The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today
Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
HerrKaiser:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on November 19, 2008, 06:28:25 pm ---
The trouble is, what seem to be apples vs. oranges comparisons somehow almost end with the apples making more money than the oranges. That is, the jobs JudgHolden mentioned, construction, tow-truck driver, etc., as well as plumber, electrician, carpentry and other jobs that women are capable of doing but rarely do ... those jobs tend to pay more generously, it seems, than jobs in fields traditionally dominated by women: nursing, teaching, cashiering, secretarial work. I'm not going to take the time now to do an extensive wage comparison, so I may be wrong on a few of those details. But the point is, are we absolutely sure that the well-paying male-dominated jobs are worth more than the lesser-paying female jobs? Do the men's jobs necessarily involve more dirt, danger and odd hours, as JudgeHolden mentioned? Are they of more value to society? Do they require more training and/or education? Do they carry more responsibility? Are they in successful industries?
And most important, I guess, are the wages of each simply set at the level the market will bear?
--- End quote ---
Of course apples may make more than oranges or vice versa depending on value and what the market will bear. Crayons, you seem to be looking at the U.S. labor environment as if it was actually the soviet union. A few comments on the above:
1) nurses make a ton of money. Once again, as Holden pointed out and as I did as well, you are reaching back over 20 years to make an invalid point. I don't know what kind of stores you shop in or how you pay for your goods, but are you seriously suggesting that a man with the know how to build a house is equal in value to a woman moving packages over a scanner and having a computer tell her how much change?
2) "...I'm not going to take the time to do a wage comparison...". Well, nice. The thread makes an errroneous thesis and then you would say the actual data is too cumbersome to put forth. Fact is, if business could pay anyone 3/4 of anyone else to do the same work, they'd do it. The employment laws prohibit wage discrimination; that battle was won decades ago. The whole attempt to position women as victims of a type of slave-pay institution or conspriacty is utterly untrue. But, it is frequently used to mislead and provide fodder to unknowing people to opt onto a false bandwagon.
3) your last series of questions are all easily answered both in terms of most peoples' own experiences in the economy as well as the data supplied by various governemental agencies. Women who chose plumbing make a plumbers wage. Men who chose teaching make a teachers wage. The most notable "career" that seems underpaid and is dominated by women is K-12 teaching. But, government schools are, like other government jobs, not in the "real world" and are beholden to tax payers ability/willingness to pay. But, once again, why do women flock to teaching? Easy. No competition. No evaluation. No stress. Etc.
HerrKaiser:
--- Quote from: serious crayons on November 19, 2008, 06:28:25 pm --- even if those hazing stories are 20 years old, they still pack a punch. "North Country" came out only a few years ago.
--- End quote ---
I do not agree at all. 20 years is a whole generation or two. Attempts to continue a litanny of discrimination claims based on old history is both wrong and disingeneous. Time does march on. Anyone looking for a difficult work environment by assuming a 1970s style frame of reference will be in place is simply not seeing the world as it is.
HerrKaiser:
--- Quote from: brokeplex on November 19, 2008, 06:57:04 pm ---oh, come on Crayons!
take a hypothetical play sandbox out on a playground
put in 3 little boys, say age 8, give them toys appropriate to sandbox playtime, and the boys will mostly "cooperate" in competitive games.
take 3 little girls, same age, give them their toys, and two of the little girls will gang up "verbally on the other one.
--- End quote ---
Excellent point Brokeplex. That is precisely why girls team sports have had a difficult time emerging as a real factor; girls do not seem to excel at teammanship. That is also why in business, particularly in the early years of women in management (1970s and to current), women had more difficulty managing...they largely had no team sports experience and had not learned how to be anything other than a single entity fighting her own agendas.
HerrKaiser:
--- Quote from: brokeplex on November 19, 2008, 06:57:04 pm ---
what amuses me is many on the feminist left just refuse to acknowledge that boys and girls on average have cognitive, aptitude, and perceptual differences, and ironically on the other hand they insist because of "identity politics" that women should have their own caucuses, business support groups, safe zones, and that little boys who are naturally boistrous need to be dumbed down by Ritalin because they intimidate the little girls.
hence the feminization of the primary school curriculum and a generation of female teachers who haven't a clue as to how to discipline little boys.
--- End quote ---
A huge assault on boys took place and continues in terms of discipline in school. Ritalin is a dangerous drug that schools and schools in league with docs have overdosed young and adolescent boys.
is it not interesting that the so-called diseases of ADD and ADHD were not "invented" until Ritalin was?
