Author Topic: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally  (Read 21353 times)

Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« on: November 12, 2008, 03:19:41 pm »

I've been thinking that it's important to have a thread here in the new forum about the issue of women and economic inequality.  This most certainly can turn into a wide-ranging discussion.

I thought I'd start by posting an article I just found a minute ago on CNBC's website. [Sorry that the very interesting chart at the end copies in such a messy way... I don't know how to format a neat and tidy chart here in a post.]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27674429
Gender Gap Narrows, But US Trails in Equality Stakes

Equality between the sexes improved globally in 2008, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap report. Norway topped the poll for cutting the gender gap, but the United States trailed Western countries in 27th place.

Despite the modest ranking, the US is making progress in terms of sexual equality and is set to gain further, Saadia Zahidi, head of consentience at the World Economic Forum, told CNBC.com.

The US result was held back by the relatively small percentage of women currently working in political decision-making positions, Zahidi said. But that number is set to jump as more and more women make it into high-level political jobs, she said.

The US is currently just bellow Cuba and Barbados.

Finland, Sweden, Iceland and New Zealand all joined Norway at the top of the rankings.   

The worsening global economic climate shouldn't signal a set-back for equality between the sexes, Laura Tyson from Hass Business School, Berkley told CNBC.

“Our work shows a strong correlation between competitiveness and the gender gap scores. … countries that do not fully capitalize effectively on one-half of their human resources run the risk of undermining their competitive potential,” Tyson said in a research note.

Moving Up the Charts   

Switzerland jumped up the rankings to 14th from 40th in 2008 as the number of women in parliament and at ministerial-level positions increased rapidly. 

France also made a strong improvement, rising to 15th from 51st due to both economic participation and political empowerment.

China soared 17 places to 57th as women narrowed the gap in educational attainment, economic and political participation. 

The bottom-ranking countries showed a mixed picture of improving and worsening performance. Syria, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia all fell farther in the rankings, but Tunisia, Jordan and United Arab Emirates showed improving equality.

Overall the study indicated a move toward greater equality between men and women as more than two-thirds of the countries posted gains.

The Global Gender Gap 2008 Rankings – Top 20

Country           2008  Score      2007  Change
Norway               1       82.39%    2       +1
Finland                2       81.95%    3       +1
Sweden              3       81.39%    1        -2
Iceland                4       79.99%     4         0
New Zealand        5       78.59%     5         0
Philippines            6       75.68%     6         0
Denmark              7       75.38%     8       +1
Ireland                 8        75.18%     9       +1
Netherlands          9        73.99%    12      +3
Latvia                 10       73.97%    13      +3
Germany             11       73.94%     7       -4
Sri Lanka             12       73.71%    15      +3
United Kingdom   13       73.66%     11      -2
Switzerland          14      73.60%     40     +26
France                 15      73.41%     51     +36
Lesotho               16      73.20%     26      +10
Spain                   17      72.81%     10      -7
Mozambique         18       72.66%    43       +25
Trinidad & Tobago  19       72.45%   46       +27
Moldova                20       72.44%    21      +1
the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie

Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2008, 10:53:15 pm »


I have a really basic question about the equal pay dilemma facing female workers (essentially everywhere).  Why do women put up with this... or why have we put up with this for so long.  The gap in pay between men and women has existed pretty much throughout history.  Why aren't women in the streets demanding that this situation be fixed.  It's so fundamentally unfair... the idea that two people could be paid differently for the same work simply based on gender.  This is an issue that is not only upsetting on principle, it impacts people's lives in the most basic and fundamental ways.

I know lots of women have complained, written and protested about this in the past and even currently.  And, clearly the issue comes up during election cycles like the one we just witnessed.  But, why isn't there even more of a sense of urgency?  What are we waiting for in terms of really pushing to fix this really unaccepatable situation?

the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2008, 04:04:31 pm »
In answer to the question of 'why do women put up with this?', the problem is that the premise or question is flawed. Pay inequity is one of many misrepresented aspect of the current set of gender issues.

The classic misrepresentation of data comes on this subject by using ALL males income averages vs ALL female income averages and then comparing the two. So, a male executive earning a fair salary of $100K would be averaged with a female staffer earning a fair salary of $45K shows a pay inequity for the female. The stats that show women earning 77 cents for every dollar men earn is based on this calculation.

When equal education, experience, responsibily, performance, etc, are accounted for, the pay equity is at near parity, and in some cases, women far out earn men, such as in K-12 education.

Interestingly, John McCain's senatorial staff showed a pay rate for his females indexing 104 to that of his male staff. Obama's women were underpaid by an index of 87.


Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2008, 06:28:25 pm »
Right. I think businesses rarely if ever pay men more than women, or vise versa, for doing the exact same job.

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?

That is a valid point, though, about women taking time out from the workforce to raise children. That really does lower their earning potential, not to mention their retirement savings, their seniority, their promotion opportunities, their Social Security ... On the one hand, I think this helps explain the earnings inequity. On the other hand, women who care for their children -- and raising the next generation is supposedly a job we as a society value -- sacrifice all of that economic opportunity. Their jobs are often every bit as hard as their well-compensated hubands (and yes, I'm aware there are some Mr. Moms, but again their number is disproportionately small).

I agree there are many sociological factors involved. Women do tend not to go into certain better paying fields, perhaps in part because even if they are not officially barred from those fields, there are still some cultural pressures to go into more traditional "women's fields." And JudgeHolden, even if those hazing stories are 20 years old, they still pack a punch. "North Country" came out only a few years ago.

I work in a field that, though originally male, has been "co-ed" for a long time. So I have worked in groups involving lots of women and men. And this

Quote
I hate to say it, but when its one woman and a bunch of guys, she will do fine, but when its several women, it turns into high school. Women dont yet seem to know how to be impersonal, and compete professionally and objectively with each other, and boy howdy, they still see only the other women as there competition.

Is not something I have observed among women any more than among men. In fact, I don't really know what it means. You think women see other women as competition, but men don't look at their coworkers or other men that way? Hunh.


Offline brokeplex

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,247
  • LCARS
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2008, 06:57:04 pm »


Is not something I have observed among women any more than among men. In fact, I don't really know what it means. You think women see other women as competition, but men don't look at their coworkers or other men that way? Hunh.



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.


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. this wouldn't be too big an issue, but since it has lead to the decline in grad rates among little boys as they are bored stiff with the feminized curriculum, it is in effect a war on boys perpetrated by the educational establishment and the teachers unions.

on a related note:

that poor old Clintonoid Larry Summers, who just had the temerity to once speak the truth about the differences between men and women.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Women want Larry Summers off Don’t back him for Cabinet

By Christine McConville  |   Sunday, November 16, 2008  |  http://www.bostonherald.com


A controversial comment at a Cambridge conference may cost former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers a second stint in the Cabinet.

