Pollitical Corectness

[crysede]

Many women want to have children and a large number look forward to being the primary caregiver (whether they stay home full-time or not). There are some families that are already 50-50. So, to get the overall "systematic" 50-50 balance that indicates 'equality' in this arena (indicating an "equal choice" between men and women in regards to caregiving and career), then there should be approximately the same number of men operating as primary caregivers as women with some number of families in the "shared" catagory.

As far as pressure to have children. I'll agree with you that men don't recieve as much "pressure" as women to have children. Though, I must admit, in the process of bringing a child into the world, a women bears the brunt of the workload and are percieved to have the primary role. That probably won't change..LOL.

However, men do have some "pressure" to get married and have children. Parents generally want to have grandkids and are usually not shy about being vocal about it whether their offspring are male or female. There is probably some internal "pressure" to procreate, though it's hard to quantify. Another source of pressure is "society". If a man doesn't get married, then he is often percieved to prefer the company of men. Though some don't consider that as a "negative pressure", many still do.

Remember that my argument is not that demographic inequality proved that women were treated unfairly - it was that systemic unfair treatment (which it appears that we agree exists) was the most reasonable explanation.

There are many different reasons for my holding this to be the most reasonable explanation: two of the ones I have talked about in this discussion are the facts that women are being treated unfairly, and, perhaps the most damning one: that as this unfair treatment has been decreasing, the number of women choosing to have careers has been increasing.

There is no rational for suggesting that up to now women have been being treated unfairly by social pressure - but all of a sudden this pressure has magically ceased to affect us. It makes more sense to assume that it is still unfairly pressuring women in their choices.


BTW, love your new av! I've always loved classical architecture, there's such strength in its simple beauty.

 

[crysede]

To Get Back to Issue of Freedom of Choice:

I think at this point I have to concede that, if you have truly never felt any burden from social pressure, and cannot imagine how hard it can be for some to continue to exercise freewill when their lived experience of what it means to be a woman is rejected by society in favour of a definition that does not include them; if you cannot imagine how socially isolating it can be to not see one's own life reflected in the lives of the women portrayed in popular culture; and if you really and truly cannot imagine family pressure more sever than a husband or mother saying 'darling I think you should do such-and-such'; then perhaps there is nothing I can say to convince you of how hard it can be for many women to reject social ideals and forge their own path based on what they want, rather than on what society tells them they want.

But I know you're a good poet, and sensitive to the messages contained in poetry - so I will make one last attempt to explain my point of view to you, using poetry:

 

[crysede]

Maidenhead - by Alice Fulton

In the closet, the dress lives, a deep white in its vinyl
bag, its crepe ivoried, tartared
like a tooth, feeding on what leaks through
the zipper's fervent mesh, an unmentionable,
unworn, waiting, immortally in mind. Open

a window, please, I'm feeling faint. On the bus home
from school, I'm reading Dickinson, living on her

aptitude for inwardness and godlessness, thinking
of the terror she could tell to none
that almost split her mind.
She made solitude honorable. But how hard
it would be to keep ink off a white dress
or keep black cake crumbs or lily pollen off,

how difficult to have only one dress and that one
white. Unlikely really, likely

to be a myth. But don't tell me that at seventeen.
I wear the same harsh uniform each day.
Narrow choices seem natural, strictures
more common than their opposite,
and I am always famished, crushed
on the bottom stair, the door closing
its rubber lips on my hair, trapping
lengths of it outside-

Last one in is an old maid. Your aunt is
mental, some kid says. There is a lace

of nerves, I've learned, a nest of lobe and limbic
tissue around the hippocampus, which on magnetic resonance
imaging resembles a negative of moth.
She felt a funeral in her brain. Somehow I get the fear
of living in the world's unlove forever
better than I get the cheerleaders' braced grins.
I understand my aunt's mind as the opposite of
Dickinson's, though Dickinson also was unnormal, her white
matter more sparkingly aware.

You understand the dress in stanza one is mine,
my one white dress, in which I'll never

shine at graduation, in whose chaste V
the nuns won't stuff linty lumps of Kleenex
to keep covertness whole. In winter in upstate
New York, the snow is too bright on the bus window,
too crusted with singular crystals that toss
sun around inside them the way diamonds pitch
the light between their facets,

gloss to gloss. My aunt lived alone, as you do,
and if that sounds presumptuous, I meant it

in the sense that your head is mostly cloistered
though symptoms of your innerness leak out.
You know, the blush of a pink diamond
is caused by structural strain.
But her aloneness was deeper, I think,
than your own. Hers extended miles below
the surface, down, deep down
into pleats where no interfering rays
can reach and thought is not veiled

so much as sealed. A cap of lead.
Not veiled

since a veil's a mediatrix, at least in the West,
negotiating sun and glance. Veils screen
a virginal reserve == the mind, I mean, or maidenhead,
a crimp at the threshold, figured as door ajar or slip
knot now, once thought to be homogenous,
a membrane nervous and dispersed
throughout the body, more human than female,
both linkage and severance, the heart and brain
sheathed in its film of flesh and pearled
palladium effect. It is the year the nuns change

their habits at Catholic High, while the senior girls
spend recess studying Modern Bride, learning

how Honiton == a bone lace
favored for Victorian veils == was rolled
rather than folded for storage, sprinkled
with magnesia to remove the oily substance
which gathered after contact with the hair,
cleaned by being covered
with muslin and the muslin lathered
and rubbed until the lace below was soaked,
at which time it was rinsed, dried betwixt

the folds of a towel and sunned
for twelve hours till it looked new

and had no smell. If anything has no smell, it's a gem
and gems are seldom, the rare results
of deviance beneath earth's skin, of
flukey stresses that get carbon to exalt into
the flicker of a pre-engagement ring, a baby diamond,
as solid and as spectral as
a long white dress flaunted by a
girl with nothing else. There's an optical effect,
interference, I think it's called, that puts the best
light on a gem's flaws, transhimmering
its fissures into vivid == Your flaws
are the best part of you, Marianne Moore wrote,
the best of me too, though as I write it, I recognize
an obvious misquote. Stet and stet again,

place dots under material marked for deletion
and let it stay, let the starved crystal raise

its hackles across the gap inside the gem ==
the trapped drop become a liquid momento,
let wave trains of light collide
from aberrations and give the thing a spooky glow.
Prove-like a Pearl. The paranormal glow

or "orient" of pearls exists between
the nacre shingles, and nacre begins, as is

well known, with injury, a dirt that must be
slathered with the same emollient
used to line the inside of the shell. Solitude deepens,
quickening, whether hidden or exposed as those girls
sunbathing by the gym at noon in the thick of winter,

