Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Fall into the Wage Gap

Before computers, workers just stared at their desks.
In their attempts to downplay or simply deny the Wage Gap between men and women, MRAs often turn to a study by the CONSAD research company that was commissioned by the Bush administration. According to CONSAD, their analysis

demonstrates that it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt discrimination against women.

In plain English: we can't prove that any of the wage gap is the result of sexism.

But that may be because CONSAD didn't look in the right places, as Barry Deutsch, aka Ampersand, explains in a post on Alas, a blog that critiques the methology and the findings of the CONSAD study. Notably, he points out, CONSAD's analysis ignores the issue of occupational segregation, which is at the root of much of the wage gap, as properly measured. And it ignores many other, more subtle kinds of discrimination:

When discussing direct employer discrimination, it’s more realistic to discuss elements like selective hiring, training, promotion ladders, and other things that are a good deal more complex than CONSAD’s vision of the labor market allows for. Given two equally able applicants for a $40,000 job, one male, one female – which one will employers tend to prefer? Once hired, who is more likely to get mentored? Who is more likely to be given the assignments that lead to promotion? Who is more likely to be perceived as doing good work, all else held equal? And if these factors mean that women are rewarded less than men for identical labor market participation, to what degree does that reduce women’s incentive to participate equally in the labor market? All of these are ways that sex discrimination actually happens in the marketplace — and none of them are detectable by by CONSAD’s methods.

There's much more to his argument than this; I'd suggest reading the whole thing.

For more on the issue -- including excerpts from and links to other useful posts on the wage gap by Barry -- see my own Further Reading post on the subject.

75 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wage gap again huh?


    Ive seen one mens rights source quoting that study, Ive seen studies from a number of different countries that all replicate each other.

    The last Irish one suggested that the best way to close it might be to offer men the same flexibility and opportunities to take time off that women have available.

    Sweden ran into problem with that aspect of wage gap and considered making it mandatory for men to take as much off as women, they ended up leaving it optional and making it possible for the couples to use each other time off by arrangement. Most mother use the father's leave.



    If there was a sexist wage gap in america, single women wouldn't out earn single men.

    Wage gap is an illusion created by ignoring the fact that the family wage is combined.

    Truth be told, women have more money than men when we acknowledge that the family wage is in fact a combined wage and not separate wages, and the spending gap tell us that the female partner spends x5 more of that wage on herself than the male partner does.

    So of there is a wage gap, its in womens favour.

    "Occupational segregation", is that another way of saying differing career choices?

    ReplyDelete
  4. [citations please]

    Also, IIRC, the "single women" earning more than men are actually single women in their twenties in big cities. That's a small percentage of the female population.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes David, single women out earn men in big cities, in at least around 80 different occupations and at the higher levels of business.

    Here is your wage gap.

    “A strong majority of all working mothers (62%) say they would prefer to work part time.... An overwhelming majority [of working fathers] (79%) say they prefer full-time work. Only one-in-five say they would choose part-time work.” To close the wage gap, women’s groups are going to have to find a way to change women’s preferences and life choices.


    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1360/working-women-conflicted-but-few-favor-return-to-traditional-roles

    ReplyDelete
  6. If you read Barry's article and my "further reading" on the gender pay gap you will find many responses to that argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. But there is still a wage gap when you consider part time work.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sandy

    Wives that chose to work part time are in a combined wage. A wifes 50K part time plus husbands 100k full time = 150K combined. Its not a gap whats more she will likely spend more on herself, wear better shoes, have more clothes and in the event of divorce get at least half of the assets.

    Wage gap only exists when we pretend the family wage is not combined.


    David your sources are feminist sources, its advocacy research not real research. My sources are genuine research sources with outcomes that have been replicated in many countries in many studies.


    Family the key factor in gender pay division
    THE SINGLE most important factor perpetuating the pay gap between men and women is family responsibilities, research being published today shows.

    The Gender Wage Gap in Irelandreport from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) is the fifth in a series of reports arising from the Research Programme on Equality and Discrimination, commissioned by the Equality Authority. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0911/1224254278711.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Spam filter David.


    Sandy, economics tells that longer hours = more pay, it might seem unfair to you, but doing it your way would be an extreme injustice and there would be riots and economic collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So they have a reliable study that says you CANNOT prove nor disprove sexism in the so called wage gap and the feminist response is speculation.

    Amazing.
    Truly Amazing.

    Here's an evil "male" thought. Most men take more pride in their careers than their families and most women take more pride in their families than their careers and that is the cause of the "wage gap," if one even exists.

    What feminists really want, IMHO, is women making equal to men regardless of the amount of hours worked. Women having flex time and time to play with the rug rats and still getting paid as if they were full time workers. That's why these wage gap lies persist. Because feminists don't care how they get what they want, just that they get what they want. Lying is all part of the game.

    BTW that Alas a blog site sets off my McAfee warning filter.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  11. "David your sources are feminist sources, its advocacy research not real research."

    You say this all the time, but it's not true. Clearly you haven't even looked at my further reading post. The main sources for empirical data there are the GAO (govt agency), an investment firm, and a report by the AAUW that offers a straightforward empirical analysis of census data.

    I offer links to feminist analysis of this data. Since you won't even bother to read these sources and offer specific criticisms of them rather than simply dismissing them out of hand, there is no point in further discussing this issue with you.

    "economics tells that longer hours = more pay"

    That is true. Again, as is made clear again and again in the stuff I've already posted, this is NOT the cause of the real wage gap.

    The AAUW study -- and again, though AAUW is a women's organization the data they use is taken directly from the census -- compares full-time workers with full-time workers.

    The GAO specifically notes:

    "When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000. While the difference fluctuated in each year we studied, there was a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over the time period. Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women."

    That is, they correct for differences due to men and women working different numbers of hours.