“I’m concerned about his judgment and ability to listen,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biology professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and one of the many women who say they are concerned about Summers’ rumored appointment as President-elect Barack Obama’s Treasury secretary.

In 2005, Hopkins walked out of an academic conference after Summers, the keynote speaker and the president of Harvard University at the time, said that innate differences between men and women might be one reason fewer women succeed in science and math careers.

Summers and his defenders have said that he was only putting forth hypotheses based on the scholarly work assembled for the conference, and the conference organizer has said that Summers was asked to be provocative.

Still, the ensuing outcry played a role in his eventual ouster as Harvard’s president and paved the way for the university’s first female president, Drew Faust.

And now women’s groups have expressed so much outrage over Summers’ possible appointment that, according to top Democratic sources, his name may even have been stricken from the short list.

Summers currently works as a Harvard professor, and was not available for comment.

But one of his former students, Sheryl Sandberg, has been defending him.

“Larry has been a true advocate for women throughout his career,” wrote Sandberg, now the chief operating officer at Facebook, on the blog Huffington Post.

“In 1992, as Chief Economist of the World Bank, Larry argued in front of the world’s Finance Ministers that the highest return investment they could make in their economies was to educate their girls,” she wrote.

Rumors of Summers as the next Treasury Secretary come after he spent a year as one of Obama’s top economic advisers.

Sandberg, who worked for Summerts at the World Bank and then at the U.S. Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, has said he would be an excellent choice.

“Many people note that our nation has few economists with his intelligence,” she has written. “They should also know that we have few leaders, if any, in the financial world who have done more for women.”

Other women disagree.

Just after Obama won, National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy told the Huffington Post she had “mixed feelings” about Summers, saying he doesn’t “get” the economic implications of gender-based wage disparities.

The New Agenda, a nonpartisan women’s rights group, issued a press release, saying Summers’ “record of derogatory comments aimed at women ensures that his selection would be divisive and thus distract from efforts to fix the economy.”

And the Rosalind Franklin Society, which promotes women in the life-sciences field, has urged Obama to appoint “someone whose qualifications have not been compromised.”

Hopkins said that locally, anti-Summers sentiment began during his tenure as Harvard’s president.

Female faculty members tried to talk to him about the dwindling numbers of women faculty, “but he doesn’t listen,” she said.

And now with the world economy in upheaval and financial experts uncertain of what move to make next, she said, “to have someone who can’t listen, that’s a real concern,” she said.

Other possible contenders for the Treasury post include New York Federal Reserve Chairman Timothy Geithner and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive who has served in the Senate

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2008_11_16_Women_want_Larry_Summers_off:_Don_t_back_him_for_Cabinet/

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2008, 07:20:15 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?


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.

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2008, 07:25:13 pm »
even if those hazing stories are 20 years old, they still pack a punch. "North Country" came out only a few years ago.


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.

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2008, 07:30:51 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.



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.

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2008, 07:35:18 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.

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?

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #9 on: November 19, 2008, 09:51:16 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.

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,

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.

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.

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,

Now that's just rude. I'm going to politely ignore that you said it.



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.

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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?

20 years is a whole generation or two.

Twenty years is considered one generation, as 10-year-olds do not normally reproduce.

girls do not seem to excel at teammanship.

Another pointlessly rude remark based on ... what? Again, assumptions and stereotypes.



Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #10 on: November 19, 2008, 11:06:41 pm »

Thanks Crayons!  Wow, this thread has certainly become a lively little place.

I'd just like to echo that I think it's important to address these issues either using direct examples of personal experience or by citing and considering actual research on the subjects at hand in this thread (moving from economic discrepencies between men and women to the issue of education, discipline, etc.).

Speaking in stereotypes and extremely broad generalizations seems to mostly serve the goal of trying to prop-up, bolster or validate stereotypes.  Which in my opinion, isn't helpful to either gender.

the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2008, 02:17:57 am »
the series of responses by crayons above simply continue the wishful thinking that some real "truth" can emerge from tales of personal situations that do not reflect reality. Sorry if some reality checks appear "rude" but, for example, it was quite convenient for women to bemoan lack of team sport participation, and as a direct result create title 9, one of the most unfair and discriminating legislations ever past, and claim now that women WERE active if not equal participants?

some specific clarifications:

1) an LPN is a licensed practical nurse that in most states requires only a year of training and in practice is only allowed to give prescription drugs (which anyone can do at home) and basic patient comfort care and vitals (temp, bp, etc). A plumber goes through mulitple years of training and journeymanship and as a licensed plumber, he/she is fully responsible for the work they perform. So, once again, the erroneous attempt to equalize careers with different earnings structures lead you to a false conclusion.

2) you know perfectly well the C level execs are not part of the legitimate discussion on fair wages for workers. Using these exaggerated examples further deflates your points; even though I admit similar propaganda has been quite successful for feminists' ability to gain attention over the years.

3) wage disparity can very likely be discovered somewhere. But, your original premise that the 77 cents on every dollar a man earns is what women overall get paid is not true. Wishing to believe that somewhere is a woman who is paid less than an exact equal male counterpart is one's choice. Somewhere a man is underpaid as well. But such situations are not common and have legal recourse.

4) not kidding about teachers' stress levels vs other careers. Actually, are you kidding? While disciplinary issues are vastly more problematic than former times, other than teachers and those who love them feel they have the most cush jobs ever invented. In fact, I know plenty of teachers who know that to be true too...that's why they got into it.



Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2008, 02:39:07 am »
the series of responses by crayons above simply continue the wishful thinking that some real "truth" can emerge from tales of personal situations that do not reflect reality. Sorry if some reality checks appear "rude" but, for example, it was quite convenient for women to bemoan lack of team sport participation, and as a direct result create title 9, one of the most unfair and discriminating legislations ever past, and claim now that women WERE active if not equal participants?

My point was that I at least offered some form of evidence, from my own experience. I'm a parent of two sons, I have worked in co-ed workplaces. Where is your evidence? I don't see anything from firsthand experience or research or anything else for your wild statements such as "girls do not excel at teamsmanship." That's a "reality check"?

Get this. I believe there are indeed differences between men and women. But those differences are exceedingly hard to determine, even for genetic behavioralists and other scientists, due to the intertwining of environment and biology. Making reckless blanket generalizations about what you perceive about male and female behavior based on casual observation -- of what? years of watching sitcoms? -- is irresponsible and, yep, rude.





some specific clarifications:

1) an LPN is a licensed practical nurse that in most states requires only a year of training and in practice is only allowed to give prescription drugs (which anyone can do at home) and basic patient comfort care and vitals (temp, bp, etc). A plumber goes through mulitple years of training and journeymanship and as a licensed plumber, he/she is fully responsible for the work they perform. So, once again, the erroneous attempt to equalize careers with different earnings structures lead you to a false conclusion.

2) you know perfectly well the C level execs are not part of the legitimate discussion on fair wages for workers. Using these exaggerated examples further deflates your points; even though I admit similar propaganda has been quite successful for feminists' ability to gain attention over the years.