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: brokeplex on November 19, 2008, 06:57:04 pm ---oh, come on Crayons!
take a hypothetical play sandbox out on a playground
put in 3 little boys, say age 8, give them toys appropriate to sandbox playtime, and the boys will mostly "cooperate" in competitive games.
take 3 little girls, same age, give them their toys, and two of the little girls will gang up "verbally on the other one.
--- End quote ---
Oh! Were we talking about eight-year-olds? I misunderstood. In that case, as the mom of two boys who do not always "cooperate" in competitive games, I can tell you what happens in the real world. And yes, they gang up verbally at times.
But if we're talking about grownups, then I would say, again from my own first-hand observations in newsrooms, that you are treating stereotypes as absolute givens. Boys not competitive?! Sorry, 'plex, but that's just crazy talk. Competitiveness is considered a masculine trait!
Do you, by the way, work with roughly equal numbers of women and men?
--- Quote ---what amuses me is many on the feminist left just refuse to acknowledge that boys and girls on average have cognitive, aptitude, and perceptual differences,
--- End quote ---
Don't count me in this group. I acknowledge.
--- Quote --- little boys who are naturally boistrous need to be dumbed down by Ritalin because they intimidate the little girls.
--- End quote ---
As the mother of two notably boisterous boys who are not on Ritalin, I can tell you that this idea is not the exclusive property of the left.
--- Quote ---a generation of female teachers who haven't a clue as to how to discipline little boys.
--- End quote ---
Gotta disagree with you again, and once again draw upon my own experiences. Yes, I know they're anecdotal, but I don't see you providing any statistics or evidence whatsoever -- you're just going by assumptions and stereotypes. Anyway, my older son has some bona fide disciplinary issues. But he gets along better with some teachers than others -- the ones who are flexible but firm, rather than rigid and/or easily intimidated. All but one of his most effective teachers have been tough but unflappable women. Of course more of his teachers have been women.
--- Quote ---decline in grad rates among little boys as they are bored stiff with the feminized curriculum,
--- End quote ---
Now that's just rude. I'm going to politely ignore that you said it.
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on November 19, 2008, 07:20:15 pm ---Of course apples may make more than oranges or vice versa depending on value and what the market will bear. Crayons, you seem to be looking at the U.S. labor environment as if it was actually the soviet union.
--- End quote ---
Just wishful thinking, I guess! ;D ;) But you are right. Market forces should determine wages. The question is, do they in practice?
--- Quote ---1) nurses make a ton of money. Once again, as Holden pointed out and as I did as well, you are reaching back over 20 years to make an invalid point. I don't know what kind of stores you shop in or how you pay for your goods, but are you seriously suggesting that a man with the know how to build a house is equal in value to a woman moving packages over a scanner and having a computer tell her how much change?
--- End quote ---
No. I'm saying a woman cashier might be equal in value to a guy in the stockroom. A male plumber might be equal in value of a woman LPN. But the plumber averages about $50,000, and the LPN $40,000. (I did look these up.)
--- Quote ---2) "...I'm not going to take the time to do a wage comparison...". Well, nice. The thread makes an errroneous thesis and then you would say the actual data is too cumbersome to put forth.
--- End quote ---
Unlike all the research you've done to support your stereotypes?
--- Quote ---Fact is, if business could pay anyone 3/4 of anyone else to do the same work, they'd do it.
--- End quote ---
So the CEOs who make $20 million a year -- they couldn't find anyone to fill those jobs for $15 million? They'd have to hire illegal immigrants, I guess ... ;D
--- Quote ---The employment laws prohibit wage discrimination; that battle was won decades ago. The whole attempt to position women as victims of a type of slave-pay institution or conspriacty is utterly untrue. But, it is frequently used to mislead and provide fodder to unknowing people to opt onto a false bandwagon.
--- End quote ---
If all of the disparity can be accounted by women's shorter time in the workforce, or women's historically lower education levels, then I would say yes. But I'm not sure that's true.
--- Quote ---But, once again, why do women flock to teaching? Easy. No competition. No evaluation. No stress. Etc.
--- End quote ---
Like Brokeplex's final remark, this just seems gratuitously rude. As well as untrue. No stress for teachers in today's schools? Are you joking?
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on November 19, 2008, 07:25:13 pm --- 20 years is a whole generation or two.
--- End quote ---
Twenty years is considered one generation, as 10-year-olds do not normally reproduce.
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on November 19, 2008, 07:30:51 pm --- girls do not seem to excel at teammanship.
--- End quote ---
Another pointlessly rude remark based on ... what? Again, assumptions and stereotypes.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version