    Barry also deals with this issue in the piece I link to on the wage gap page.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ David

    Most MRA's don't believe feminst sources. I'll never believe a feminst source. Never. Why? The same reason I don't believe creationist sources. The same reason I don't believe HBD. They are not, by definition, objective. They WANT a specific outcome.

    If tomorrow feminists did a study about taxes and the results were that women should pay more taxes would they publish and support it? Of course not.


    Why should I believe the same kinds who claimed that men go crazy after Superbowl Sunday and the abuse rate jumps astronomically? How often is a study later debunked and you see feminists on the news apologizing and correcting their study?

    I have never in my life seen it, and likely never will.

    They just come out with another study. Over and over again.

    I'll go with logic.

    And logic dictates if you can get away with paying women less, you could form your own all female company and beat the snot out of everyone. When I see THAT occur, I'll believe there is a wage gap.

    All the rest is feminists wanting their cake and eating it to.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  14. RB, you have just shown why there is no point to discussing anything with you, as you'll simply dismiss everything I say since I'm -- oh no! -- a feminist. So I guess the conversation is over.

    ReplyDelete
  15. If feminists want to be believed then when the err they should cop to it. They don't, as far as I've seen.

    I could be wrong, but I'm not going to be swayed by feminists studies, too many liars in the ranks. Your people have cried wolf too many times. (Not you necessarily - I'm beginning to think you're earnest, but just wrong).

    If it's tied, and not an interpretation, to a government study I might consider it.

    A question though. If there is a wage gap due to sexism, what do you suggest be done about it?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  16. Spam filter David.

    I'm with RB on this one David, feminist sources are not to be taken literally. Its all designed to conform to a belief system and an agenda.

    See how you value whats written on a blog over multiple studies from multiple countries? Thats because what the blog says conforms to your belief system and that belief system to you trumps reason and multiple credible sources from multiple countries that all say pretty much the same thing.

    Its also insulting and dis-empowering for women to deny them the reality of the outcome of their choices. Its like they are non people without agency to you. The reality is that they can chose their own life path.

    It also must be mentally unhealthy for the ones that live in the feminist false consciousness in which there is an unseen hand always plotting against them and holding them back.

    It would be far better to fight the people that are actually oppressing us, the ruling class that control all the wealth and have just recently enslaved us in bail out debt than it is to pit ordinary men and women against each other over a debunked wage gap conspiracy theory. I have a feeling that the ruling class know that only too well and laugh at feminists when they mistakenly blame ordinary men and lobby for their oppression.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'll never believe MRA resources. Why? They are not real research. They are not, by definition, objective. They WANT a specific outcome. So they can justify portraying all women as inferior, evil, selfish whores and all men as superior, good, perfect angels. Then they can control the world, put women 'in their place', take away their vote, get them out of the workforce, and force them into servitude so they can get sex on demand, be served, and bully them without consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Christine WE

    Mra's dont have mra sources, the movement doesn't real produce any research. We quote the independent research thats carried out by governments, universities and experts. Research that doesn't set out to conform to a specific belief system or superstition, its independent research that seeks to find out the truth.

    On the other hand feminist research is not just not taken seriously by mens rights people, its not taken seriously by independent researchers and academics either.

    And the rest of what you said is just paranoid bunk and/or stereotyping the mrm with the nonsense thats published by a tiny minority of idiots and feminist stereotypes of what the mrm is.

    At the end of the day, the MR is about equality between the sexes, there are a minority of traditionalists, usually american and religious but they dont seem to be going anywhere in the movement.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Christine WE said...
    I'll never believe MRA resources. Why? They are not real research. They are not, by definition, objective. They WANT a specific outcome.


    The central bureau of statistics in Germany is not an MRA resource.

    It corrected the German gender wage gap down from 23/24 percent AVERAGE to 8 percent MAXIMUM on 25th October 2010.


    Download PDF of the entire study

    https://www-ec.destatis.de/csp/shop/sfg/bpm.html.cms.cBroker.cls?CSPCHD=00000001000049flxfnU000000bwqWgK4yo_hWQtdyzGXkQg--&cmspath=struktur,vollanzeige.csp&ID=1026340

    Read additional information/explication
    http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pm/2010/10/PD10__384__621,templateId=renderPrint.psml

    ReplyDelete
  21. MRA's can't get funded to produce any research because the special interest groups and academic world are themselves slaves to the PCness of feminism ffs. My own research was denied funding because:

    "It's good Tasha, but the boys time has come and gone, the hypothesis is sound, just use girls instead"


    It was a study about trends in male identity achievement and interpersonal reciprocity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Eoghan,

    How do we know the studies MRA's use are not developed by people who support the MRM? Why should anyone believe that MRA's are not conducting studies specifically to further their cause? Of course they are. You claim any study that doesn't have results you like are feminist studies. Why should anyone believe that every study that has results MRA's don't like are "feminist" studies.

    The rest of what I wrote is the main theme of MRM websites,,,women are inferior and evil, men are good and perfect, blah, blah, blah. Deny it all you want. It's all over MRM websites in black and white proving you wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Christine WE

    Not Eoghan, but I'll answer this:

    "How do we know the studies MRA's use are not developed by people who support the MRM?"

    There's a revolutionary thing at the back of every published article or study, it's called a bibliography and it contains an alphabetized list of sources that the study or article relied upon to back up it's claims. With help from this thing called the internet, or, should you prefer, a library, one is able to search these sources individually and read them for oneself and thus may determine whether or not they are feminist, mra, or fucking tapioca.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Christine WE

    The credible independent research is not being carried out by an international secret cabal of undercover mra's. Thats like a creationist saying that satan is using minions to falsify evolution research, thats just paranoic nonsense.
    The independent research does not have the same characteristics as feminist research, in the same way that scientific research does not have the same characteristics as creationist research.