Janelle, the only black girl in the school,
who covers the white album with foil

and buries her face in the blinding book it makes
so that, as she explains, her skin might reach
the shiny jet of certain Niger tribes
or the saturated blue-black of subdural bleeding.
Her transistor, meanwhile, plays a blues that goes

I got a soundproof room, baby, all you got to say is
you'll be mine. I visited

Dickinson's white dress in Amherst where
it stood in her room, looking so alive it might be
but for the missing head. The phantom pains,
escaping diagnosis, led to bolts of shock-
and tines of shudder-volting through
her mind, my aunt's, that is-stricken into

strange, her language out of scale to what
she must have felt, and Dickinson's metaphors-

And then a Plank in Reason broke-no help.
The doors are locked
to her little house, she has removed
the knobs, leaving deflorations you can peek through
once your eyes adjust, up the stairs and to the left

beyond the thresholds' velvet ropes you'll glimpse
the shell pink walls and hope chest full of failed

trousseau beside the single bed.
Look in upon that sunburst clock, the china creature
on a leash, some pearls unstrung, convulsions of-
the Frigidaire and oilcloth and radiator's
blistered pleats, the slot in which
we slip our fare-

"I sweat blood over this," the dressmaker sighs
at the final fitting, and I can believe it,

the pattern-imported, the seams-so deep,
the stitches-so uncatholic and so-
made for me. Snap out of it
someone says as we gain traction and wind
parts my hair, parts the comfort drops
my lenses float on, and I lean against
the door, the white lines vanishing
beneath us == the measure rolling on the floor ==

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Re: To Get Back to Issue of Freedom of Choice:

I think at this point I have to concede that, if you have truly never felt any burden from social pressure, and cannot imagine how hard it can be for some to continue to exercise freewill when their lived experience of what it means to be a woman is rejected by society in favour of a definition that does not include them; if you cannot imagine how socially isolating it can be to not see one's own life reflected in the lives of the women portrayed in popular culture; and if you really and truly cannot imagine family pressure more sever than a husband or mother saying 'darling I think you should do such-and-such'; then perhaps there is nothing I can say to convince you of how hard it can be for many women to reject social ideals and forge their own path based on what they want, rather than on what society tells them they want.

I didn't say it wasn't difficult. I think it's very difficult. Many people wilt under that kind of pressure. There are others, however, who delight in being different, delight in their independent streak and are happy to take "the road less travelled".

I'm glad that there's less stigma now for women who choose an alternative path and I hope that the trend continues.

My Aunt chose that path. She worked most of her life and never had children. She is as dear to me as my parents and she was just visiting last week (on her way from Hanoi to Martha's Vineyard. She doesn't let it bother her. I will grant that she's one in a billion, and she's unusually resilient. She is my "close" experience with this sort of issue.

Unfair is a loaded word too. It's "unfair" that childen taunt each other, so I guess unfair can work here too. But, as with childrens taunts, I think there will always be "pressure" for women to have children (men too). I think we should keep kids from taunting so much too even though I think it will always be there as I believe there shouldn't be so much pressure to settle down and have kids.

What ideas do you have to continue the trend towards de-stimitization for people who choose not to have children. I'm all for it. Maybe more valuation on the contributions people make towards society? That's a good way, each of us contributes to the overall good in our own way. I think there's far too little time and effort spent praising the different kinds of contributions that people make.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

That's a haunting poem. It is full of emotional angst.

 

[crysede]

Yes, there is a lot of pain in that poem; it is perhaps the most evocative portrayal of the affect of unfair social norms that I have found. Alice Fulton is one of my favourite modern poets, she is able to express a tremendous amount in very few words.

I didn't say it wasn't difficult. I think it's very difficult. Many people wilt under that kind of pressure. There are others, however, who delight in being different, delight in their independent streak and are happy to take "the road less travelled".

Many may 'delight in the road less travelled', but the women who were pioneers in their fields did not find combatting social ideals 'delightful' - fighting social norms is frustrating, demoralizing, isolating, and painful. It's something you do because when you see there is injustice you can't sit by and do nothing, it's not something you do for fun.

Unfair is a loaded word too. It's "unfair" that childen taunt each other, so I guess unfair can work here too. But, as with childrens taunts, I think there will always be "pressure" for women to have children (men too). I think we should keep kids from taunting so much too even though I think it will always be there as I believe there shouldn't be so much pressure to settle down and have kids.

But we're are talking about two different types of unfairness here - I am talking about systemic unfairness that is built in to our society, you are talking about individual instances of unfairness. Some men may face pressure from some family members to have kids - but they do not face this pressure from society as a whole, they do not face the majority of the responsibility of raising and nurturing the children, there is no lack whatsoever of positive portrayals of confirmed bachelors in popular culture, there is no lack of social acceptance that a man can lead a full and happy life - and be a 'real' man - even if he does not have children.

What ideas do you have to continue the trend towards de-stimitization for people who choose not to have children. I'm all for it. Maybe more valuation on the contributions people make towards society? That's a good way, each of us contributes to the overall good in our own way. I think there's far too little time and effort spent praising the different kinds of contributions that people make.

I don't think there has been any sort of trend towards freeing men from the burden of social pressure to have children - I don't think that there has ever been any systemic pressure applied to men in this regard - Western society as always allowed men this choice. On the other hand, it is only recently (in the last 100 years) that women have even been thought of in terms other than reproductive ones - in the recent past women who did not have children were asserted to be physically, mentally, and morally defective.

Rather than more value on the contributions people make across the board, I think it would be more helpful to equalize the values we currently place on contributions. I think the domestic contributions of men should be valued more highly, rather than being ridiculed as being emasculating; and the social/political contributions of women should be valued more highly, rather than being ridiculed as whining and bitching, or ignored as irrelevant.

