This is like global warming: it’s a contentious issue and so you see so-called “facts” contradicting other so-called “facts”. There’s always somebody who’s going to make up some bullshit and dress it like science in order to obscure the truth. Science can’t keep up with conspiracies. You can’t sif the real science from the fucking made up crap.
The majority of stuff I have read on the topic suggest that women get payed less then average. one of the explanations for this I found interesting was that it suggested women are just less assertive. they don’t pressure there boss as much for a raise basically. lol basically i guess that means women are just too nice.
I’ve wondered this myself (though your suggestion is a lot more flattering to women than what I contemplated).
But getting to the actual statistics themselves, there seems to be general agreement that the wage gap is real with women earning $0.65 to $0.75 to every man’s dollar. But they call this the “unadjusted” wage gap, meaning that it has not been adjusted to reflect actual discrimination. A couple of the biggest factors separated out from this figure are 1) the fact that women are more after than men part-time workers, lowering their overall income significantly, and 2) women tend to take jobs in lower paying fields than men (there’s still some debate over whether the latter reflects sexism vis-a-vis society’s overall valuation of female oriented jobs). What’s left after you factor these two (and other non-discriminatory causes) out is a wage gap of $0.95 earned by women for every man’s dollar. Whether or not this means that actual sexist discrimination accounts for some or all of this “adjusted” wage gap is unknown as far as I can tell.
Yes, there’s some statistics that show this as well (which is why I’m so confused). One argument that comes up is that though women tend to be less assertive than men (like Abstract suggested), thereby not getting the raise that a more assertive man would be more likely to get, women are also more consciencious than men, thereby driving them to work harder and put more quality into what they do which results in more raises in the long run.
Or it could be like some kind of affirmative action. I mean, they’re outnumbering males in colleges everywhere. And there’s this whole “cooling down” thing that happens in higher education where they discourage certain demographics from certain fields. Through some means or another, the fact is that women are receiving more education than men, in a society that’s supposed to be equal.
Which demographics would this be and what fields are they being discouraged from entering?
See, this wouldn’t bother me (unless men are now being barred from higher education). If it’s just a matter of more women applying to higher education and/or studying harder, then it’s our own damn fault (us men) if we aren’t getting the good grades or degrees and such.
You know that you don’t have to bar people from something to effectively limit their access to it.
I think the cooling off thing I read about had more to to with particular students, or at least it was written that way. Possibly with the intention of obscuring the idea that such a notion could create demographic inequality in certain fields.
I think of barring as explicitly restricting it to no access. And effectively limiting is as attempting, with some success to limit access without barring it.
I read some article a long time ago that used that cooling off term. It was about how in a lot of these 2 year schools, kids go in wanting to get prepared for a 4 year college, and get shifted via various methods involving counselors, advisers and administrative leverages into programs that are less academic, (not to knock them or anything), but things like culinary school or being an auto mechanic or a paramedic. Nothing wrong with those jobs, and that part’s not the main point really, as a matter of fact, I searched and can’t even find the article it’s been so long. But if at that early a level people are being separated via a statistical model in order to fill jobs etc…then men are typically going to get separated out more, because they are more likely to qualify for the kinds of jobs you’d get w/ a 2 year vocational certificate kind of thing. (maybe i’m being purely anecdotal here). So if girls aren’t good at fixing cars, or doing hvac work, and aren’t even really well represented among chefs in fine dining, you’re going to end up with a lot more of them making it through the program that gets them to the 4 year school. Then if they manage that they can go on and be lawyers and doctors or get mbas or whatever. So overall they end up making a higher wage…especially as long as labor is being attacked and business is in control of the tax code.
Back to manism, it is likely because of the emphasis on athelticness being prised by women or it being thought so rather then education that leads men to be less inclined to be academic.
The economy is increasing slowly, and hiring is picking up. Yet, the pay gap between men and women is still very much at play, says a new study. That difference is in evidence immediately after college, and follows women throughout their expert lives. Check more here.
This brings to mind why I quit a job. After maternity leave, I found out that it took 4 people to replace me. I went to the manager laid out my reasons and guarantees, I requested a significant raise. A 4$ an hour raise. It was still a lot cheaper then paying people to replace me. The manager denied the request but, countered with a. 75¢ an hour raise. His reason: No way could a woman be higher paid then any man that has to support a family.
Apparently men are/were the required support, women worked out of choice and so did not deserve equal pay.
I posted this here rather than the pic thread.
It could explain a reason for the gap. Women in general are seen as working out of desire still, not need… old school thinking.
Kris, how much do you think this expectation stems from religious preconceptions? I mean, the idea that it the man’s role, decreed by God, to work for the family and the woman’s to stay home and raise the children? I’d be shocked to hear someone with this kind of attitude towards what women should be paid compared to men in my part of the world, but from what I understand about the American south, it is lot more religiously oriented and traditional, and the anecdotes of sexism that I hear just so happen to come from southerners. Is that coincidence?
gib, I am Southwestern, this was in Arizona not here in Mississippi.
Religion probably has affect probably as much affect as tradition. Males had the breadwinner job and females cared for hearth and kids.
We do not give up traditions and beliefs (good or bad) easily. This was back in the 80s. I do think there has been some change and change will continue. To expect immediate changes is unrealistic given our nature.
From the employer’s point of view I see this as a pretty straightforward business decision.
Women of fertile age are less likely to give you a return on your investment to train them, and that’s calculated into their negotiation process.
Also employers are always going to try to get away with paying anyone as little as possible, and it is a fact that women are more likely to settle for a lower salary than to walk out empty handed. Thus it makes perfect sense to give them a lower offer than you would give a man.
No business is interested in fairness. Their main interest is in showing profit to shareholders. Business is about bottom line and that is all there is to it.
As to how I deal with it…
If I am not happy with an offer, I send a counter offer. I typically can’t simply send the counter offer with my intended pay, since it is usually WAY more than what the original offer is (the original offer is usually well below market value). Usually I try to negotiate into the contract a probation period with an inflexible schedule for review and salary raises. This is how I manage to climb out of the gap instead of flat out walking out. It’s bullshit of course, since I have to work below market value for a while, but it is what it is. After about a year working for a company I’m able to name my price, and they usually pay up.
Still get some bullshit every now and then though. I don’t mean to say that there is systemic discrimination out there, other than what I previously stated, but I did get blatantly discriminated against once, such that if I wanted to, I actually had the right to sue them. But I didn’t. I don’t like to burn bridges. In fact I still gladly take contracts from them, though I’d never go full-time with them again. I get my payback in the long run
I agree with phon about women taking the offer rather than negotiate or walk out. We can look back at tradition for that. You know I wonder if there is a nesting need there. A tie to an instinct that can be strong in some, middle in some and little to nonexistent in others.