    One is genuine and the other seeks to conform to a belief system and specific agenda.

    Mra's quote the genuine research. Feminists quote advocacy research.

    And tell me what mra sites have you visited Christine or are you basing your opinion on what David Furtelle publishes here?

    ReplyDelete
  27. "For me, probably the most important kind of sexism going into the wage gap is the sexism of unquestioned assumptions; unquestioned assumptions about who does the housework, unquestioned assumptions about who does the child-rearing, unquestioned assumptions about innate ability, and most of all, unquestioned assumptions about how jobs are designed for people with wives at home.

    I call this last factor the “Father Knows Best” economy; most jobs implicitly assume that workers have wives at home who are taking care of the kids and house, so that these responsibilities never need to be accommodated by employers. Maybe that assumption made sense half a century ago, but it doesn’t make sense now; and by continuing to implicitly make this assumption, our economy is making it unfairly difficult for caretakers (who are usually women) to have careers."

    Yes, yes, yes! This deserved quoting... E.g. When MPAs go on about how men work longer hours they conveniently neglect that women work longer hours overall when we include housework. It's like, yeah, I'd work longer too if I had a wife/mother at home to prepare my meals, clean my house, iron my work clothes, etc, etc! However, if you instead have to go home and do that for 3 other people including yourself, that changes things quite a bit...

    The other thing is there is a lot of classism with this. Despite what several MPAs would have us believe, 1950s-style housewifes were only possible in the upper middle class families and up...most poor women worked...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yohan and Natasha, you should be aware that the empirical data I presented on the wage gap (in my further reading post on the subject) COMES FROM GOVT. SOURCES.

    Eoghan is going on and on about biased data, feminist this, feminist that, but that's because he never actually looks at anything I ever cite. He's not arguing in good faith here.

    To expand on what Christine said, the fact is that there ARE antifeminist ideologues who get cited by MRAs all the time -- MRAs are constantly citing the "research" of people like Warren Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers, both of whom are ideologues whose use of data is questionable. There are domestic violence researchers who are driven by antifeminist ideology as well.

    There ARE feminists who are similarly sloppy/biased with data, but I don't cite them here.

    At this point, I see no point whatsoever in debating with people who simply dismiss feminist research without even reading it. If someone is actually willing to engage in a real debate -- actually reading the information and arguments and sources I've put out there, and offering specific arguments against that, then we can debate. If not, there's no point.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Eoghan, this is almost all complete nonsense. Much of the research I have presented here is "independent" -- the bulk of the empirical data I presented on the wage gap came from US govt sources, for example. I've stated this several times already. But no, here you go again: "Mra's quote the genuine research. Feminists quote advocacy research."

    Well, yeah, if you define everything you disagree with, without reading or even looking at it, including government reports, as "advocacy research."

    But the thing is, I'm not going to debate this with you any longer. I'm not going to debate ANYTHING with you any longer.

    Life is short, and I really don't have time to debate anything with anyone who won't debate in good faith -- that is, anyone who regularly distorts what I say, puts words in my mouth, or rejects the information and studies I cite without even looking at them (because of their preconceived ideological notions or because of simply laziness). I am sick of wasting my time refuting your repeated lies and misrepresentations -- about me, about feminism, about everything.

    If you had raised specific questions about any of the specific sources I cites or arguments that I or others I cite had made, we could have had a discussion. But it's pointless.

    I have given you many chances, I have given you the benefit of the doubt too many times. No more.

    From now on I will simply delete your comments without reading them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yohan and Natasha, you should be aware that the empirical data I presented on the wage gap (in my further reading post on the subject) COMES FROM GOVT. SOURCES

    You should be aware too, that my data about the gender wage gap are from government sources, central bureau of statistics Germany, and are from 2010, this year.

    In this thread I do not see any link from you regarding any government source. About which government data are you talking and when were they published?

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is what I referred Eoghan to earlier:

    http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/further-reading-gender-pay-gap.html

    Also, the study you linked to is in German. Given that this is an English-language blog, that neither I nor (I imagine) most of the readers of this blog don't speak German, that's really not a useful addition to the discussion.

    NOTE: This should not be taken to mean that I think the US is the center of the universe, merely that it's not very helpful to post documents in one language on a blog that's in a different language.

    ReplyDelete
  32. TEC: how men work longer hours they conveniently neglect that women work longer hours overall when we include housework

    You cannot expect the employer to pay for housework of family members of the employees.
    What has this to do with the gender salary gap?

    ReplyDelete
  33. David, most people in Continental Europe do not use English for their daily conversation and English is not the national language of their countries.

    Men Rights movements, which you hate so much are however not only active in USA and UK.

    It's an international issue in all Western countries. Feminists want to control everything and this is not acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I find it absolutely laughably ridiculous how people can claim that most employers are evil misogynists who secretly want to pay women less.

    Wow what a MASSIVE COINCIDENCE!!!!!!!!!! You hear that? Most employers are anti-women. ROFL. If anyone ever made such a massive claim like that towards victimisation on men, it would be laughed at by the general PC populace.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yohan, I am well aware that there are people in the world who do not speak English. Most of them, as a matter of fact. However, I do speak English, and live in the US, and so this blog is in English and focuses mainly on the US.

    So posting links to articles/websites in German is not terribly helpful.

    Again, as I've said many times before, this doesn't mean that I think the US is the center of the universe, or that the MRM doesn't exist elsewhere, or that English speakers are the best, merely that I prefer to focus on the country I know best and to a lesser extent on countries in which most people speak the same language I do. Because that way I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING.