3) wage disparity can very likely be discovered somewhere. But, your original premise that the 77 cents on every dollar a man earns is what women overall get paid is not true. Wishing to believe that somewhere is a woman who is paid less than an exact equal male counterpart is one's choice. Somewhere a man is underpaid as well. But such situations are not common and have legal recourse.

4) not kidding about teachers' stress levels vs other careers. Actually, are you kidding? While disciplinary issues are vastly more problematic than former times, other than teachers and those who love them feel they have the most cush jobs ever invented. In fact, I know plenty of teachers who know that to be true too...that's why they got into it.



[/quote]

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2008, 11:17:23 am »
My point was that I at least offered some form of evidence, from my own experience. I'm a parent of two sons, I have worked in co-ed workplaces. Where is your evidence? I don't see anything from firsthand experience or research or anything else for your wild statements such as "girls do not excel at teamsmanship." That's a "reality check"?

Get this. I believe there are indeed differences between men and women. But those differences are exceedingly hard to determine, even for genetic behavioralists and other scientists, due to the intertwining of environment and biology. Making reckless blanket generalizations about what you perceive about male and female behavior based on casual observation -- of what? years of watching sitcoms? -- is irresponsible and, yep, rude.


I guess your work and personal experiences are valid projections to the entire culture? No, sorry. And if you think so, why would you suggest that mine or anyone else's are not worthy of the same application across the board?

The "quote" you attributed to me was purposefully written by you to mislead...another means by which you have historically attempted to win debates here. My statement was in context to a post by brokeplex and is based on studies showing the same result, that the reason girls team sports had not and remain less involved than boys' team sports because "....girls do not seem to excel at teamnanship". big difference than what you attempted to slip in...and thats rude.  ;) Not to mention the crack about sitcoms. Maybe some self inspection about rudeness is in order.


Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2008, 01:35:29 pm »
I guess your work and personal experiences are valid projections to the entire culture? No, sorry. And if you think so, why would you suggest that mine or anyone else's are not worthy of the same application across the board?

You just answered your own question. Yours are not applicable across the board if they do not match my experiences. The fact that my experiences are different is prima facie evidence that yours or others do NOT apply to every case.

Now, I didn't at any point say that your generalizations are NEVER right. I said that, according to my own firsthand observations, they are not ALWAYS right. For instance, it's quite possible that JudgeHolden's anecdotes about the military accurately support his position, in that context. And it's quite possible that women in newsrooms behave differently than women in the military so that my observations are also accurate. In the absence of other data, we have no way of knowing whether JudgeHolden's experiences are more common than mine, or vice versa.

Do you understand the distinction? When you make generalizations about how men and women behave, implying that those generalizations apply "across the board," then anyone who can point out an exception is effectively disproving your argument.

Quote
The "quote" you attributed to me was purposefully written by you to mislead...another means by which you have historically attempted to win debates here. My statement was in context to a post by brokeplex and is based on studies showing the same result, that the reason girls team sports had not and remain less involved than boys' team sports because "....girls do not seem to excel at teamnanship". big difference than what you attempted to slip in...and thats rude.  ;) Not to mention the crack about sitcoms. Maybe some self inspection about rudeness is in order.

OK, I'll try to put this as politely as possible.

There is all kinds of research out there on behavioral differences between men and women, some of which even attempt to separate the effects of biology vs. socialization. When you make vast generalizations about the sexes, such as

girls do not seem to excel at teammanship.

it is advisable to include some form of evidence. That is, you can say anything you want -- you can say women have X-ray vision and men can see into the future -- but if you want to be taken seriously it's necessary to support your statements with evidence.

Now, anecdotal evidence, such as I offered, is not the best kind. Empirical research is better, and the ideal is double-blind studies with control groups, blah blah blah. But my point is that you are offering no evidence whatsoever. And anecdotal evidence beats no evidence every time, especially when the side with the no evidence is attempting to make generalizations that apply "across the board."




Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2008, 02:19:38 pm »
I decided to spend five minutes gathering evidence of one kind of another. Parts of it are contradictory. But it does suggest that blanket statements about women's competitiveness vs. teamwork are oversimplified. The studies suggest that the key question is not whether women are overly competitive with each other, but whether they are not competitive enough with men. The data imply that lack of confidence and a discouraging atmosphere partly accounts for women's low numbers in nontraditional occupations. It's interesting to note that the initial assumption, unlike the assumption of some people on this thread, is that men are MORE competitive than women.

Here's a long scientific paper:

http://www.stanford.edu/~niederle/Gender.pdf

To be honest, I just skimmed most of the process parts and went to the conclusion. I can't copy it from the pdf, but it's toward the end and says approximately what I said above.

And here's a NYT blog post on the subject:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/are-men-really-more-competitive-than-women/

February 6, 2008, 2:24 pm
Are Men Really More Competitive Than Women?
By Melissa Lafsky


The conventional wisdom holds that men and women have different abilities when it comes to competition (a view that’s certainly being challenged in the current Democratic primary). Labels like “lacking the killer instinct,” “peacemaker,” and “avoiding confrontation” are commonly assigned to women in competitive environments, while the supposed male knack for thriving in competition is cited as a reason for the persistent wage gap between the sexes.

But is an enhanced or decreased competitive drive a result of biology, or simply a culturally instilled trait? University of Chicago professors Uri Gneezy and John List and Columbia professor Kenneth Leonard performed a controlled experiment to test this question, and published their results in the new working paper, “Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society.”

Their method consisted of studying two distinct social groups: the Maasai in Tanzania, a “textbook example of a patriarchal society” in which women and children are considered “property,” and the Khasi in India, who are matrilineal, meaning female-dominated through inheritance laws, household authority, and social structures — though still distinct from “matriarchal,” since, as the authors point out, “the sociological literature is almost unanimous in the conclusion that truly matriarchal societies no longer exist.”

Gneezy, List, and Leonard tested the competitive drives of 155 subjects, male and female, by gathering groups of men and women from both tribes, offering them money in exchange for participation in an experiment, separating them into individual rooms, and then giving them tasks like tossing a tennis ball into a bucket 10 times. Each subject was told that he or she was competing against an unnamed rival in another room, and was given a choice of payment options: receive either a) “X per successful shot, regardless of the performance of the participant from the other group with whom they were randomly matched;” or b) “3X per successful shot if they outperformed the other participant.” Their results are summarized as follows:

    Our experimental results reveal interesting differences in competitiveness: in the patriarchal society women are less competitive than men, a result consistent with student data drawn from Western cultures. Yet, this result reverses in the matrilineal society, where we find that women are more competitive than men. Perhaps surprisingly, Khasi women are even slightly more competitive than Maasai men, but this difference is not statistically significant at conventional levels under any of our formal statistical tests.

