted outline how laws against sex discrimination in employment will be enforced. I even provided a link to the government website that has a copy of the regulation in question.