    I'm not quite sure why this is difficult for you to grasp.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ TEC or any other feminist

    TEC: "how men work longer hours they conveniently neglect that women work longer hours overall when we include housework"


    1. Why is this an employer's problem?
    2. Why should employer's pay women more because of this?
    3. Does this mean single women w/out kids should be payed less than married women and or women with kids?
    4. Don't you think a labryinth of laws of this kind would increase outsourcing?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't see at all where TEC stated that employers should pay women to do housework.

    @yohan, have you noticed that this is not even a blog FOR the MRM movement? All your incessant whining and demands that David change his views, his language, and his blog to suit you do not seem to be working. Perhaps you should stop trying to control David's blog and start your own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Christine

    I understand the posting from TEC in this way, housework done by women is one of the reason that men are earning more...

    -----

    I did never 'demand' that David is changing his native language, that's nonsense talk from you.
    I also cannot control his blog.

    And I have my own blog, and my friends have a forum.

    It is not wrong to expect from a person who is acting so aggressively against the MRAs, that at least he is honest in collecting information worldwide about men's rights and not only from the USA.

    If David does not want to see any comments from abroad (except feminist-only strict following the party-line of course), he should clearly mention it in his replies to me.

    It seems Bishopsinister is also understanding TEC's posting in this sense as I do, asking 'why is this an employer's problem?'

    ReplyDelete
  39. @ Christine WE

    Yohan has it correct with my pov about TEC's post. I don't think it should be any employer's problem about what goes on in an employee's home. If a woman works less hours than a man because her husband is "lazy" and he won't help out why should that be the employer's problem?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  40. Young women in large urban areas are now outearning their male counterparts because of the education gap. When the New York Times reported this story a few of years ago, did it celebrate this achievement as an indication that "the times, they are a changin'"? Of course not. It bemoaned the problem the new wage gap is creating for young professional women who have difficulty getting dates with their intellectual peers.

    Men have been taught from the time they are boys that their mission in life is to be "the breadwinner." Why? Women choose mates in large part based on men's earning capacities, as sexist and as "Leave it to Beaver" as that might strike enlightened people like you.

    The fact is, a woman who tells her fiance that she wants to take time off from work when they have children is called "a normal woman"; a man who tells his fiance he wants to take time off from work when they have children is called "an ex-fiance." Not in every case, thankfully, and this, too, seems to be changing. But very slowly.

    Here's another dirty little secret we're not supposed to talk about, but that every reasonably intelligent person knows: testosterone generally enhances competitive drive. That's true on the football field, behind the wheel of a car (sadly), and in the workplace.

    In your zeal to uncover some nefarious good old boys' club that is keeping women in their place, where presumably back-slapping misogynists drink brandy and tell sexist jokes, you and Barry blink at the elephant in the room: men and women are different, biologically and by cultural training. They have been taught from the earliest ages that their roles in life are different. The wage gap isn't some male plot to "take care of their own." (In case you haven't noticed, most men have little regard for other men and have no problem sending your son off to fight a war that won't benefit him.) If we really want to change the way things are done, more legislation won't do it -- we need to work on the women: the day women start picking mates based on their parenting skills is the day you will start to see a sea change in the the work-domestic dynamic. And my guess is, men will start concentrating more on fathering than getting ahead at work, because if there's one thing men like more than money and power and prestige, it's mating. Yeah. It's true, David: mating.

    Are there still some of those good old boys' clubs in companies throughout America? Of course. But not as many as you'd think. Times are rapidly changing, and the wage gap is more the result of a very complex mindset stemming from the different roles men and women have assigned themselves, a mindset that can scarcely be called "oppressive" or the result of discrimination -- except by people who find misogyny oozing from every crevice. (Nothing personal.)

    In any event, as an employer, I would be insane to hire a man over a woman with similar qualifications (education, experience, etc.) intending to pay him more. Even the most misogynistic board of directors wouldn't put up with that. Anyone in the business world understands exactly what I'm talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @bishopminister,

    It shouldn't, but I don't believe that was exactly what she was saying in her post.

    ReplyDelete
  42. nicko81m said...
    I find it absolutely laughably ridiculous how people can claim that most employers are evil misogynists who secretly want to pay women less...


    Archivist: In any event, as an employer, I would be insane to hire a man over a woman with similar qualifications (education, experience, etc.) intending to pay him more. Even the most misogynistic board of directors wouldn't put up with that. Anyone in the business world understands exactly what I'm talking about.


    I noticed, that all feminist blogs avoid any discussion about a 'female employer'. The employer is seen to be a rich male, a misogynist, a male cheating females for their work by paying less.

    But there are female employers. They are often highly active in fashion + design, art, in healthy food and vitamin drinks, in cosmetica and beauty saloons, shoes and bags, travels and sport activity for ladies ...

    1 -
    How do female employers treat their female and male employees? What are the differences between female and male employers, if any?

    2 -
    Do female employers pay more to female employees than male employers?

    3 -
    Do female employers prefer female employees to male employees when they are looking for new staff?

    4 -
    Do female employees prefer female or male employers? How do female employees see that situation?

    ---

    Does anybody know about any research regarding 'female employers'?

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Yohan, Bishop, Eoghan

    No, maybe re-read what the quotation that I highlighted??? Try re-reading my comment afterwards??? I never said that the employer should pay for housework. How did you get that? Oh right, from distorting and delibrately obfusicating what I said...

    The point was instead, about how jobs are designed for people with wives/mothers at home and this an insidious form of sexism that affects the typical woman's earning power.

    Again, try reading. (Obvy you didn't read Alas, a blog as cited in the OP or you would have realized I was commenting on the quotation from there...) Quoted again for the apparently illiterate MPAs here:

    "For me, probably the most important kind of sexism going into the wage gap is the sexism of unquestioned assumptions; unquestioned assumptions about who does the housework, unquestioned assumptions about who does the child-rearing, unquestioned assumptions about innate ability, and most of all, unquestioned assumptions about how jobs are designed for people with wives at home.