While plenty of studies have contrasted the competitive drives of men and women, few, if any, have isolated subjects who’ve spent their lives blissfully free of Western (and Eastern, for that matter) cultural biases about gender. Now if we could only test how the Khasi women fare in corporate law firms…


Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2008, 03:59:22 pm »

Do you understand the distinction? When you make generalizations about how men and women behave, implying that those generalizations apply "across the board," then anyone who can point out an exception is effectively disproving your argument.


Look, and I'll "try to put this as politely as possible"...

You are making a classic error about scientific study. Simply finding "an exception" to a common trend or overwhelming perponderance of evidence does not "disprove" a thesis. On the contrary, nearly every facet of social/cultural/business/private life in this country is heavily evaluated on generalities, and yes, the word you do not like, stereotypes. The reason that the commercials you watch on TV appeal to a specific "stereotype" of human--gender, likes, dislikes, wants, needs, interests, tastes, etc--is because the demographics do tend to conform to certain generalized behaviors. That is a fact of the matter. Stereotypes are stereotypes because they are largely true.

As such, research, even social research, groups things and people in large subsets of similarities from which general conclusions can be hypothesized and drawn. None of that process is harmful or wrong; it also does not lack in awareness that abberations to the general trends and norms do exist; no one who studies or comments on such things ever suggests that a finding is 100%, even though a statement such as "..the data indicate women (or men) believe...." would be part of the findings in a report. But the exceptions are not, generally, what a 300 million person society creates its programs for or bases its fundamental structures on.

So, making statements (in context) like the one that is giving you heartburn are valid and fair. Just as statements such as 'women seem to be more nurturing...' is a generalization about which both female and male exceptions can be identified, it is directionally a fair statement within the discourse of, for example, family issues, child tutoring, and the like. To lose the opportunity to capitalize on female nurturing because a man objects to the notion, would be a net loss overall. The solution is not to deny the facts and demographic realities, rather be flexible to allow exceptions as they may exist without disrupting the essence of the base indications.





karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2008, 04:13:34 pm »
Teacher's are mostly women because there isn't any stress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG...........  this is so wrong !

Several teachers in my family... trust me... there is stress.

That remark about why most teachers are women because there is not stress is just uninformed.
I didn't want to use ignorant.

I also work in sales.  Semiconductor sales.  Been with this company for 30 years now.
I can promise you the guys here make more then me.  Their guarantee is definitely higher then
mine. Same education too.  The only reason I have stayed this long is the great 401K plan.  ;)

And..... are these salesmen competitive...... you better know it.
They are worse then the women.... by far.  I find it entertaining actually.
I never heard so much whining in all my life ! ::)



Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2008, 04:29:02 pm »
You are making a classic error about scientific study. Simply finding "an exception" to a common trend or overwhelming perponderance of evidence does not "disprove" a thesis. On the contrary, nearly every facet of social/cultural/business/private life in this country is heavily evaluated on generalities, and yes, the word you do not like, stereotypes. The reason that the commercials you watch on TV appeal to a specific "stereotype" of human--gender, likes, dislikes, wants, needs, interests, tastes, etc--is because the demographics do tend to conform to certain generalized behaviors. That is a fact of the matter. Stereotypes are stereotypes because they are largely true.

As such, research, even social research, groups things and people in large subsets of similarities from which general conclusions can be hypothesized and drawn. None of that process is harmful or wrong; it also does not lack in awareness that abberations to the general trends and norms do exist; no one who studies or comments on such things ever suggests that a finding is 100%, even though a statement such as "..the data indicate women (or men) believe...." would be part of the findings in a report. But the exceptions are not, generally, what a 300 million person society creates its programs for or bases its fundamental structures on.

Nope, no error. In fact, what you say here pretty much echoes what I said in my post. I agreed that anecdotal evidence is not great. I agree completely that general trends are more important than rare exceptions. I simply said that my anecdote was some form of support for my thesis. And then I went online and found a couple more pieces of evidence.

In contrast, you have criticized my argument while providing no evidence to support your thesis. That's right, you are criticizing me for offering weak evidence, while you offer zero evidence whatsoever. Again, although my anecdotal evidence is not a sufficient basis for solid conclusions, we do know that there are at least three newsrooms in the country where the behavior of women does not match your generalization. They may be the only three workplaces in America where that is true, or they may represent a much larger majority. More research would be required, but it's a start. Meanwhile, in three posts on the subject, you have given no indication that your generalization is based on anything other than your own musings and assumptions.

Quote
So, making statements (in context) like the one that is giving you heartburn are valid and fair.

Heartburn? Hardly. You mean you don't find this fun?  ;D

Quote
Just as statements such as 'women seem to be more nurturing...' is a generalization about which both female and male exceptions can be identified, it is directionally a fair statement within the discourse of, for example, family issues, child tutoring, and the like. To lose the opportunity to capitalize on female nurturing because a man objects to the notion, would be a net loss overall. The solution is not to deny the facts and demographic realities, rather be flexible to allow exceptions as they may exist without disrupting the essence of the base indications.

Absolutely. But as you must know, the empirical process requires that statements like these about gender and behavior be tested and proved, not just thrown around casually because they seem self-evident to the speaker as "facts and demographic realities."


Offline lia

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 17
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2008, 05:55:27 pm »
I read about that study, too, and I was extremely puzzled as to why Germany (which is where I live right now) would be occupying such a comparatively high position on the list. High in general, and specifically also higher than both the UK and the USA. Which runs contrary to everything I observed while living in each of those 3 countries.

For a start, it has to be noted that 2 years ago Germany was still in 5th position, slipping down to 7th in 2007 and falling further behind to no. 11 in 2008. Not something to proud of.

Doing a little research, I found out a little more. For example that Germany's still fairly reasonable ranking is based largely on the number of women in political decision-making positions (the situation is much worse at the basic political level), one of the four factors the end result is based on.

Another factor is health. And apparently the way it's calculated, the gender gap is generally higher in Western developed countries than in developing countries; and the country with the highest score (at least in 2007) is Angola. Nigeria (average healthy life expectancy: female 42, male 41) is also fairly high on the list, and most people wouldn't describe it as a hotbed of equal opportunities. As one of 4 equal indicators it seems questionable, to say the least.

Economic participation: there Germany only occupied rank no. 29 in 2007, and even that seems more than a little dubious to me. Considering that one of the main groups, "professional and technicals workers", encompasses such diverse groups as university professors (where in Germany men are HUGELY overrepresented) and nursing professions, which not only in Germany is dominated by women.  So any indicator based on that particular group is a non starter, as the two groups seem to more or less cancel each other out.