Originally posted by LovetoGiveRoses
Women are often in lower paying career fields. The reason why some career fields are lowing paying than others is a ecoomics question and I don't think part of this thread.

When women and men are in the same line of work (same jobs) and you correct for length of time worked, work hours, and education...there is no differential for men and women's rate of compensation (US census data).

It appears that our tangent into why women tend to be in different occupations, and why they are less likely than men to work, may not actually have been necessary in order to show that women are subjected to systemic unfair treatment (but I certainly don't regret that it has come up, it is a very interesting topic in itself). I've looked for this study you cite (in the above quote), and have located numerous federal studies that use US census data, and that correct for these factors - and not one of them agrees with your statement - in fact, not one of them even comes close to agreeing with your statement. Could you tell what department published the study you quoted from, or give me its report number, so I can look it up? Perhaps you misinterpreted the data somehow.

U.S. Department of Commerce report RS # 151 states that the average earnings of women employees ($20,152) were 35.3 percent lower than the average for men employees ($31,123). This study then corrected for the effects of non-gender determinants of earnings, including (but not limited to) the following:

• differences in education
• differences in hours worked
• race
• whether the work was full or part-time status
• physical disabilities
• geographic location
• type of occupation chosen

Once the data was corrected for these non-gender variables, the average earning of women was still 21.8 percent lower than that of men employees.


In a far more detailed analysis of the census data from 2001 (done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics), (click here to see the complete study as a pdf document) table 3 (pages 9 through14) shows a breakdown of weekly wages for full-time working women vs. men for over 600 different occupations. There were a grand total of 2 occupations in which women earned more then men - in both cases earning 3% more than men - in all the other cases women earned less then men, usually between 25-35% less then men working in the same occupations.

This data is, by its very nature, corrected for the greater percentage of women who do not work full time, and for the career choices women make, and yet still shows that women, on average, earn only 76% of what men earn in the same fields.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

You make it sound like women are the only one's that get any kind of pressure and you dismiss outright that adults with young adult male children might chide their children to get married and start on the grandkid path. Not that that's a bad thing, I think it's a fairly natural thing.

You also make it sound as if those parents are doing some sort of evil by wanting their young adult daughters to have children too.

Now, what other "systemic" pressures are there for young adult women to have children other than family pressure? The workplace doesn't require it, the US government actually de-incentivizes marriage and leaves a paltry tax break for children, does the press mention it? Not the magazines or newspapers that I read (though I don't read Cosmo, Redbook or any of those). Maybe there are some, but they are more of the nature of wagging tongues than any sort of "systemic" injustice. If you let wagging tongues get to you, that's another thing.

This is not meant to minimize the efforts of women who have been pioneers. I applaud them. There are may reasons why I applaud them. First, they are brave for doing what they've done. Second, I firmly believe in equal rights and these women are doing a great service to equal rights. Third, our overall standard of living (along with other things like better medicine, longer lives, a better educated/more interesting populace that are all attendent on improving standards of living) rises with more of our population free to realize their potential.

I can even agree with you that women have more "pressure" than men. I think women are percieved to be more primary in the role of birth and in nurturing. Though, for most, I wouldn't even call this "pressure", at least I'd take away negative connotations if you're adding some. I'll be wanting grandkids. It's part of the continued existance of the species.

I agree with you that for most of human history, women didn't have much choice. In fact, in most places outside of US, Canada, Europe and Australia, women still don't have much choice. It's unfortunate that more women don't have choice, though I'm not ready to go to the middle east and tell them to change the situation (they're soveirgn states).

You make it sound like having kids and raising them is some sort of "unfair" burden that's foisted on women and that we'd be much better off developing some sort of birthing machine to free women from their "shackles of womenhood". As long as people are making choices whether they want to: 1) be a full-time parent, 2) work full-time in a career, or 3) be a parent and to work a career, then I don't think that there's a big problem. It's too bad that some women who don't want children have to listen to their mothers, families and friends ask about it, but that is not a big thing as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to tell my mother to stop giving "hints" about wanting more grandkids to my little brother. LOL.

I think it's bad to be constantly pressured. It's not pleasant to have to deal with that all the time. I'm not sure it will ever change though. I don't know what to do with it though. Our laws already provide for choice in career advocation and that's a very good thing.

You might ask, why aren't there more women in leadership positions? That's an interesting questions too.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Here's one, though it only refers to Gender in science and technology:

I'm looking, I don't remember where I saw it. It was probably the Washington Post or the Washington Times. I'll search more when I have time. This one does relate to the type of work you do though I think.

Research: Sex, Science, & Statistics

Contact: List Editor <sciencenews@nas.org>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 2002 -- The participation of women in science and engineering has long been a contentious issue in the academy, and new findings from a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) seem unlikely to put the controversy to rest.
The committee's report, entitled From Scarcity to Visibility: Gender Differences in the Careers of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers, is a book-length analysis of data from several national surveys, such as the National Science Foundation's Survey of Doctoral Recipients (SDR). It was prepared by a panel convened by the NRC's Committee on Women in Science and Engineering. Chaired by J. Scott Long of Indiana University, the panel also included Georgine Pion (Vanderbilt University), Anne Preston (Haverford College), Lee Sechrest (University of Arizona), and Lilli Hornig, a retired professor of chemistry.

Using data from the 1973, 1979, 1989 and 1995 survey years, the panel examined how female participation in scientific fields has changed over time. It also considered how background characteristics, labor force behavior, and career outcomes differ by sex-particularly for academic scientists. Perhaps its most fundamental finding was that females are earning an increasing proportion of doctorates in science and engineering, yet not participating in the S&E workforce at commensurate levels.

This article highlights findings that seem most relevant to controversies surrounding the hiring and promotion of women into academic positions. Unless otherwise noted, outcomes refer to the 1995 survey year.

Attrition from the Scientific Workforce

Sex differences in attrition from the S&E workforce were evident from the very earliest career stages, with considerably more females than males failing to enter the fulltime S&E workforce on receipt of their doctoral degrees. More than 90% of males who earned a doctoral degree in 1994 were employed full-time in science and engineering during the following year. The corresponding figure for females was below 80%. Of those females not working full time in S&E, the lion's share held a part-time position or had opted for full-time work in other fields.