    I call this last factor the “Father Knows Best” economy; most jobs implicitly assume that workers have wives at home who are taking care of the kids and house, so that these responsibilities never need to be accommodated by employers. Maybe that assumption made sense half a century ago, but it doesn’t make sense now; and by continuing to implicitly make this assumption, our economy is making it unfairly difficult for caretakers (who are usually women) to have careers."

    Eoghan, cite your sources or STFU. You distort everything to match your fucked up lens without looking at actual research, so I have no intention of arguing with you unless you cite specific research since you have been shown that you continuously lie.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I'm not going to comment on Yohan's stupidity about female employers, but seriously, you gotta laugh at the examples he cites of female employers:

    "But there are female employers. They are often highly active in fashion + design, art, in healthy food and vitamin drinks, in cosmetica and beauty saloons, shoes and bags, travels and sport activity for ladies ..."

    Buhahahaha Yup, all wominz luv fashion, makeup and being fit for ther menz! *Puke* At least art is in there but I can't help but think this is another slur in that women are supposed to be more emotional and illogical, hence "art"...

    Also, ironically, wage gap critics usually cite the segregation of sexes into male/female jobs as a contributer...

    ReplyDelete
  45. Tec, absolutely right.

    Also, for various other commenters: It's not a question of evil misogynists conspiring to pay women less. It's a more subtle sort of sexism that infects the thinking of men and women both, and tends to shunt women into jobs and careers that pay less because they're associated with women.

    As for Eoghan, he can't post here any more. He was constantly posting bullshit, and was repeatedly warned not to misprepresent what other people had said. He kept on doing it, so now I delete anything of his as soon as I see it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Note to Eoghan: If you want to convince me to let you post here again, continuing to post after I've told you not to is not a way to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. TEC said:

    @Yohan, Bishop, Eoghan

    "The point was instead, about how jobs are designed for people with wives/mothers at home and this an insidious form of sexism that affects the typical woman's earning power."

    1. This is NOT and should NOT in any way, shape, or form be an employer's problem. 2. When someone starts a business he or she is generally thinking about one thing, and that is how to make a lot of money.

    BUSINESSES ARE NOT FLIPPING CHARITIES!

    THEY ARE NOT ESTABLISHMENTS TO MAKE FEMINISTS HAPPY AND PROVIDE GIGGLY JOY JOY EQUALITY!

    Businesses have no responsibilty to set up scheduling so that a woman can more easily work as much as a man because she married a lazy bum.

    IT'S NOT SEXISM. IT'S NOT MISOGYNY. IT'S CALLED YOUR PERSONAL LIFE IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!!! IT'S NOT THE BUSINESSES PROBLEM!!!!!!!

    Work more get paid more. Husband not doing enought to give you time to earn more money? Dump him and get a better husband. Jesus Haploid Christ!

    And if you make it the businesses problem even more American businesses will go overseas further crippling our economy, can you not understand that?

    What good is it to establish super feminist flex time when no companies will hire you?

    Why would a business put up with this shit from feminists, which basically claim they are being subtly sexist and risk lawsuits when they can just hire sane foreign workers?

    TEC FOLLOWED: "For me, probably the most important kind of sexism going into the wage gap is the sexism of unquestioned assumptions; unquestioned assumptions about who does the housework, unquestioned assumptions about who does the child-rearing, unquestioned assumptions about innate ability, and most of all, unquestioned assumptions about how jobs are designed for people with wives at home."

    1. Employers have no responsibilty to "design" a job with your rug rats in mind. 2. So now not asking questions = sexism? You are kidding me right?

    If women married stay at home men, like men used to marry stay at home women there'd be no problem now would there? But, no, being half insane feminsts you want businesses to turn themselves on their heads, WITH NO REGARD TO HOW IT AFFECTS THE BUSINESS OR THE ECONOMY!!!!


    Again all this crap that was posted is personal and should not be handled at all by the business. They set hours and rules. It's up to YOU to set up your life in such a way that you can abide by the hours and rules, either that or take a different job that works for you. Or hell start your own business and cater to every ridiculous demand that some feminut screeches at you.

    God help any business run by people with this sort of feminist thinking.


    TEC SAID: "Maybe that assumption made sense half a century ago, but it doesn’t make sense now; and by continuing to implicitly make this assumption, our economy is making it unfairly difficult for caretakers (who are usually women) to have careers."

    Then don't be caretakers, or hire a caretaker, or have a husband who wants to be a caretaker. A business has one main responsibility and that is to make money. It's not to give a crap about your personal life specifically your caretaking issues.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  48. Does anybody know about any research regarding 'female employers'?

    This was my question and it seems feminists are unable to answer it.

    Thanks to Bishopsinister for the comment, and yes, correct, a business is not a charity, regardless if the employer is male or female.

    And of course in case of large businesses, production will move overseas...

    TEC: Buhahahaha Yup, all wominz luv fashion, makeup and being fit for ther menz! *Puke* ...

    The lucrative market for products serving females is large, and of course there are female owners of such businesses.

    Not all women are poor, and not all women are employed as part-timer.

    Do female owners of companies pay more to female employees? This is a good question.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Do female owners of companies pay more to female employees?"

    I don't believe that they do. I think there was even one recent study -- I have no idea how scientific it was -- that suggested female bosses treated female employees worse than male bosses in many ways.

    But your question shows that you've really missed the point here. It's not a question of a cabal of evil male employers conspiring to pay women less, as Tec and I (and the post I linked to) have explained several times already. It's a question of widespread sexist assumptions that shunt women into lower-paying jobs. AS I stated quite plainly in my last comment, these are sexist notions held BY BOTH WOMEN AND MEN.