Also, even if Germany actually deserves to occupy a front rank, it is at considerable social cost. It's not for no reason that the German birth rate is one of the lowest in the world. Yes, there are always exceptions, but the vast majority of German women who achieve top positions do not have children, full stop. Even in countries right at the top of that gender gap list, women who want to achieve top positions do - of course - have to work full time. And it's the number of part timers that's mostly responsible for the (undisputed) wage difference that still exists between men and women working in the same jobs, at least in Germany (laws seem to less strict over here). Here, partly for historical reasons, for mothers to work full time is frowned upon in a major way, even today. Even the daycare staff are likely to ask curious questions along the line of: "why did you want children if you are not prepared to look after them?". Note that no other language has a special name for bad mothers, which certainly includes working mothers: "Rabenmutter". Meaning "raven mother", though nobody knows where that expression stems from.

So in Germany, even in the 21st century women, still largely have to choose between motherhood and a career. Or at least feel they have to. Which is why the last of the four indicators used for the Gender Gap Report quoted above, i.e. education, an area where gender equality in Germany isn’t actually that brilliant even on paper, looks even worse if you take into account the particularly high proportion (called "leaking pipe" in the report I saw) of German women who have a first class education but never make full use of it because of family commitments.

Notwithstanding the fact that Angela Merkel (no kids, of course), aka the German Chancellor, is currently considered the most powerful woman in the world, on a day to day basis both in the USA and the UK the situation for women seems to me at least as good and most probably a whole lot better in the equal opportunities stakes than Germany. At least in both countries women are much less likely to be reviled for opting to have children AND a career. Count your blessings is all I can say.

Having spent several paragraphs whingeing about the situation of German women, even though I myself actually live within the British military community (another subject), I feel I should point out at least one good point. Here in Germany it's still possible for a majority of families to live on ONE salary, because housing is generally affordable. Unlike large parts of the USA, and also most of the liberal top of the Gender Report list. Women in Scandinavia not only can work, they often have no other choice, because the cost of living in that part of Europe is higher than elsewhere and also because in some Scandinavian countries women who don't work don't have any pension rights (unlike Germany, for example). Europe: there's no such thing really if you look closely.

Time to respond to some previous posts.

Talking about the fact that traditional female jobs are less valued/paid than male dominated jobs, HerrKaiser (interesting name ;)) wrote

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.

The last sentence (to somebody who is the daughter, the daughter-in-law and the niece of teachers) is undeniably and unnecessarily rude and, yes, best ignored.

JudgeHolden wrote:

The exception is teaching, but I wont put it in the same caregory because it requires multiple degrees, and though the burnout rate is high, the benefits are pretty good, not the least of which is protection by a powerful union.

Teaching: I assume the situation in the USA is roughly the same as in Germany, and by no means a uniform one: the older the pupils, the higher the qualification required, and the higher the pay. Currently in Germany Kindergarten teachers (which here means looking after kids age 3 - 6) don't need to have a university degree, but they still need to go to college for a few years. I have never heard of a man doing this job. At the next level (up to age 10) a bachelor's degree is required, but nowadays few men opt for it. The top level (11 - 18) also requires a top level degree, and it's there that the "benefits are pretty good" (and the burnout rate particularly high) that you meet the men. Though it also needs to be said that one of the reasons that the number of male teachers at Kindergarten or primary school level is non-existent/continues to decline (leaving kids with fewer male role models) is not only the mediocre pay, it's also because these days men who like to work with children often fear to be branded automatically as potential child abusers and opt for other jobs instead. At least that's the situation in the UK, after a number of high profile cases which were probably not always handled brilliantly.

Nursing: in Germany nurses certainly don't "make a ton of money", as HerrKaiser put it. But that's because nurses in Germany are still largely assistants, without college degrees. Even simple IV lines have to be administered by doctors (male dominated, though not hugely), no prescribing of any kind, etc. etc. But at the same time, even though "old fashioned" nursing and teaching small kids continues to be a badly paid job, women still opt for it, sometimes even - like my mother-in-law - refusing promotion if it means taking them away from the core business of dealing with (small) people. Women often seem to be drawn particularly to jobs that involve looking after people, little, old, sick. Whether that's nature or nurture, I have no idea, but one of the reasons these jobs are paid so badly is because people (again mostly women) are still willing to do them (market forces), because for many of them helping people means real job satisfaction. It's not all about money. Which equally applies to soldiering, BTW. Whereas investment bankers for example are paid such an insane amount of money because nobody would want to do those jobs otherwise.

Finally: JudeHolden wrote

Quote
Also, I myself would ask, whose watching those kids on the job site, what are THEY being paid, and why do I suspect that even in liberal Scandinavia, they are more than likely to be immigrants with far lower pay and benefits than the women whose kids they are watching. Am I trying and guilt women with kids for working, or forgetting that these kids have fathers who need to step up too. No. All Im saying is this is a way more complicatted situation than businesses simply handing out a paycheck for $1000 to a man and a paycheck for $700 to a women for the same job, and there are treadeoffs woman are making they need to consider, because its impacting there personal bottom line.

About the personal bottom line: like I wrote earlier, this seems to vary a lot depending on where you live, because public perception as well as personal preferences play a part in it. About who's looking after the kids: German hotel maids are mostly foreign, supermarket cashiers often are, but the business of looking after kids in Germany still seems to be dominated by Germans. Make of that what you wish. BTW, here in Germany foreign means one of 3 groups: legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, and residents of any number of European countries who just happen to work here. Plus of course some jobs are done elsewhere. An example: a lot of German hotels have their laundry (including folding towels!) done in Eastern Europe, as nobody in Germany would do that job at the wage offered, even though unemployment benefits are shrinking all the time.

Finally a health warning: unless quoted otherwise, all my observations are strictly anecdotal.


Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2008, 06:06:54 pm »
Finally a health warning: unless quoted otherwise, all my observations are strictly anecdotal.

 ;D

Thanks for your thoughtful and well-informed post, lia. I wish I'd known about Rabenmutter when I first had kids. I've often had to convince myself that I'm not one. ;)

Quote
Teaching: I assume the situation in the USA is roughly the same as in Germany, and by no means a uniform one: the older the pupils, the higher the qualification required, and the higher the pay. Currently in Germany Kindergarten teachers (which here means looking after kids age 3 - 6) don't need to have a university degree, but they still need to go to college for a few years. I have never heard of a man doing this job. At the next level (up to age 10) a bachelor's degree is required, but nowadays few men opt for it. The top level (11 - 18) also requires a top level degree, and it's there that the "benefits are pretty good" (and the burnout rate particularly high) that you meet the men. Though it also needs to be said that one of the reasons that the number of male teachers at Kindergarten or primary school level is non-existent/continues to decline (leaving kids with fewer male role models) is not only the mediocre pay, it's also because these days men who like to work with children often fear to be branded automatically as potential child abusers and opt for other jobs instead. At least that's the situation in the UK, after a number of high profile cases which were probably not always handled brilliantly.

This does sound very similar to the situation here. From what I've seen in my sons' schools (*ANECDOTE WARNING*) the higher the grade, the more men. So in their (small) grade school, there were no men in grades K through 3. A couple in 4th and 5th grades. More in middle school. And so on.

Quote
Women often seem to be drawn particularly to jobs that involve looking after people, little, old, sick. Whether that's nature or nurture, I have no idea, but one of the reasons these jobs are paid so badly is because people (again mostly women) are still willing to do them (market forces), because for many of them helping people means real job satisfaction. It's not all about money. Which equally applies to soldiering, BTW.

This is a good point, and it touches on another important point. Women do gravitate toward care-taking jobs. This may be a mixture of nature and nurture. But unquestionably part of it is social pressure, not only from families of origin but from the culture at large. I can tell you from my own experience (*ANECDOTE WARNING*) that there is considerable pressure on mothers to care for their children -- more so on fathers, whether both are working or not. In fact, this can be hard on fathers, as well, if they would prefer to be the primary caretaker. But unquestionably there is pressure on women, and the fact that they feel this pressure to curtail outside work in order to care for their own children reduces their lifetime earnings and promotional opportunities. And they are socially encouraged to steer toward caretaking jobs in education, child care, etc., rather than working in electric plants or mines. Yes, part of this is probably out of personal preference for more comfortable, less dangerous jobs (it certainly would be in my case), but there's undeniable external pressure, which may influence the career decisions of women (and men) who are on the fence.

Quote
Whereas investment bankers for example are paid such an insane amount of money because nobody would want to do those jobs otherwise.

I don't know that I'd agree with this, though. There seem to be plenty of people willing to take well-paying but boring or arcane jobs. Corporate attorneys, etc. The people who hold them must either genuinely like them or are motivated by the earning potential. But there are also plenty of distasteful jobs -- cleaning toilets, for example -- that don't tend to pay well at all, despite their lack of appeal.

Welcome to the Women's Forum, lia! I hope to see you around often.






Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2008, 06:42:40 pm »
Nope, no error. In fact, what you say here pretty much echoes what I said in my post. I agreed that anecdotal evidence is not great. I agree completely that general trends are more important than rare exceptions. I simply said that my anecdote was some form of support for my thesis. And then I went online and found a couple more pieces of evidence.

In contrast, you have criticized my argument while providing no evidence to support your thesis. That's right, you are criticizing me for offering weak evidence, while you offer zero evidence whatsoever. Again, although my anecdotal evidence is not a sufficient basis for solid conclusions, we do know that there are at least three newsrooms in the country where the behavior of women does not match your generalization. They may be the only three workplaces in America where that is true, or they may represent a much larger majority. More research would be required, but it's a start. Meanwhile, in three posts on the subject, you have given no indication that your generalization is based on anything other than your own musings and assumptions.

Heartburn? Hardly. You mean you don't find this fun?  ;D

Absolutely. But as you must know, the empirical process requires that statements like these about gender and behavior be tested and proved, not just thrown around casually because they seem self-evident to the speaker as "facts and demographic realities."



Oy. I guess there's no point in continuing.

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2008, 06:48:24 pm »
by the by... can someone tell me why, in a forum created to discuss gay (mens) issues, generally, has a separate forum been created for Women Today?

It strikes me that the premise of such a forum topic and title is in itself, given the original environment, a statement of gender inequality that features and implies a greater importance to women than men.

karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2008, 06:50:06 pm »
I didn't realize Bettermost was created strictly for gay mens issues.

I don't think it was

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2008, 06:51:23 pm »
I didn't realize Bettermost was creates strictly for gay mens issues.

I don't think it was

Ah, I guess the name may as well have been Del Monte.

karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2008, 06:52:02 pm »
Ah, I guess the name may as well have been Del Monte.

What?

karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2008, 06:54:04 pm »
Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
Are you saying you don't understand, or think there should be threads here devoted to womens iissues?

I'm confused

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2008, 06:55:01 pm »
Teacher's are mostly women because there isn't any stress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG...........  this is so wrong !

Several teachers in my family... trust me... there is stress.

That remark about why most teachers are women because there is not stress is just uninformed.
I didn't want to use ignorant.


Obviously if you take my quote within the context of the series of points, it is obviously a bit of hyperbole and exaggeration. Most folks would get that. Mistaking that is just willful ignorance.

I didn't want to use something else.

karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #28 on: November 20, 2008, 06:56:41 pm »
Obviously if you take my quote within the context of the series of points, it is obviously a bit of hyperbole and exaggeration. Most folks would get that. Mistaking that is just willful ignorance.

I didn't want to use something else.

 :laugh:


Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #29 on: November 20, 2008, 07:03:35 pm »
Maybe I am misunderstanding you.
Are you saying you don't understand, or think there should be threads here devoted to womens iissues?

I'm confused

Confused?

Look at the landing page for the site. It's all about Brokeback Mountain and events and parallel topics/issues relating to the film and its inherent subject matter. Jumping out of the page as a bold abberation and labeled "special" and "important" is WOMEN TODAY. Looks, feels, and appears like sexism to me.

karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2008, 07:32:20 pm »
Well, I think Phillip wants people to feel free to discuss all kind of subjects.

I would just have to let him or one of the mods answer this.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2008, 08:07:46 pm »
Look at the landing page for the site. It's all about Brokeback Mountain and events and parallel topics/issues relating to the film and its inherent subject matter. Jumping out of the page as a bold abberation and labeled "special" and "important" is WOMEN TODAY. Looks, feels, and appears like sexism to me.

First of all, Brokeback Mountain is not synonymous with "gay men." Yes, the movie's heroes are gay men. But discussing the movie (and story) does not limit one to discussing gay men. You can also discuss symbolism in literature and movies, unhappy marriages, 1960s fashions, infidelity, the Wyoming landscape, economic hardship, Western music, and all kinds of other things. The forum was created to discuss BBM, its effect on the lives of the people who are members here, and other topics that spring from that foundation.

If you look in the top corner of your screen, HerrKaiser, you will see that there are 10,742 topics (threads) on this site. Many are about Brokeback Mountain. Some are about gay men. Some are about men in general, such as the group of threads that Milo maintains on his blog site. And many, many more are about other subjects, ranging from ketchup vs. mustard to the death penalty. The Women's Forum was created because many of the site's members (the majority, in fact, from what I've heard) are women. Some are gay women, some are bisexual or straight women. But as the site is intended as a community in which people can discuss all sorts of things, the existence of a forum devoted to women's issues seems entirely appropriate. It is featured on the landing page right now because it is new, and we want to let people know of its existence.

But I know most of this is not a surprise to you, HerrKaiser, because I have seen you post on many of those other threads, particularly the political ones. In fact, most of the places I've seen you post do not focus on gay men. Interestingly, this is the very first time I've seen you complain about that.

Hmm ...  ::)


karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2008, 08:21:06 pm »
Thanks Katherine.

I was beginning to feel like a sexist ! ;D

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2008, 08:44:37 pm »
First of all, Brokeback Mountain is not synonymous with "gay men." Yes, the movie's heroes are gay men. But discussing the movie (and story) does not limit one to discussing gay men. You can also discuss symbolism in literature and movies, unhappy marriages, 1960s fashions, infidelity, the Wyoming landscape, economic hardship, Western music, and all kinds of other things. The forum was created to discuss BBM, its effect on the lives of the people who are members here, and other topics that spring from that foundation.

If you look in the top corner of your screen, HerrKaiser, you will see that there are 10,742 topics (threads) on this site. Many are about Brokeback Mountain. Some are about gay men. Some are about men in general, such as the group of threads that Milo maintains on his blog site. And many, many more are about other subjects, ranging from ketchup vs. mustard to the death penalty. The Women's Forum was created because many of the site's members (the majority, in fact, from what I've heard) are women. Some are gay women, some are bisexual or straight women. But as the site is intended as a community in which people can discuss all sorts of things, the existence of a forum devoted to women's issues seems entirely appropriate. It is featured on the landing page right now because it is new, and we want to let people know of its existence.

But I know most of this is not a surprise to you, HerrKaiser, because I have seen you post on many of those other threads, particularly the political ones. In fact, most of the places I've seen you post do not focus on gay men. Interestingly, this is the very first time I've seen you complain about that.

Hmm ...  ::)



yes, hmmmm. once again, you fail to address a post accurately and make wild comments that have little bearing on the post you chose to criticize. I never said the BBM was "synonymous" with gay men. YOU said that, and then proceeded to opine on a variety of obvious aspects about the forum.

what I did say is that the forum is "about Brokeback Mountain and events and parallel topics/issues relating to the film and its inherent subject matter". That is not at all synonymous with gay men; far more extensive, which is fine with me.

I do take umberage , though, with the sexist nature of your forum, highlighted and featured in a way to create a dominance and attitude that is exemplory of pure sexism.

karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2008, 09:00:45 pm »
Oh Lord.  :(

 ::)

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #35 on: November 20, 2008, 10:02:17 pm »
in a forum created to discuss gay (mens) issues,

I didn't realize Bettermost was created strictly for gay mens issues.

I don't think it was

Ah, I guess the name may as well have been Del Monte.

Umm ... Herr, here are you discussing "gay men's issues" as if that were synonymous with "Brokeback Mountain." The forum is created to discuss Brokeback Mountain issues.

Sexist, hunh? Herr, I have to ask you again ... why have you never made this complaint about the thousands of other posts here that aren't about Brokeback Mountain (or even gay men's issues) including those you have posted on? Why state your first objection ever in the case of the women's forum?



karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2008, 10:33:57 pm »
I do have to laugh at the sexist accusation.
One could think you calling it sexist is sexist.
 :)

You did make several posts in this thread before you came to the conclusion that it was sexist.

Offline ifyoucantfixit

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,049
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2008, 12:01:56 am »



      Why is it, that some of the people here, tend to attack the very women that have been the biggest supporters
of gay men and gay rights?  It seems that lately the very people that are receiving the largest share of that
support are the ones that want to attack the supporters.  Is it that there is no room for the other side of the issue to
be explored.  I don't understand why that has happened.  As far as Bettermost and its reason for having been
established.  I thought it was in order for all issues that have been raised, as a result of BBM, be discussed.
Not just the gay men.  Not just the wives of those gay men, but all their sympathizers and friends as well.  The movie
seemed to be about more than just the two men involved.  It was about society as a whole and how it effects
all of its members.  How those effects can cause negative and bad results, to all.
    I for one took extreme exception to the inference that women are too ignorant, by birth or by choice, to teach
anything except for K-3.  While men are more apt at teaching older and more advanced children.



     Beautiful mind

karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2008, 12:17:02 am »
What Janice said !
 ;)

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2008, 12:51:21 am »

One could think you calling it sexist is sexist.



One could, if one was not very honest or insightful.

Offline HerrKaiser

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,708
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #40 on: November 21, 2008, 01:02:05 am »
I have to ask you again ... why have you never made this complaint about the thousands of other posts here that aren't about Brokeback Mountain (or even gay men's issues) including those you have posted on? Why state your first objection ever in the case of the women's forum?


Where on the forum's main page is a forum title specifically using gender to highlight and discriminate the topic?

You may be confusing sexual preference with gender. Yours is the first and only sexist forum I am aware of here. If you are claiming there are others, please show, and if you're also claiming more than one wrong makes a right, say that as well.  ;)

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #41 on: November 21, 2008, 01:44:16 am »
You may be confusing sexual preference with gender. Yours is the first and only sexist forum I am aware of here. If you are claiming there are others, please show, and if you're also claiming more than one wrong makes a right, say that as well.  ;)

Please explain why you consider this forum sexist. I'll have to say that never crossed my mind, any more than it crossed my mind to consider Milo's blogs about men sexist. Then, please explain why if you consider it so sexist you keep posting here anyway.

Sometimes things are devoted to one gender or the other. Are women's magazines sexist because they're about women's interests? Are women's sports sexist because the teams don't have men on them? Are women's schools sexist? Are women's bathrooms sexist? I'm sorry, HerrKaiser, but I do not consider your accusation to have any merit, and in fact I find the accusation itself questionable.

 

Offline Lumière

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,283
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2008, 02:14:46 am »
Where on the forum's main page is a forum title specifically using gender to highlight and discriminate the topic?

You may be confusing sexual preference with gender. Yours is the first and only sexist forum I am aware of here. If you are claiming there are others, please show, and if you're also claiming more than one wrong makes a right, say that as well.  ;)


HerrKaiser,  from what I have seen in this thread - you were part of the discussion, presented your thoughts on the subject of this thread.
Then you decided that the forum was sexist.
What do you suggest be done -  Title change?  Should the forum be deleted altogether?   Should the name be removed from the front page?


This is an example of what I personally believe is sad about Bettermost these days.
Arguments left, right and center.


karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #43 on: November 21, 2008, 10:57:20 am »
One could, if one was not very honest or insightful.

If it bothers you so much, you are not required to post here.

There are other threads you will find more appealing , I am sure.


karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #44 on: November 21, 2008, 11:02:24 am »

HerrKaiser,  from what I have seen in this thread - you were part of the discussion, presented your thoughts on the subject of this thread.
Then you decided that the forum was sexist.
What do you suggest be done -  Title change?  Should the forum be deleted altogether?   Should the name be removed from the front page?


This is an example of what I personally believe is sad about Bettermost these days.
Arguments left, right and center.

I know, me too.  IT is sad.

I think some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing.
This one isn't really even worth the time.
It ends up hijacking the thread, and taking away the whole purpose
of the discussion.

I'll just use the scroll..........................






Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,377
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2008, 12:59:29 pm »

Thanks for all this input Friends.  Could I gently suggest that we try to make sure this thread stays on the topics of economics, financial equailty and issues of equal pay, etc.?

If you would like to debate other subjects, please start new thread topics!  Thanks!

