babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
The reason I was suspended was because of the blow up with remind. And, rightfully so. And, I have refrained from getting in any conversation here with anyone that is even remotely like that blow up. In other words, I’m behaving. In contrast, the discussion here is legitimate and not “antifeminist”. It addresses a significant factor that leads to pay inequality that is too often ignored in favor of a simplified demonization of bigoted employers. In my early posts above, I explicitly acknowledged that gender discrimination is a factor in pay inequality. But, there are reasons why gender discrimination may not be the principal factor in pay inequality. I’m arguing that the patriarchal society expects women, not men, to stay at home with children, that that is the principal cause of pay inequality, and that there is no easy solution to address that (I think the solution must found in men staying at home with children at the same rate women do).
So, by stating that, you are now asking me to stay out of the feminism forum? I’ve already been admonished—with the vacation—for the prior blow up and I have refrained from engaging in any discussions like that. Are you now asking me to stay out of this forum because of the prior blow up? Or, is it because of what I’m posting here today? If it’s due to the former reason, I’ve already “served” my vacation and have behaved since that time. If it’s for the latter reason, I ask you to reconsider because what I’m advocating is neither a male or female perspective—but something that is, as Stephen Gordon noted above, something that is being legitimately debated.
It's not as simplistic as all that. The work I cited is devoted to answering the deeper question of why women would make those choices.
Page 3 of the article, clearly supports my contentions that:
1. highly skilled women do not leave the job,
2. maternity leave addresses choices in staying or leaving to the positive for women, a particular factor in Canada, as opposed to the USA where paid maternity leave is not equal to Canada's system.
3. studies in trying to prove the theory of human capital, whereby women leaving, because of child bearing and their loss of experience creates the wage disparity is disproven by the theorists own attempts to prove it. Women who are paid well do not leave, and as such they actually have proven the single most important factor in wage disparity is on the job discrimination bias against women, based upon what are clearly misconceptions that women will leave to bear children for extended periods.
And Sven you were asked to stay out of the feminist forum, and your telling me, I have no understanding of factors in the wage disparity, is just another example why. Perhaps you should read the article Stephen linked to before you tried to draw support for your misconceptions from it?!
Actually, the authors stated that they preferred greater access to child care services over maternity leave policies. As that would A: give women a greater ability to participate in the workplace, and B: not penalise employers.
You might want to read the summary a little more closely.
[ 15 August 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]
Huh? [img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
Thank you, Michelle.
I think that the article is probably right about the relative benefits of child care versus maternity leave. Intuitively, that makes sense. Reducing the amount of time that women are away from the workforce due to child-raising seems to be a key for substantially narrowing pay inequality.
I'd never read about the "human capital theory" before. Quite interesting. I wish I new more about economics. It's such a valuable tool for helping us understand human behavior.
Please do read page 3 regarding the findings of what happened regarding those women who had high paying jobs and who did not take maternity leave, not what the women were asking for.
They did not leave their highly skilled highly paid job positions, unlike what Sven and Stephen contended was the case. Nor like those other followers of the failed human capital theory, who had believed that this would be the case in regards to time accrued on the job and women not gaining time accrued, over a career time, equal to that of men in highly skilled highly paid job positions, because they would leave for maternity reasons.
The women who were highly skilled, and paid, did not leave and even more came back when maternity leave was offered.
Child care was a desire not the data collected about actual women who do, or do not leave the work force.
Why bother with the human capital theory Sven? It was already what you put forth that was in error, as I noted, just as the human capital theory was found to be a failure back into 2006 when the linked paper was published. And just like those who put forth the human capital theory to try and explain workplace discrimination was not present, and tried to postulate, as you did, that it was actually women themselves who were at fault for leaving to raise kids, and not acrruing work history. And just like you, they were proven to be in error, by their own studies no less.
Who has “proven” this?
I think it’s true that women with high-paying jobs tend to be those who have never left the workforce to take care of children in the first place. My partner is a perfect example of that. We have no kids and she has a long and successful career as a corporate lawyer, one of the top attorneys in her field in Minneapolis. And she’s compensated accordingly.
At the same time, I can name many, many other attorneys who have left the practice to stay home with their children. If they choose to practice law again, they will undoubtedly not be paid the same as their male colleagues who stayed in the practice without interruption, if they are absent from the profession for a long period of time.
Actually, I don’t think that women are “at fault” for leaving the workforce to raise their kids. Rather, society (i.e., both women and men) is “at fault” for expecting women to be the ones who stay home with their children in 99% of the case when a parent stays home to care for children on a full-time basis.
Can you seriously argue that if men and women stayed home full time to care for children at equal rates that that wouldn’t significantly reduce the unequal pay earned by men and women?
Does gender discrimination occur in the workplace? Of course. But, is it the sole, or even principal, reason why there is a pay gap between women and men? Not from what I’ve read.
That being said, I would appreciate links to any economic studies that have been done that are contrary to that view.
What are you doing here? I want you to prove to ME that as a woman I am not discriminated against on the job! And I don't mean using YOUR personal opinions. Find concrete evidence please.
YOu will never get it. The law of human nature is that those in power will fight to the death before they give up power, men have the power and you are a perfect example of one fighting to keep it.
I can easily give my own ancedotal information that is close to the example you give of your partner, only the opposite.
I have a good friend, corporate lawyer, part of the legal team that actually drew up NAFTA, which kinda off put me on our friendship, but our partners remain friends so we just talk about our common interests like poker. Anyhow, she has her high paid career, on Howe St, along with 2 children. Is a hands on mom, and a good one. Never left the work force.
And by the way you stated professional women highly skilled and paid left the work force in high numbers and I stated they wouldn't. Apparently, again you did not read the article namely page 3, where it states they self select and stay in the workforce even though they have children.
And again this finding would be even more pertinent in Canada, where we do not ascribe to the false theory of "human capital".
I happen to be self-employed. Do you think if I could hire a women for less than I could for a man with the same productivity(read: experience) that I would hire a single man? If that was the case I would simple toss any applications I received from men into the trash heap just like any other rational, profit seeking, person would do.
I really believe that as soon as a profession becomes equal in female representation, the pay goes down.
Good for you that you are fair but unfortunately that isn't the case everywhere.
This is both interesting and depressing, if it's true. Do you have a line to any evidence for this, e.g. a study of a profession that has recently had an increase in the proportion of women working in it?
For some reason, a fair number of literate people seem to be in complete dneial that real discrimination can exist. Ummm, it does, even among "rational" people. Why would an employer pay a woman less than a man? He might subconciously/conciously believe she's irrational, she'll leave to take care of the kids, she's so nice so she'll accept lower pay, she won't put up a fuss, her work is less valuable, et cetera et cetera. These are some of the discirminatory factors women face. Anybody who is not a handsome upper class tall and fit caucasian male of proper accent will face discrimination. The predisposition to discrimination and stereotypes is within human nature, and now we are at a stage in history (and have been for some time) that these predispositions do more harm than good. Getting rid is not so easy as saying "we are human, we are rational!" but might actually require strong intervention.
Of course maternity leave is a factor. Of course women having on average less energy on the job than they would if men cared as much for offspring in the years following is a factor. But for some reason these factors are being magnified here. why? Even on this forum, a mere 2 or 3 weeks ago, a thread was posted measuring gender discrimination in a very controlled way.
***
Now, as for New York.
Is this 20% pay difference uniform across racial lines, or is it equal pay between whites, whereas black and latina women make 50% more than their male counterparts? My question comes from the race-gender divide in college attendance in the United States.
Another factor is that there seems to be an underlying assumption that men's pay are a control group, and women's pay is merely a ratio of that group. Men are also evolving as a group. If you look at the graph on page 3 of Stephen Gordon's link, in the past thirty years women's pay has increased ~30%, and men's have been flat. Under our measurement methodology, we might be exagerrating the performance of women by comparing it to the anemic performance of men. Is there something wrong with men? Attention Deficit Disorder, declining sperm counts... maybe we have not noticed an industrial pollutant affects men adversely? Are we screwing up our boys?
My first "real job" was working in a bakery. My boss refused to hire male cashiers and counter staff. From the fact that men doing similar-skilled and labour-intensive work at the bakery were getting paid way more than we were, we knew that was the reason. Men wouldn't put up with the shit that we did.
Our fault? Maybe. I don't know. All I know is, I needed the job and didn't make waves until I could get out.
YES. As a single mom, I had no choice but to accept what I was offered and they knew it.
I also think that years and years of putting up with that has taught me to undervalue my skills to the point where I really have to fight myself to ask for more. So in a way we may be initially paid less but in the end we do it to ourselves by not asking for more.
I hope I am making sense.
You may very well have been discriminated against because you are a woman. There would be no basis for me to challenge your personal experience. Besides, as a general proposition, I’ve already conceded that gender discrimination exists.
I will never “get it” that gender pay inequality is strictly a matter of gender discrimination? No. I guess I won’t.
A 2005 report issued by the American Association of University Women cited a research study that indicated “20 percent of the pay gap is “unexplained” and hence could be attributed to discrimination (or other factors not included in their analysis)”. In other words, at least 80% of the pay inequality gap was due to factors other than discrimination, including “Of the many factors that account for the differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicates that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than [do] men.” While the AAUW report initially looks like a summary of opinion polls, the interesting part of the report is the report’s discussion of economists’ analyses of the issue.
Gender pay inequality can largely be explained by measurable factors (years of work experience, education level, etc.). But, the analysis is complex because there are so many variables that can cause the disparity. Gender discrimination, according to the AAUW “may” play a relatively small role in causing that disparity.
What’s the good news? In 1970, women earned 60% of what men earned. Today, that gap has already been cut in half. Obviously, there is a lot of progress that needs to occur. Trying to take an honest and open look at the causes of that pay gap is necessary in order to find further solutions to reducing that gap.
Well, you asked for something other than my opinion, no?