    If you (and Pierce aka Archivist) think that feminism is all about blaming evil cabals of men for everything, quite literally, you really have a distorted notion of what feminism is.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Missed the point? I don't think so, this topic is about gender salary gap and it is necessary to search how this 'gender salary gap' is created.

    And why not to investigate if there is a difference between male and female employers regarding their staff? What is wrong with that?

    There are female employers and therefore it makes sense to check if there are differences in their management regarding male and female employees.

    About lower-paying jobs:
    Higher qualification does not guarantee automatically higher paid jobs.
    Do we agree with that?

    The question is about what is your job and if are there vacancies for your job.

    Often there are NO vacancies for academics and this might be the main reason for what you consider as 'gender salary gap'.

    An electrician is not an academic, but he can find a good-paid job quickly everywhere.

    A biologist or historian is an academic, but if there are vacancies for such jobs is another matter.

    For sure in Western countries there are academics (males and females) who are jobless or are doing any low-paid job which has nothing to do with their studies.

    They cannot find a job which fits their educational background. Nowadays there are too many academics and not enough vacancies.

    Might be the majority of these jobless academics are women, as men are generally lower educated.

    When we offered a vacancy for a receptionist/telephon operator (not a very special job at all, but MUST speak 3 languages) over 400 women (and some men too) applied, almost all of them with academic background, young and jobless.

    But we had only ONE vacancy.

    So I hope you understand now, what I want to say...

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Bishop

    Okay, you do realize that most of what you quoted as what I was saying wasn't my words??? It was Alas, a Blog's post. Which you would know if you bothered to read the OP. And my original comment, and the comment after that, pointing out a second time it was Alas'.

    Unfortunately, since you miss the point completely, there's no point to continue with you on good faith that e.g. you're even bothered to try to understand my points or want a constructive debate. Instead, you're delibrately misconstruing what I say and literally putting words in my mouth which as best case scenario, is due to poor reading comprehension.

    Read the OP (since you haven't already), incl Alas,a Blog's critique as CITED then make an informed comment. Again, try, really this time, to read...

    ReplyDelete
  52. @David

    "It's a more subtle sort of sexism that infects the thinking of men and women both, and tends to shunt women into jobs and careers that pay less because they're associated with women."

    How can it be sexism when it's not the fault of the male gender?

    Women choose to be in careers that pay less. No one is stopping these women to do better. (especially men) It's not the fault of men or patriarchy, which simply means it’s not sexism.

    I think its time for women to hold some accountability for once! And stop blaming men or some other BS for their own failures! Yes that’s right, the failures that they are accountable for as they did it by their choice. No one is holding a gun to their head telling them to be in a less paying career.

    Face up to it and stop running behind the same old "poor oppressed women are victims for this or that reason" Act like adults for once and not like whiny children that believe they shouldn’t have any accountability.

    For christ sake, feminism makes women look like fools

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ TEC:

    Don't be disingenuos. Is this your new plan? To claim that everyone is misrepresenting what you said and then calling on David to ban them?
    Sickening.

    Fine then. I'll simply and try to pin down what your actual point of view is.

    1. If a business does not take into account a female employee's child care or child raising situation is it sexism in any way?

    2. What should be done to equalize the alleged wage gap, if it is due to women working less?

    A simple yes or no will suffice to start.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Is this your new plan? To claim that everyone is misrepresenting what you said and then calling on David to ban them?"

    There are a couple of things to point out here:

    1) You were misrepresenting her, confusing what she wrote with what she quoted from the Alas, a blog article. Which would have been clear if you'd actually had read what she wrote.

    2) You're misrepresenting her now. Where did she call for you to be banned? She just said it was pointless to argue with you since you're not actually reading what she's writing (or the article being discussed).

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ David

    1. See that this thing here ?

    It's called a question mark. I WAS ASKING IF THAT WAS HER PLAN NOT STATING THAT IT WAS HER PLAN

    GOT IT?

    So I'm not misrepresenting her, I'm asking if she is going to do action x, not claiming that she is going to do action x, can you see where those things are different?

    2. There is no indication in anything she wrote that she disagrees with you, nor Alas a blog, which holds the the ridiculous notion that not catering to a woman's personal life = sexism. If I'm wrong she can just go ahead and say so.

    3. I said upstream that I will NOT go to Alas a Blog or whatever it's called because it sets off my McAffe virus alert. I will not jack up my computer for feminist bullshit.

    4. But since this is so fricking difficult, I will simply it even further -

    DO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?

    A simple yes or no will suffice.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  56. Tec said...
    @Bishop
    Okay, you do realize that most of what you quoted as what I was saying wasn't my words??? It was Alas, a Blog's post.


    I see no difference between TEC and Ampersands, both are following a certain feminist party-line, almost like identical twins.

    DO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?

    Good question...I would say NO, why should they? Nowadays there are plenty of people looking for a job, and only a few vacancies. Therefore as employer I would accept the applicant who will bring me the best profit - troublefree.

    Only in case there are very few applicants and plenty of vacancies, employers might decide differently.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @Yohan - so then, I can assume that everything Henry Makov says you also agree with??? Or Christopher who wants to punch random strangers simply b/c they are women??? Well, okay, if you say so.

    As usual, you miss the point entirely: it's not whether I agree or disagree with Alas, a Blog, it's that, after pointing out TWICE that it wasn't my words, Bishop and yourself continued quoting as if it were my words. As I said, at best case, this is poor reading comprehension. You can't argue with someone like Bishop who doesn't comprehend what you're saying... it's pointless, and it's no longer a debate because debating implies rational discussion between two opposing, yet intelligent parties. Bishop is irrational and acting, ahem, hysterical...

    ReplyDelete
  58. @TEC

    DO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?