(atz takes mod cap off)...



the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2008, 01:19:01 pm »
Thanks for all this input Friends.  Could I gently suggest that we try to make sure this thread stays on the topics of economics, financial equailty and issues of equal pay, etc.?

If you would like to debate other subjects, please start new thread topics!  Thanks!

(atz takes mod cap off)...

Excellent point. And HerrKaiser, if you'd like to start a new thread in this forum stating your views about the forum being sexist, you are most welcome to do so. It could be an interesting discussion.


OK, to get back on economics, I am reading a book about evolutionary psychology, an amateur interest of mine (it's called, Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, by Alan S. Miller and Stoshi Kananzawa). There are chapters called "Why Do Men So Often Earn More Money and Attain Higher Status Than Women?" and "Why Are Most Neurosurgeons Male and Most Kindergarten Teachers Female?" I haven't read them yet, but they should certainly be germane to this discussion! I will report back, though to be honest I am slightly afraid to read them. Evolutionary psychology is fascinating, but it can also be disturbing.

(OT for just another moment: There's also a subchapter with an evolutionary psychologist's theories about homosexuality, which should be interesting, too -- it's something I've always wondered about.)


karen1129

  • Guest
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2008, 06:02:17 pm »
Sounds like intersting reading Katherine.

Look forward to your report.


Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,712
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #48 on: December 26, 2008, 02:37:02 pm »
Sounds like intersting reading Katherine.

Look forward to your report.

Oops! Guess I got distracted. Anyway, I just ran across this and thought it would be of interest here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102529.html?hpid=topnews


Study Ties Wage Disparities To Outlook on Gender Roles

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 22, 2008; A02

Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women's place in the world, according to a study being reported today.

It is the first time social scientists have produced evidence that large numbers of men might be victims of gender-related income disparities. The study raises the provocative possibility that a substantial part of the widely discussed gap in income between men and women who do the same work is really a gap between men with a traditional outlook and everyone else.

The differences found in the study were substantial. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned $11,930 more a year than men with egalitarian views and $14,404 more than women with traditional attitudes. The comparisons were based on men and women working in the same kinds of jobs with the same levels of education and putting in the same number of hours per week.

Although men with a traditional outlook earned the most, women with a traditional outlook earned the least. The wage gap between working men and women with a traditional attitude was more than 10 times as large as the gap between men and women with egalitarian views.

If you divide workers into four groups -- men with traditional attitudes, men with egalitarian attitudes, women with traditional attitudes and women with egalitarian attitudes -- men with traditional attitudes earn far more for the same work than those in any of the other groups. There are small disparities among the three disadvantaged groups, but the bulk of the income inequality is between the first group and the rest.

"When we think of the gender wage gap, most of our focus goes to the women side of things," said Beth A. Livingston, co-author of the study. "This article says a lot of the difference may be in men's salaries."

Livingston said she was taken aback by the results.

"We actually thought maybe men with traditional attitudes work in more complex jobs that pay more or select higher-paying occupations," she said. "Regardless of the jobs people chose, or how long they worked at them, there was still a significant effect of gender role attitudes on income."

The study, published in the September issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, is based on information collected by a federal government survey over a quarter-century. The Labor Department's National Longitudinal Survey of Youth began tracking 12,000 people in 1979 when they were 14 to 22 years old. The survey participants are now 43 to 51 years old.

Because many participants in the survey were children when it started, incomes for men and women changed dramatically over the 25 years that Livingston and co-author Timothy Judge studied. Averaged over the quarter-century, salaries ranged from $34,725 for working men with traditional attitudes to $20,321 for working women with traditional attitudes. Working men with egalitarian attitudes made $22, 795 on average, while working women with egalitarian attitudes made $21,373.

Livingston and Judge, who are organizational psychologists at the University of Florida, compared people's incomes over time to their evolving views on whether a woman's place is in the home and whether it is better for men to be the only breadwinners. People who endorsed distinct roles in society for men and women were considered to have traditional views, while those who advocated equal roles for men and women at home and in the workplace were classified as having egalitarian views.

The study offers an unusual window into the gender disparities in income that have been observed for decades. Critics of the gender-gap theory regularly suggest that the disparity is an artifact of the career choices that men and women make or the different hours that men and women work.

The critics argue that more men choose higher-paying professions such as law and business and more women choose lower-paying professions such as education and social work, and that men tend to work longer hours. Researchers said all the conclusions in the new study were based on comparisons between people in similar jobs, working similar hours, with similar qualifications.

"Some would say, 'Of course traditional men earn more than traditional women -- they are both fulfilling their desires to play different roles in the home and workplace,' " said Judge, emphasizing that the researchers compared working men with working women, not working men with women who stay home. "Our results do not support that view. If you were a traditional-minded woman, would you say, 'I am fine working the same hours as a traditional-minded man in the same industry with the same education but earning substantially less'? I don't think traditional-minded women would say that."

The empirical evidence in the study showed a connection between people's attitudes about gender roles and their salaries. It was not designed to explain why those disparities come about or how people's attitudes -- supposedly a private matter -- affect how much money they make.

Livingston and Judge said there are two possible explanations: Traditional-minded men might negotiate much harder for better salaries, especially when compared with traditional-minded women. Alternatively, it could also be that employers discriminate against women and men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles.

"It could be that traditional men are hypercompetitive salary negotiators -- the Donald Trump prototype, perhaps," Judge said. "It could be on the employer side that, subconsciously, the men who are egalitarian are seen as effete."

Livingston, a doctoral candidate in management, added: "People make others uncomfortable when they disconfirm stereotypes -- we don't know how to interpret them."

Increasing numbers of Americans hold egalitarian views about the role of women in the workplace, and the researchers suggested that if attitudes about gender roles are indeed at the core of the long-standing wage gap, disparities in income might recede as egalitarian views become more prevalent.

Parents looking at the study might be tempted to inculcate their sons with traditional gender views with an eye to greater financial success, but the researchers warned that this would come at their daughters' cost -- traditional-minded women suffer the greatest income disadvantage for doing the same work.

"Traditional values," Judge said, "do not have to be traditional gender-role values."


Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,288
  • Brokeback got us good.
Re: Economic Gender Gaps: In the U.S. and Internationally
« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2009, 11:31:55 am »
Hooray for Lily Ledbetter!!

From the Hartford Courant:

Quote
Lilly Ledbetter is a Goodyear plant supervisor who discovered she was paid significantly less than her male colleagues for the same work. She sued, won, but Goodyear appealed. The case made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in favor of the company because Ledbetter hadn't filed her case within 180 days of first experiencing the discrimination. Ledbetter was a 20-year employee of the plant, and had only in the latter part of her career discovered the discrimination.

Said Teresa C. Younger, executive director of the state's Permanent Commission on the Status of Women: "We cannot grow the middle class without ensuring that women have financial standing and security equal to that of their male co-workers. Women remain the biggest untapped engine for driving economic recovery, but we can't do it on 78 cents for every dollar a man earns."
"chewing gum and duct tape"