The sex difference in full-time S&E employment was seen not only among new recipients of doctoral degrees, but at every career stage. Overall, 17% of females with S&E doctorates, as compared to 6% of males, were not working fulltime in S&E. The higher prevalence of part-time work among females was the primary contributor to this disparity. However, a greater tendency of females to leave the workforce voluntarily also played a role. The number of females describing themselves as voluntarily out of the labor force (but not retired) varied from a low of about 4% among new doctoral recipients to 7% among those who had earned their degrees in 1965. For males the corresponding figures ranged from near 0% to 2%. Very few individuals of either sex reported being unemployed and seeking work.

Sex differences in the proportion of individuals working full-time outside of science and engineering also varied among fields. Among those with doctorates in the social and behavioral sciences, males were actually more likely than females to report working full-time outside of the field of their doctorates. By contrast, among those with degrees in the life and physical sciences, the pattern was reversed.

The impact of marriage and childbearing on career trajectory was clear. In the panel's words, "differences between men and women in labor force participation are eliminated if we compare single men to single women."

 

[crysede]

Here's one, though it only refers to Gender in science and technology:
...

But that doesn't say anything about men and women getting equal pay for equal work in those fields - it doesn't mention earnings at all.

The federal study I provided a link to does list the weekly wage (for 2001) for full-time male and female employees in a lot of different scientific fields, and women's is significantly lower than their male colleagues' in every case.

 

[crysede]

You make it sound like women are the only one's that get any kind of pressure and you dismiss outright that adults with young adult male children might chide their children to get married and start on the grandkid path. Not that that's a bad thing, I think it's a fairly natural thing.

No I don't, I just said that what they face is not systemic because they do not face this pressure from society as a whole, they do not face the majority of the responsibility of raising and nurturing the children, there is no lack whatsoever of positive portrayals of confirmed bachelors in popular culture, there is no lack of social acceptance that a man can lead a full and happy life - and be a 'real' man - even if he does not have children.

You also make it sound as if those parents are doing some sort of evil by wanting their young adult daughters to have children too.

NO I most certainly do not - you continually interpret my words as implying intent, but this is absolutely and totally unjustified, as we have discussed over and over again. When I say I mean unfair - I MEAN UNFAIR! I do not mean evil, malicious, brutal, cruel, tyrannical, etc. (please don't make me post that tediously long and detailed analysis of the dictionary definitions again! God that was painful lol)

Now, what other "systemic" pressures are there for young adult women to have children other than family pressure? The workplace doesn't require it, the US government actually de-incentivizes marriage and leaves a paltry tax break for children, does the press mention it? Not the magazines or newspapers that I read (though I don't read Cosmo, Redbook or any of those). Maybe there are some, but they are more of the nature of wagging tongues than any sort of "systemic" injustice. If you let wagging tongues get to you, that's another thing.

Your wording "what other" implies that family pressure is a systemic unfairness - this is not the case: family pressure is NOT systemic - but systemic unfairness CAN result in family pressure. You are the only one who has been focussing solely on family pressure - I have been mentioning it in passing when discussing the issue of systemic pressure.

An example of the systemic unfair treatment I have been talking about in my last several posts is the fact that women who choose to devote themselves to their work rather than have a family are responded to very differently than men who making the same choice. The men are seen only in positive terms, as being dedicated - the women are also seen as dedicated, but there is an underlying sense that there is something very odd about them: their lack of a family is routinely brought up in articles written about them as something that needs to be explained (often there is some analysis of what happened in the early life to make them willing to accept the isolation of not having a family.) I object to both the outright claims, and the thinly veiled insinuations, that women who choose this path are abnormal in some way (or are confused/misguided), when men who chose this path are not.

That society holds out to women that they are not 'real' women and cannot be fulfilled as a woman, unless they raise a family - and that unlike men, women with children, who chose to work, are often faced with negative attitudes that they are being 'bad' mothers, and that a 'good' mother would stay home with her children. Men don't face this, a working father is never accused of being a 'bad' father for not staying home.

I can even agree with you that women have more "pressure" than men. I think women are percieved to be more primary in the role of birth and in nurturing. Though, for most, I wouldn't even call this "pressure", at least I'd take away negative connotations if you're adding some.

I would call the our society's continuing to assume that women are naturally better care givers, and naturally the nurturing ones, unfair. As I've said before, I find this biological argument ridiculous. There is no evidence what so ever that suggests women naturally need to dedicate themselves to their children, and men don't. I have often heard fathers saying that they deeply regret not being able to spend more time with their children - why do we (as a society) take this regret seriously only when it is expressed by women? There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that women are naturally better caregivers - men love their children just as much as women do, and feel the need to protect and nurture them; children do not suffer if they are raised by a single father rather than a single mother (being raised by both parents is, of course, preferable).

The fact the men are the 'rational' ones, and women are the 'nurturing' ones, is a perfect example of systemic unfair treatment of women - that both devalues the role of nurturer (since its just 'women's work'), and insists that all women are compassionate, nurturing, and put the welfare of others first. Women who don't live up to this ideal, and instead are assertive, independent, out for their own survival, and competitive (traits that are praised in men) are penalized by society for being 'unfeminine' and are labelled 'shrill', 'whiny', 'bitchy', 'catty', 'cold' or 'heartless'.

You make it sound like having kids and raising them is some sort of "unfair" burden that's foisted on women and that we'd be much better off developing some sort of birthing machine to free women from their "shackles of womenhood".

No, that's not what I'm saying - you are making it sound like this all by yourself with not help from me whatsoever. What I have said, over and over again, is that I want the social pressure, and social responsibility, for rearing children to be shared equally between men and women. I DON'T want men to be treated unfairly instead of women, I DON'T want no one to have any responsibility for caring for children - what I want is for men and women to be held equally responsible.

It's too bad that some women who don't want children have to listen to their mothers, families and friends ask about it, but that is not a big thing as far as I'm concerned.

Whoa, hold it - not a big problem? The fact that society encourages parents to feel disappointed in their daughters if they don't have a family is not a big problem?! I think that's a huge problem.

A friend of mine got her PhD recently, and got top honours in her department - she was thrilled of course, and immediately called her parents to tell them the good news. They were also happy for her, but at the end of the conversation her mother remarked "But you know dear, I'd rather be a grandmother than the mother of a PhD." Her mother didn't say it to be hurtful, it was just an off hand comment, pointing out what society sees as obvious. My friend was devastated - she had just discovered that to the person she loved the most, she wasn't a successful academic, she was a disappointing failure as a woman. The fact that society tells men women and children that this is, indeed, the case - tells us that my friends mother 'should' be upset about merely being the mother of a PhD rather than a grandmother - is a really freakin' big problem!

This is not meant to minimize the efforts of women who have been pioneers. I applaud them. There are may reasons why I applaud them. First, they are brave for doing what they've done. Second, I firmly believe in equal rights and these women are doing a great service to equal rights. Third, our overall standard of living (along with other things like better medicine, longer lives, a better educated/more interesting populace that are all attendent on improving standards of living) rises with more of our population free to realize their potential.

OK, so you agree that these women were fighting against systemic unfair treatment. Since you don't believe it exists today, exactly when do you think that the women and men fighting for equal rights for women within society managed to abolish the last of the systemic unfair treatment?

Was it in 1920 when women got the vote?

Or 1974 when the courts determine it is illegal to force pregnant women to take maternity leave on the assumption they are incapable of working in their physical condition?

Perhaps in 1976 when, in a groundbreaking ruling, marital rape becomes a crime in Nebraska (prior to this a wife could not charge her husband with rape, no matter how brutally she was assaulted - a wife's consent to her husband, no matter what he did, was taken for granted)?

Or 1981 Kirchberg v. Feenstra overturns state laws designating a husband "head and master," having unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife?

Or maybe in 1993 when fifty states have now revised their laws so that (depending on the degree of additional violence used) husbands can be prosecuted for sexually assaulting their wives?

These are all instances of corrections of unfair treatment of women in the criminal code (and thus part of your justice system, and thus by definition systemic).



And lastly, if you reject my explanation on the grounds of systemic unfair treatment, what is your more reasonable explanation of the differences in income (detailed in the studies quoted in my last post) between men and women working the same hours, the same geographic areas, in the same jobs, with the same levels of education, etc. in the absence of systemic unfair treatment?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

LOL. You're 180 degrees off on this one....

No I don't, I just said that what they face is not systemic because they do not face this pressure from society as a whole, they do not face the majority of the responsibility of raising and nurturing the children, there is no lack whatsoever of positive portrayals of confirmed bachelors in popular culture, there is no lack of social acceptance that a man can lead a full and happy life - and be a 'real' man - even if he does not have children.

If a man gets past 30 or so and is still obviously single..everyone whispers that he prefers men. Is that clear enough (GAY).

 

[Ishmael]

But that doesn't say anything about men and women getting equal pay for equal work in those fields - it doesn't mention earnings at all.

The federal study I provided a link to does list the weekly wage (for 2001) for full-time male and female employees in a lot of different scientific fields, and women's is significantly lower than their male colleagues' in every case.

That's really to bad. This relates to a very old thread.

The reason is really fairly simple. Women are terrible at negotiating a salary.

As an employer dealing with non-union employees, I pay what you can negotiate based on your percieved worth to me. If you don't ask, I have no obligation to increase my overhead voluntarily just to suit your perceived sense of 'fairness'.

Life just isn't fair that way. Get used to it and learn to negotiate better.

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Income....

Examining Issues Facing Nevada

The Facts About Women's Wages

By Judy Cresanta

One of the most enduring myths in American public policy is the belief that women face widespread wage discrimination. Proponents of "pay equity" insist that women earn about 75 cents for every dollar earned by men—and that most (or even all) of this "wage gap" is due to employers’ anti-female bias. Armed with this statistic, radical feminists in Nevada and throughout the nation lobby for greater regulations and government resources to mandate that the sexes receive equal pay for comparable work. But careful analysis shows that the wage gap is just another tool for those who wish to micromanage America’s workplaces. Women are not victims of sexist bosses—the difference between men’s and women’s average pay can easily be explained by the choices workers make. Furthermore, the economic status of women has never been better.

The Wages of Dishonesty
The equal-pay movement is founded on the specious assumption that discrimination against female workers can be proved by comparing the compensation of all male workers to the compensation of all female workers. But this broad view ignores the consequences of the decisions men and women make over the course of their professional lives. "As any economist knows, much of the wage gap is explained in differences in education, occupation and experience," writes Cathy Young of the Women’s Freedom Network. Many women, for example, leave the workforce to have and raise children. Women tend to be less willing to commute long distances. For the most part, women are less willing than men to enter high-risk, high-reward positions—preferring jobs which offer security and allow for flexible schedules, but do not pay as much. Women generally work about eight hours a week less than men. These are just some of the factors which can lead employers to pay men higher wages than women. The different preferences and habits of men and women explain the variance in the sexes’ pay. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Diana Furchtgott-Roth puts it, "Measuring so-called discrimination by comparing women’s wages to the median wage is like saying there’s something wrong with oranges because they are smaller than grapefruits."

Digging Deeper
So it’s little wonder that when the pay of workers with the same age, education and experience is examined, no wage gap appears. "When earnings comparisons are restricted to men and women more similar in their experience and life situations, the measured earnings differentials are typically quite small," writes economist June O’Neil. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth has shown that for workers aged 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women’s wages are 98 percent of men’s. A 1993 U. S. Census study concluded that never-married women who work full time earn $1,005 for every $1,000 earned by men in similar positions. Among married couples, 22.6 percent of wives now earn more than their husbands. Statistical analysis aside, common sense dictates that wage discrimination by sex is largely a feminist illusion. If it were true, a competitive economy would almost require that firms cut costs by firing their male workers and replacing them with female employees. As Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks, "How many employers are willing to forgo profits just to keep women’s pay down?"

Spreading the Myth
Despite the wage gap’s flimsy intellectual underpinnings, it continues to resonate with many Americans—and this has not gone unnoticed by activists and professional politicians. In his State of the Union speech in January, President Clinton called on Congress to appropriate an additional $14 million to help the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs enforce federal equal pay laws. The AFL-CIO has made pay equity a lobbying priority, and is pushing equal pay legislation in over 20 states this year. Each April, the National Committee on Pay Equity—a coalition of unions, feminist groups, and the religious left—holds "Equal Pay Day" demonstrations on the day they claim women’s wages catch up to the wages earned by men in the previous year. This year, Equal Pay Day officially falls on April 5, but the NCPE has moved the "observed" day to April 8, in order to maximize post-Easter media coverage.

Women Mean Business
It is unfortunate that the proponents of the wage-gap myth choose not to acknowledge the remarkable economic progress women have made in recent years. Women-owned businesses, for example, are flourishing. Several years ago, the National Foundation for Women Business Owners (NFWBO) released a study which concluded that between 1987 and 1996, women-owned businesses grew at a faster rate than the economy itself. Female-run firms increased in each of the nation’s top 50 metropolitan areas. There are more than 8 million women-owned businesses today, and minority women in particular are starting businesses at a rapid rate. In 1996, female entrepreneurs employed 18.5 million people and sold $2.28 trillion worth of goods and services.

Thriving in the Desert
If Las Vegas and Reno had been included in the NFWBO’s study, the cities would have ranked first and third in growth of women-owned businesses—giving Nevada the highest rank among the 50 states. In 1996, women owned 47,000 businesses in the Silver State and employed 130,000 workers. "In what I have seen in the last five years, the good ol’ boy network has been replaced by one of equality in gender and race," Patricia Larson, the co-founder of Port of Subs, told the Reno Gazette-Journal in 1997. In 1998, Cira Drake of Cirani, Inc. told the Las Vegas Business Press: "The climate here is more receptive to women owning businesses than in other parts of the country. … It is easier to get into self employment here because there are so many new opportunities with the city growing so quickly." Such optimism perhaps explains why last year’s Equal Pay Day protest, organized by the Southern Nevada chapter of the National Organization for Women, attracted only a smattering of supporters. The demonstration at the Foley Federal Court Building drew only six picketers—even the Las Vegas Sun characterized it as "a bit of a flop."

Conclusion
"Feminists have invented [Equal Pay Day]," writes the American Enterprise Institute’s Furchtgott-Roth, "just as they have invented the myth of the glass ceiling, in an attempt to give less-qualified women undeserved promotions and raises." Women do not face widespread wage discrimination, and female-owned businesses are booming in Nevada and throughout the nation. When feminists march for equal pay tomorrow, they will be propagating a myth which serves not the interests of female workers, but a shortsighted group of activists and politicians who refuse to face the truth about the economic status of women.

Judy Cresanta is president of Nevada Policy Research Institute. She can be contacted at jc@npri.org.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I've read this in the mainstream press to, either Forbes, Fortune, WSJ, Washington Times or the Washington Post. None of those have their publications posted in a way that's easy to retrieve them on the web, but I'm looking.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Income....

Examining Issues Facing Nevada

The Facts About Women's Wages

jc@npri.org.

Excellent reasearch LTGR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I found one from the UK comparing recent MBA graduates and their salary and they found a 6.8% gap, but thought that it might be due to men's willingness to move.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Thanks Ish.

Cry, what does the changing of the law allowing husbands to be charged with raping their wives have to do with wage differentials?

I'm sorry about the comments of the mother to the new PhD graduate. I applaud her dedication and hard work in achieving her goal.

Parents want grandkids. It's not just daughters they make that point to either.

 

[Ishmael]

Parents want grandkids. It's not just daughters they make that point to either.

I neglected to address that pompous point on her part. Crys assumes that "only" women have social pressures. How damn arrogant can you get?

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Women are percieved to be "nurturing" for good reason:

1) Many of them CHOOSE to have babies and stay home to take care of them.
2) In all societies, women are the primary caregivers for children

This is part of being a woman.

Some may not want to be caregivers and some may not want to be married or have children. Fine, but don't be upset that most people still percieve that person to be a woman and share traits that most/many other women share.

This is not "unfair".

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

The Gender Pay and Employment Gaps for Top Managers in US Non-profits

Kevin Hallock
Dept of Economics and Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations.
U Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Jan 12, 2002

Abstract:

Finally, once even simple characteristics of the nonprofits are controlled for, the male-female salary gap in this sample of nonprofits is not significantly different from zero.

 

[crysede]

LOL. You're 180 degrees off on this one....

If a man gets past 30 or so and is still obviously single..everyone whispers that he prefers men. Is that clear enough (GAY).

Am I now, and yet strangely we somehow seem to have plenty of stories in our popular culture about men who never marry, and are not gay, and have full, rich lives; but not about women. Hell, even in academic writings, females who devote their lives to their studies are looked at askance by those chronicling their work - and theories about lack of maternal bonding, or abuse, or lack of empathy are floated - while the men doing the same thing are lauded for their dedication.

So how does this fail to suggest that there are unfair social expectations that women are nurtures and will need to raise children to feel fulfilled, where as men are seen as being about to have fulfilling, social valuable lives either way?

Cry, what does the changing of the law allowing husbands to be charged with raping their wives have to do with wage differentials?

I'm sorry about the comments of the mother to the new PhD graduate. I applaud her dedication and hard work in achieving her goal.

Parents want grandkids. It's not just daughters they make that point to either.

Nothing - it has to do with systemic unfair treatment, which you have repeatedly stated does not exist anymore. I figured since you make the assertion on several occasions, it's only reasonable to let me challenge it.

I think you might have missed the part where I said that it was not the mother's actions I was objecting to (but rather the social ideals that supported and fostered those notions)

Women are percieved to be "nurturing" for good reason:

1) Many of them CHOOSE to have babies and stay home to take care of them.
2) In all societies, women are the primary caregivers for children

This is part of being a woman.

Some may not want to be caregivers and some may not want to be married or have children. Fine, but don't be upset that most people still percieve that person to be a woman and share traits that most/many other women share.

This is not "unfair".

Could you explain to me exactly how it is 'not unfair' that women are perceived by society to need children, and to need to nurture others, while men are not? Men need children as much as women do, and fully capable of being as nurturing as any women. The fact is that many women do not CHOOSE to stay home and take care of their children, and as you pointed out, in some societies the responsibility of caring for children in shared equally between men and women.

What are these traits that most women possess and men don't? And I thought you said you didn't agree with the use of the 'biology made me do it' argument either?

The Gender Pay and Employment Gaps for Top Managers in US Non-profits

Kevin Hallock
Dept of Economics and Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations.
U Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Jan 12, 2002

Abstract:

Finally, once even simple characteristics of the nonprofits are controlled for, the male-female salary gap in this sample of nonprofits is not significantly different from zero.

Aside from pointing out the obvious limited nature of this study, I can't really comment on it without seeing the whole thing - I'll take a look for it.

 

[crysede]

Digging Deeper
So it?s little wonder that when the pay of workers with the same age, education and experience is examined, no wage gap appears. "When earnings comparisons are restricted to men and women more similar in their experience and life situations, the measured earnings differentials are typically quite small," writes economist June O?Neil. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth has shown that for workers aged 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women?s wages are 98 percent of men?s. A 1993 U. S. Census study concluded that never-married women who work full time earn $1,005 for every $1,000 earned by men in similar positions. Among married couples, 22.6 percent of wives now earn more than their husbands. Statistical analysis aside, common sense dictates that wage discrimination by sex is largely a feminist illusion. If it were true, a competitive economy would almost require that firms cut costs by firing their male workers and replacing them with female employees. As Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks, "How many employers are willing to forgo profits just to keep women?s pay down?"

You know it's gotten to the point when these special interest lobbyists seem to think they're obligated to misuse statistics - even when they could have made their case without the statistical smoke and mirrors (albeit they would have had to admit that it wasn't as ironclad as they are pretending it is). If you're going to insist that the choice of career must be taken into account in the comparison of single men and women, you'd damn well better take it into account when you go on to compare married men and women, and if you are comparing the average wage of single men and women you'd damn well better compare that of married men and women, not substitute an entirely different comparison just 'cause the one you should be using doesn't support your claim. This tactic is also self contradictory: I mean criticising feminist lobbyists for their misuse of statistics while doing the exact same thing herself? Talk about people in glass houses! lol

Statistical analysis aside, common sense dictates that wage discrimination by sex is largely a feminist illusion. If it were true, a competitive economy would almost require that firms cut costs by firing their male workers and replacing them with female employees. As Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation asks, "How many employers are willing to forgo profits just to keep women?s pay down?"

Common sense dictates that, does it? So it stands to reason that after the abolishing of slavery blacks should have been hired instead of whites where-ever possible - but instead the vast majority of whites went right on refusing to hire blacks. Hmmm, and when other cases of confirmed systemic unfair treatment are examined we seem the same pattern - somehow humans appear to have acted contrary to 'common sense' in this matter throughout recorded history. Richman et al could benefit from actually looking at the evidence before advancing their explanations.

Spreading the Myth
Despite the wage gap?s flimsy intellectual underpinnings,...

I quite agree - the arguments of radical feminist lobby groups have all the intellectual underpinnings of a croissant - but people in glass houses...

Women Mean Business
It is unfortunate that the proponents of the wage-gap myth choose not to acknowledge the remarkable economic progress women have made in recent years. Women-owned businesses, for example, are flourishing. Several years ago, the National Foundation for Women Business Owners (NFWBO) released a study which concluded that between 1987 and 1996, women-owned businesses grew at a faster rate than the economy itself. Female-run firms increased in each of the nation?s top 50 metropolitan areas. There are more than 8 million women-owned businesses today, and minority women in particular are starting businesses at a rapid rate. In 1996, female entrepreneurs employed 18.5 million people and sold $2.28 trillion worth of goods and services.

Right - and despite the fact that this is ostensibly an article about women's wages - lets not bother mentioning the fact that the average earnings of self-employed women ($16,652) were 47.9 percent lower than the average earnings of self-employed men ($31,937). Once corrected for non-gender determinants of earnings, including (but not limited to) the following:

• differences in education
• differences in hours worked
• race
• whether the work was full or part-time status
• physical disabilities
• geographic location
• type of occupation chosen

The residual gender earnings gap between women and men who were self-employed was found to be 33.1 percent.

"In what I have seen in the last five years, the good ol? boy network has been replaced by one of equality in gender and race," Patricia Larson, the co-founder of Port of Subs, told the Reno Gazette-Journal in 1997. In 1998, Cira Drake of Cirani, Inc. told the Las Vegas Business Press: "The climate here is more receptive to women owning businesses than in other parts of the country. ? It is easier to get into self employment here because there are so many new opportunities with the city growing so quickly."

It seems rather strange that someone arguing that there is no such thing as systemic unfair treatment against working women, would attempt to support her case with the argument that systemic unfair treatment against working women has significantly decreased in the last five years in Nevada. If the author's position is correct, then the woman she quotes is wrong.

Conclusion
"Feminists have invented [Equal Pay Day]," writes the American Enterprise Institute?s Furchtgott-Roth, "just as they have invented the myth of the glass ceiling, in an attempt to give less-qualified women undeserved promotions and raises." Women do not face widespread wage discrimination, and female-owned businesses are booming in Nevada and throughout the nation. When feminists march for equal pay tomorrow, they will be propagating a myth which serves not the interests of female workers, but a shortsighted group of activists and politicians who refuse to face the truth about the economic status of women.

The author demonstrates great rhetorical abilities, but the argument that is presented in this article doesn't even come close to supporting her conclusion - in fact, it is a lovely example of the flimsy-intellectualism that she harangues radical feminists for spouting, and as such the article frequently argues against itself.

I don't think this points to any lack of intelligence on the part of the author though. I 'm quite sure this was done intentionally, and rather than showing an inability to grasp logic, it actually demonstrates the author's ingenuity and rhetorical skill: she's just fighting fire with fire and as far as that goes more power to her! The radical-feminist lobbyists spew exactly the same sort of diatribes masquerading as logic all the time and somebody's got to be there to challenge their endless paroxysms of hyperbole, and better her than me

 

[crysede]

That's really to bad. This relates to a very old thread.

The reason is really fairly simple. Women are terrible at negotiating a salary.

As an employer dealing with non-union employees, I pay what you can negotiate based on your percieved worth to me. If you don't ask, I have no obligation to increase my overhead voluntarily just to suit your perceived sense of 'fairness'.

Life just isn't fair that way. Get used to it and learn to negotiate better.

Ishmael

Why should I get used to it? If I think it's wrong why not speak out about it? Where the heck would we be if people just got used to stuff they thought was wrong? Unless I see some scientific proof that women are inherently terrible negotiators, or that men are inherently incapable of taking women seriously, then I see no reason to just accept that that's how things are and learn to live with it

And I agree, just because some woman thinks it's unfair that she is not earning as much as a man doing the same work, does not obligate you to increase your overhead by paying her the same; however the Equal Pay Act does (except in the cases of domestics and agricultural workers, if I'm reading US law correctly).

I neglected to address that pompous point on her part. Crys assumes that "only" women have social pressures. How damn arrogant can you get?

You're saying I'm being pompous and arrogant for saying that men do not face the systemic unfair pressures that women do with respect to being caregivers, and raising children - when both of you have agreed that women are socially held to be the primary caregivers, and are socially held to be the ones primarily responsible for raising children?

Would you believe I actually had the pompous arrogance to suggest that this lead to men being unfairly disadvantaged when it came to child custody hearings? God, shame on me, I'm such a supercilious bitch!

 

[Ishmael]

Why should I get used to it? If I think it's wrong why not speak out about it? Where the heck would we be if people just got used to stuff they thought was wrong? Unless I see some scientific proof that women are inherently terrible negotiators, or that men are inherently incapable of taking women seriously, then I see no reason to just accept that that's how things are and learn to live with it

And I agree, just because some woman thinks it's unfair that she is not earning as much as a man doing the same work, does not obligate you to increase your overhead by paying her the same; however the Equal Pay Act does (except in the cases of domestics and agricultural workers, if I'm reading US law correctly).You're saying I'm being pompous and arrogant for saying that men do not face the systemic unfair pressures that women do with respect to being caregivers, and raising children - when both of you have agreed that women are socially held to be the primary caregivers, and are socially held to be the ones primarily responsible for raising children?

Hmmmmmmmmm, you seem to think that these women are 'forced' to care for the children that they bore. Why is that? Why don't you poll Lit. to determnine how the women with children here feel about it?

As far as equal pay goes. I'm under no legal obligation to do so with professional employee's. Hourlies, yes.

Would you believe I actually had the pompous arrogance to suggest that this lead to men being unfairly disadvantaged when it came to child custody hearings? God, shame on me, I'm such a supercilious bitch!

That was specifically aimed at your remarks concerning the "social" pressures under which women are burdened. From family and friends, etc. You presume that men are NOT subjected to many of the same pressures. Most of these 'pressures' that you speak of come from peer groups. Female to female and male to male. Don't look for any laws there.

Ishmael

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Thanks for the birthday wishes.

My front door is almost completely overgrown and I haven't trimmed the vines back yet. There are no roses blooming, (this type only flowers twice a year). I guess I'll get to it tomorrow.

I don't believe the "biology made me do it" argument because there doesnt' seem to be empirical evidence for that. But there is empirical evidence that supports behavioral trends that show that many, if not most women, embrace motherhood and the role of primary caregiver.

I'm not aware of any societies where the "norm" is 50-50% for child caregiving. Please point those out to me.

I don't think that the BLS statistics are complete enough to provide a realistic comparision because they didn't "adjust" for all factors. I don't think they adjust for a comparison of the same jobs, the length of time on the job, willingness to work overtime or to move and several other important factors that contribute significantly to wage equality.

As for your comments about self-employed people.. are you suggesting that the purchasing public is discriminating against women when they find that a business is run by a woman so they will pay her less than they'd pay to Sam down the street for the same goods and services? I'll bet if you "adjusted" for similar businesses, the difference goes away. This is exactly the point of the study by the guy from UIllini cited above. What looks like a pay discrepancy goes away when factors like size of the business and scope of responsibility are considered.

I've seen similar analysis done in the mainstream press as that done by Judy that I posted above.

1) Women have choice in their careers
2) Women make comparable wages after adjustments
3) Most women embrace the role of caregiver and there seems to be a historical and behavioral preference for that role.

I think we must stay vigilent to ensure that equal opportunity exists. If clear wage differentials appear, they should be litigated.

I support our laws and current public policy in regards to equal opportunity. I do not support some sort of strange "rating" system for comparable worth (I believe in market forces).

While I feel bad that some people are "pressured" or even ridiculed for choices that they make that are different from prevailing behavioral trends, I don't see anything more that should be done other than be sympathetic to them. I certainly can't legislate that mothers shouldn't make their daughters feel bad when they get a PhD by making comments about the wish for grandkids. I think this is an "innocent" or natural preference that parents have for wanting grandkids and does not indicate some sort of sociological or psychological systemic problem on the part of parents or human beings in general. It was tactless of the mother, but not indicative of some sort of giant systemic problem.

Reproduction is largely a woman's choice. Though I support women's choice in abortion, men have almost no choice in the matter. Of course there's more "pressure" to women to reproduce, it's a societal need (in general, not specific). Men recieve pressure too, but just not as much.

Am I now, and yet strangely we somehow seem to have plenty of stories in our popular culture about men who never marry, and are not gay, and have full, rich lives; but not about women. Hell, even in academic writings, females who devote their lives to their studies are looked at askance by those chronicling their work - and theories about lack of maternal bonding, or abuse, or lack of empathy are floated - while the men doing the same thing are lauded for their dedication.

I'm not familiar with this. What are these positive popular culture stories about single men who never marry?

Mother Teresa was a positive story. I can't think of any similar stories of men who choose the single lifestyle. Maybe it's different on college campuses. Oprah's not married is she? She doesn't have kids either. She's a pretty positive story too. There's probably dozen's of others. There are positive stories out there. Wasn't Susan B. Anthony single? Single or married, it doesn't really matter much to me. Don't let it bother you. Why focus on it so much? Make your choices and go ahead with it, why worry so much about wagging tongues?