    You still fail to give a clear answer to a clear question.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Suddenly feminist's keyboards fail them.

    Random Brother.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ TEC:

    You gonna keep straddling that fence or are you going to answer the damn question?

    Again

    DO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?

    Yes or No.

    Random Brother.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "DO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?"

    I think businesses should do what they can to give male and female employees more flexible schedules, daycare, etc so that they can care for their kids. Plenty of businesses do this to some extent, as well as offering maternity/paternity leave, and this hasn't led to the collapse of the economy. (The current economic troubles have zilch to do with this.)

    I'm not sure what legislation is necessary, and what can be improved by changing attitudes and expectations, but it can be done. Businesses want good employees, and they can get good employees not only by paying well but by providing them with benefits (like flexibility, daycare, etc).

    ReplyDelete
  62. @Yohan - I asked YOU a question several times which you willfully ignored. So tell you what, you answer MY question, and I will happily answer yours.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @David

    I think there's also a lot of classism involved ie usually flextime and daycare are only available in positions that pay well and require a higher level of education. Intersectionality!

    "Plenty of businesses do this to some extent, as well as offering maternity/paternity leave, and this hasn't led to the collapse of the economy. (The current economic troubles have zilch to do with this.)"

    Before Bishop foams at the mouth again about how women are the cause of the economic collapse (as he has before), I would say that at least in the US, there were several factors leading to the economic issues such as a prolonged economic boom previously (and since economies cycle) and of course, very poor banking practices that largely haven't changed much since the last major depression in the 30s.

    But then this isn't the place to discuss Keynesian economics. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  64. @David:
    "It's a question of widespread sexist assumptions that shunt women into lower-paying jobs. "

    Are you saying that women do not choose these jobs because they are closer to home, have shorter hours, are more flexible, are safer, etc? Please demonstrate how this is shunting because I see lots of men working shitty jobs too.

    Please show me the multitude of female engineers, miners, construction workers, electricians, plumbers, etc who cannot get jobs in their field because it is assumed they should be receptionists or some other lowly paid worker. Just as with male workers, if you don't have a caregiver at home, you sacrifice your career or you don't have kids!

    ReplyDelete
  65. wdodman, a lot of this stuff is dealt with in the Alas, a blog post I wrote about in the first place -- some of the relevant portions have already been quoted by tec several times in this discussion so far. See also some of the links in my "further reading" piece on the wage gap, also mentioned in the comments above.

    ReplyDelete
  66. It seems that you fail to grasp the reality of how soundly that article was trounced in the comments by Ballgame and Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @ David

    Thank you for answering the question.

    DAVID SAID: "I think businesses should do what they can to give male and female employees more flexible schedules, daycare, etc so that they can care for their kids. Plenty of businesses do this to some extent, as well as offering maternity/paternity leave, and this hasn't led to the collapse of the economy. (The current economic troubles have zilch to do with this.)"


    This may work for larger businesses but it could be the kiss of death for small to mid sized ones. Also the fact that 'maternity/paternity leave hasn't lead to the collapse of the economy' doesn't mean such policies are good ideas, good for businesses, sustainable over the long term, nor that their negative effect is minimal.



    DAVID SAID: "I'm not sure what legislation is necessary, and what can be improved by changing attitudes and expectations, but it can be done."

    How in the world can you say this? If you don't know what is necessary then how can you be so sure?

    DAVID SAID: "Businesses want good employees, and they can get good employees not only by paying well but by providing them with benefits (like flexibility, daycare, etc)."

    In an economy with 9.8% unemployent businesses don't have to do any of this to get a good employee. Also as long as they can outsource laws like this will not help large amounts of women as companies who don't want to deal with this will outsource or go overseas and smaller companies will, IMHO, look for reasons NOT to hire women or women with children unless at the same time you also pass legislation mandating a certain amount of women in certain positions. And how will men react knowing that women will be legislated into jobs they don't necessarily deserve? Will her male coworkers feel she is an equal or just a privilidged joke? Who's going to mentor someone like that? There's already a saying that goes: Hire a woman, hire a lawsuit.


    Can't you see the danger in these laws increases a businesses apprehension towards female hires?

    Also the idea of businesses opening daycares? While some do, what about the liabiity? There would need to be background checks for teachers, cooks, proper safety procedures and items, dozens of other issues to deal with. When litte Johnny punches little Suzie and Johnny and Suzies parents work together and are at each others throats? This is not a headache that a smart business would likely want.

    The bottom line for me is that if you go in this direction you turn business from an organization whose primary goal is to make money into basically a social organization for "equality" that may also make money. I don't think that our businesses will be able to stand up to foreign companies who are not so hamstrung by these laws in a ever increasingly competitive world economy.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  68. TEC SAID: "Before Bishop foams at the mouth again about how women are the cause of the economic collapse (as he has before), "


    Kindly show me where I said that as I don't recall ever saying women were the cause of the economic collapse. Aren't you the one who is always hysterically whining about misrepresentation? Way to go team hypocrite.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  69. Maybe TEC is mixing up my comment with your comment.

    I said, feminism is non-productive and costs a lot of money.

    I also said, many Western countries do not have money anymore, therefore they will have to cut public funds for feminist organizations.

    Feminism canot survive without money from 'somewhere'.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @ Yohan

    The problem is the money from somewhere tends to come from men, and if you're taking money from men, while degrading and disenfranchising men at the same time, well, there's only so long that dog's gonna hunt.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  71. The only law I see needed on this is perhaps making it illegal for an interviewer to ask if one has children. The assumption that a mother will be a bad employee. No assumption can be made if the information is not known. Something women can do is, if they are married demand equal home duties from husbands.

    Also, the employers that are giving the benefits are simply trying to keep vauled employees. It's not that it's their job to manage an employees private life or work-life balance. Losing a critical employee because another company is offering better pay and benefits effects a companies bottom line. A company I used to work for is suffering just that. Let's not forget that employee discontent causes the company problems too.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Bishop - no i was refering to you. I am not misrepresenting you. You have said it several times, incl my favourite quotation of women and the economy was a hang nail compared to an amputation for men. Stupid and ignorant comments about the economy: there you have it. I can probably go search for the actual (several) quotations, but since we both know you said it, do you really want me to show what an ignorant and now hypocritical moron you are? Up to you...

    Moreover, the issues you are discussing really belong to classism - which I already pointed out i.e. only high-paying and highly-educated-requiring positions will be able to provide benefits. Also, it's very classist to assume women work b/c they want a "career". Most women, like men, work because they have to. This is important because you're assuming a universe where the caregiver (usually the woman) could just quit and/or be "taken care of" - which is almost NEVER the case. From this different perspective, you can see that mat/parental leave is a human right, not a privilege. Or do you think only upper-middle class or richer families should exist? I'm sure you and Yohan and John Dias do but you're WRONG!

    The other issue to consider is government support e.g. Canadians with children can get subsidies in order to support them (e.g. for daycare) and further subsidies for disabled children. Even the parent with partial custody e.g. "weekend dad" are eligible. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/cctb/menu-eng.html <--That's called giving a shit about children and promoting growth, unlike in the US. You pick up one end of the stick, you pick up both ends of the stick. IOW, you can't have it both ways. At the end of the day, you have to ask, are children important? If so, then people, both men and women, need the means and support to have them. I will never understand why this is toted as a "woman's" issue -it's not, it's an issue for everyone. For instance, are you not grateful that your parents were able to have you?

    Also, your assumptions such as the only way to have women/mothers in certain positions is to legislate a quota and the onus completely on the employer only shows such a clear lack of imagination. Xtra points out, it just could be illegal to ask whether the woman is a mother (similar to being illegal to ask their sexual orientation and religion.) In fact, there are a number of solutions, including preventing sexist fascist assholes like you from making totalitarian decisions.

    @Xtra - great points. :)

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ TEC

    TEC SAID: "@Bishop - no i was refering to you. I am not misrepresenting you. You have said it several times, incl my favourite quotation of women and the economy was a hang nail compared to an amputation for men. Stupid and ignorant comments about the economy: there you have it. I can probably go search for the actual (several) quotations, but since we both know you said it, do you really want me to show what an ignorant and now hypocritical moron you are? Up to you..."

    I am not some whiny, weak, screeching feminists. If I'm wrong, I'll go ahead and say so. So do your search and PROVE IT ALREADY!

    TEC SAID: "Moreover, the issues you are discussing really belong to classism - which I already pointed out i.e. only high-paying and highly-educated-requiring positions will be able to provide benefits. Also, it's very classist to assume women work b/c they want a "career". Most women, like men, work because they have to. This is important because you're assuming a universe where the caregiver (usually the woman) could just quit and/or be "taken care of" - which is almost NEVER the case. From this different perspective, you can see that mat/parental leave is a human right, not a privilege."

    No. You don't magically become a caregiver. A woman by in large chooses to have children. In your fake narrative you skip over that crucial point. Since she made the choice to become a caregiver/parent it is wrong to make a business responible for her nights of humping.

    TEC SAID: "Or do you think only upper-middle class or richer families should exist? I'm sure you and Yohan and John Dias do but you're WRONG!"

    Well if you feminuts have your way you'll pass so many laws that we'll all be impoverished.

    CONT

    ReplyDelete
  74. CONT

    TEC SAID: "The other issue to consider is government support e.g. Canadians with children can get subsidies in order to support them (e.g. for daycare) and further subsidies for disabled children. Even the parent with partial custody e.g. "weekend dad" are eligible. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/cctb/menu-eng.html <--That's called giving a shit about children and promoting growth, unlike in the US. You pick up one end of the stick, you pick up both ends of the stick. IOW, you can't have it both ways. At the end of the day, you have to ask, are children important?"

    Oh, no! The dreaded what about the childen defense. Tell me something TEC, if business is responsible for aiding the mother with these children, do business then have any rights towards the mother and the children?

    Nonetheless, caring about children is swell and all but it should be up to the individual business. By forcing more and more business to provide crap like daycare you make companies less competitive to the overseas market and stop make people from starting businesses to begin with.


    TEC SAID: "If so, then people, both men and women, need the means and support to have them. I will never understand why this is toted as a "woman's" issue -it's not, it's an issue for everyone. For instance, are you not grateful that your parents were able to have you?"

    What? So now you're anti abortion? Let me try to simplify this for you. The laws that you are for only work with sufficient money behind them. We (meaning the U.S.) are broke. So as you agree with or root for and push for more of these laws the more likely it is that the economy will collapse and then there will be no jobs for anyone.

    TEC SAID: "Also, your assumptions such as the only way to have women/mothers in certain positions is to legislate a quota and the onus completely on the employer only shows such a clear lack of imagination. Xtra points out, it just could be illegal to ask whether the woman is a mother (similar to being illegal to ask their sexual orientation and religion.) In fact, there are a number of solutions, including preventing sexist fascist assholes like you from making totalitarian decisions."

    The bottom line is that business are not democracies nor charities. All these left wing ideas you think are so wonderful and special are death. You don't pull these sort of stupid pro woman's whims laws when a country is 13 trillion dollars in debt.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ TEC

    The first half of my post got lost.

    Basically show me where I said that, if I'm wrong I'll apologize.

    Also, women don't become caretakers by magic. Mostly they choose to be caretakers. Since businesses have no hand in that decision, there should be no forced daycares and the like on the businesses nor taxpayers dime.

    If feminists are so for these things why don't they pay for them?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis