All Else Being Equal: Disputing Claims of a Gender Pay Gap In Tech

An anonymous reader writes "Synthia Tan writes that when you investigate the actual data, controlling for non-gender factors (like number of hours worked) the gender pay gap seems to disappear. 'A longitudinal study of female engineers in the 1980s showed a wage penalty of essentially zero.' In some cases women make more than men: women who work between 30 and 39 hours a week make 111% of what their male counterparts make." The researchers were studying more recent data, too; what are things like on this front where you work?

Comments

I really have no idea

[Chrisq]

I really have no idea what any of my colleagues earn (within salary bands), but I have no reason to think there is a difference. Certainly both make and female seem to be as happy with their packages.

Re:I really have no idea

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Two words: oriented graphs...

Re:I really have no idea

[farble1670]

I really have no idea what any of my colleagues earn (within salary bands), but I have no reason to think there is a difference. Certainly both make and female seem to be as happy with their packages.

just like your employer likes it. keeping wages a secret keeps everyone's wages down. in stead of paying people fairly according to their contributions, they can pay people what they can get away with. would you be happy w/ your compensation if you knew bob who doesn't show up until lunch time and takes off at 2pm every friday makes $30k more than you per year?

Re:I really have no idea

[Chrisq]

would you be happy w/ your compensation if you knew bob who doesn't show up until lunch time and takes off at 2pm every friday makes $30k more than you per year?

Hey ... is that you Bob .... you don't do you?

Similar to most studies

[ranton]

I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap. When you factor in that women are known to negotiate less for salary the gap probably disappears completely.

The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all). Focusing on the wage gap is pretty silly now.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anonymous Coward]

The focus now needs to be on why women don't enter as many high paying fields (and whether that is even a problem at all).

I think a big part of it is that those jobs tend to come with a shitty work/life balance and cultures that encourage crazy hours (especially in engineering type positions). Women tend to be more into the work/life balance and tend to have more time obligations outside of work (kids being the big one).

The only other argument that makes any sense to me is established culture, which kinda ties into that. An office full of mostly guys is going to have a very guy culture, same as an office full of women is going to have a women culture. All the little silly office stuff on it's own probably doesn't matter, but collectively I could see it making a job unappealing. I have a hard time listening to a female coworker talk about her kids for like a half hour at lunch.. an office filled with women who do this constantly would probably drive me insane, so I can see the reverse being true.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Intrepid imaginaut]

There's quite a lot of dispute that there was ever a gender based wage gap. Reading Dorothy Dix from the 20s and 30s, she seemed to think that men and women were compensated equivalently at that time, and earlier. Which if you think about it makes sense, if a company could hire one gender for less, why wouldn't they hire that gender exclusively?

Given that, why is the POTUS parroting these myths? Is he planning to mandate higher wages for women and quotas when employers are unwilling to hire these more expensive employees or what?

Re:Similar to most studies

[cryptizard]

Kids are only a bigger obligation for women because society expects them to do the majority of care and household work, even when they have full time jobs. If that weren't true, then you would see dads having the same problem and working less hours.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Play this video instead, an interview with Thomas Sowell from it looks like the 60s, where he's saying exactly the same thing as is apparently being "discovered" these days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

And this mind you was around the time of second wave feminism.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Attila Dimedici]

The most amusing thing about President Obama going on about gender pay inequality is that one of the few places where it is significant is one of the places where he has the most control over it, White House staff. There have been several reports that women who work at the White House are paid significantly less than men working at the White House, even when they are filling the same role.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there are those 9 months where women do not have the posibillity of offloading most of their work/pain - due to it growing inside them. But otherwise i agree. its a mostly social issue. But I am not even sure we need 100% equality... then we would have a lot of idealistic individiuals who would have to find new causes to rage about :) I personally also much prefer to be treated by a female doctor/nurse, am i a feminist or a male sexist? and then you have a lot of women who actually fight for their "baby perogative" to the point that the father should be entirely left out of the childs life... There will never be equality because neither side is 100% for it.

Re:Similar to most studies

[WileyC]

The biggest difference in male/female pay is that women, as a group, value things like family life and health more than money. I think that's a perfectly rational choice and it's really demeaning to women when people are spouting claims that they are being paid so much less. Women know their worth as much as men and they get it! But what they are getting is a healthier, happier lifestyle. =)

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just society - from what I see very many of them WANT to do the "mother stuff" - not so much the household work bit.

Guys are more likely (not 100% but more likely) to go baby crying again? Check stuff out, doesn't want milk, no fever, everything seems OK, must be the teething, then put on earplugs/earphones and go to sleep (maybe in a different room if possible).

More moms can't do that sort of thing (till maybe the 3rd or 4th kid ;) ). They won't be able to sleep.

And even if society expects dads to do it, dads are more likely to ignore what society says or say "fuck off" (for similar reasons that's why more males are criminals, nutjobs, CEOs and leaders).

I think it's in the genetic programming, if mothers were more like us guys there wouldn't be 7 billion of us on this planet- there'd still be humans but fewer :).

Re:Similar to most studies

[TheLink]

There's definitely a pay gap for pro tennis. Women who can't beat male tennis players ranked around #100 earn far more than the male players.

But more people will pay more to watch the women play than the rank 100 male tennis players play. Sexism? Gender inequality? Certainly. But vive la difference! :)

I think women ten-pin bowlers are as good as the guys though, some maybe even better...

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anrego]

Yup.

All the social progress in the world can't defeat the fact that there in most cases there is a much stronger maternal bond between a mother and her child than between the father and his child. This is not just a human thing, but is seen pretty consistently in nature as well.

The guy donated some genetic material. The woman had the thing grow inside them for 9 months. Who's gonna be more connected? Not saying the guy shouldn't be legally obligated to have the same level of responsibility for the kid as the woman, but on an emotional level, the women is usually gonna care more.

Re:Similar to most studies

[ranton]

In STEM for example, there is a huge push over "WE NEED TO HIRE MORE FEMALE STEM WORKERS". This is of course, absurd. The STEM industry doesn't need more women anymore than it needs more men. STEM needs more qualified human beings capable of doing the job.

In many societies including Canada and the US, starting at a young age, men and women are encouraged to go down certain career paths.

You basically gave the exact reason why wanting to create more female STEM workers is not absurd. You admit we want more qualified human beings capable of doing the job. Then you admit we encourage women into certain career paths. So if we are guiding women into non-STEM careers, we are removing a large portion of the population from the training necessary to be capable of doing STEM jobs. That is the problem our society is trying to solve by creating more female STEM workers.

We will almost certainly never achieve parity because women will probably always be their children's primary care givers in the majority of cases, but many people thing more progress can be made.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Curunir_wolf]

Given that, why is the POTUS parroting these myths? Is he planning to mandate higher wages for women and quotas when employers are unwilling to hire these more expensive employees or what?

No, it's pure politics. He's part of the Dem team, and they are currently having a lot of successes using social issues to divide the electorate. As long as they can keep the people thinking the other team is conducting a "war on women" and would support policies to oppress the female gender, they can get people to vote for them. Just because he doesn't have another election, doesn't mean he can't see the benefits in having more of his own "team members" in congress.

Re:Similar to most studies

[GoCrazy]

There's a reason for why there are less women in the STEM fields, and it's the intersection of two (2) problems. The first being we teach all children, regardless of gender, that the engineering and the hard sciences are difficult, and boring, and the best reason to go into them is to get a high paying job. The second being historically in western cultures, women aren't required to make money.

So if you unless you need to be a breadwinner, why would you get a boring high paying job? Why not something marketed as more interesting like psychology or marketing.

Re:Similar to most studies

[jedidiah]

There's no need for Obama to trot out bad labor statistics.

I was already well convinced that the GOP was waging a war on women long before Obama started with that still stuff. The GOP do well enough creating this impression on their own. They really don't need any help at all.

Just let a Tea Bagger get close to a microphone that's switched on.

Re:Similar to most studies

[geekoid]

Oh, reports you say? well then, I guess that clinches it.

Salaries our paid be the government, not whom ever happens to be in the white house.
Not that those numbers are really believable:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/file...

If you will note, there are more women at the entry level position.

The president has no control over their salaries.

What this shows is the Obama is doing a pretty good job as president. All number show improvement, so no one can attack him with actual job performance facts. SO Fox et. al. Attack things near him, attack with ad homs, attack with lies.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Xest]

"I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap."

Hours worked is where I've seen the numbers most distorted. Most studies I've seen talking about pay gap don't account for hours and are based on the premise that most women in opposite sex relationships still opt to take on the role of picking up kids from school and such instead of their partner and so do less hours, but as this is omitted from the study the claim is made that they're paid less. Certainly in the UK few studies seem to take in hours worked, most just take the sex, the profession, and the annual salary and do nothing more than that.

So the issue of disparity in most cases is that in most couples it's still the female that is taking on the role of housewife but this is entirely a choice between couples and not a workplace problem in the slightest beyond the fact that this also impacts womens career progression because statistically you're more likely to know the company better the more hours you spend there, and hence be a more suitable candidate for promotion, hence why women are less likely to be promoted - because they're also more likely to be less committed to work and more committed to home.

The fact is some feminists want women to be able to take the housewife option, do less hours, AND still get paid as much as their male colleagues working longer hours and it's this that distorts the argument and makes the whole discussion nonsensical most of the time.

I don't pretend sexism doesn't exist and isn't a problem, I've certainly witnessed women suffer sexism in the workplace and have called it out when I've seen it, though I've also witnessed women abuse their sexual attractiveness to gain promotion with stupid sexually desperate male bosses too so I'm not overly convinced those two things don't balance out and I believe both need to be eliminated as far as possible.

The real key issue is getting a better balance between males and females that act as home makers vs. breadwinners if we want to see things balance out. Heeding calls for quotas based on statistically fraudulent studies that omit things that make it like for like such as hours worked though simply build resentment and have the opposite effect of making members of each sex view each other equally in the workplace.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I don't have the time to access his research, but he's saying the exact same thing as most people are saying right here - once you control for education, experience, hours worked and so on, the gender pay gap basically vanishes. I don't see why it should be any less believable back then than today.

And this, incidentally, is critical thinking; challenging the accepted narrative when new information comes to light.

Re:Similar to most studies

[AmiMoJo]

I don't know about the US but there have been legal cases in the UK where the wage gap was proven. Birmingham council had to make up back-pay for women who were paid less than men in an equivalent or the same job.

Remember that the gap isn't just about being paid the same for doing exactly the same job either. It is about getting the same opportunities to advance and negotiate better pay, and to not be disadvantaged by for example needing somewhat sociable hours due to having young children. That applies to men too, by the way, who would not be disadvantaged by being unable to do overtime every because they have to pick the kids up from after-school club. It's just that it is something that tends to affect women more, not least because they are the only ones who can get pregnant and so often don't even get hired in the first place if they are of child baring age.

Children are a choice, but at the same time society needs them so that when we get old there are still skilled people around to carry on and look after us. If society makes them too much of a burden it ends up like Japan with massive population decline.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Dracolytch]

"Women tend to be more into the work/life balance"

So tell me wise AC: Is this why so many women are teachers and nurses? The regular hours?

Re:Similar to most studies

[Runaway1956]

My life experience? The women beside me have always made pretty much the same money I have made. Two enlistments in the Navy - an E1 made the same pay as another E1, without respect to age, color, religion, ethnicity, OR gender. An E5 made the same money as another E5, etc. I earned a nice chunk of change for sea pay, which few women had any access to back then - but that has changed today.

As a truck driver, I was paid either percentage of load, or paid by the mile. The women drivers out there made the same percentage, or the same cents per mile - just like any other driver, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, cultural or religious background.

In construction, ditto. A journeyman carpenter draws journeyman carpenter's wages, a first class helper draws first class helper wages, and a master carpenter draws master carpenter's wages, and no one cares about your hairstyle, or what you might wear off the job, or how many kids you have, or whether you delivered those kids yourself.

I've been in the workforce for - uhhhmmm - 42 years now. At no point in time have I ever worked beside a woman who did the same work I did, but made less money than I.

Wait - that's a slightly inaccurate statement. Seniority counts. I've worked beside a number of women who made MORE than I, because they tend to be more stable in their employment. I've often been junior to a woman. She takes a job, she likes it, and she stays on that job for decades. Me? Hell, I've changed careers a number of times. I've never had seniority anywhere. So, yeah, women often make MORE money than I.

The work that appeals to me usually pays better than the work that appeals to MOST women - but I've not seen or been privy to any actual barriers to women doing the same work I do. I have zero desire to be a waiter, only slightly more desire to be a nurse, or nurses' aid, or an orderly. I've cooked, but I don't want to cook anymore. I don't want to work in child care, or senior care. Women often LIKE those jobs, I don't.

I think the world is less sexist than a lot of people THINK it is. Or, the US is less sexist than you claim.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Yes, but was that indicative of gender based pay discrimination or employers simply failing to acknowledge and adjust for the social neccessity of families? There's a big difference between the two, one leads to paid maternity leave, the other feeds into all sorts of toxic narratives which have a real human cost.

Such as for example the lack of support for victimised men in relationships with violent women, despite rates of domestic and intimate partner violence being equally divided between the genders.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Runaway1956]

There is something to that. Women outlive us by a number of years. That has been the case ever since those nasssssssty doctors learned to wash their hands before examining female patients, and before delivering babies, or doing a C-section. Of course, other advances in medicine have helped as well. I've often wondered if it doesn't all balance out in the end. A lot of women work at drudge jobs, but they mostly stay happier, healthier, and live longer lives than us fools who go out and chase our crazy dreams.

Re:Similar to most studies

[geekoid]

People pay to watch the top rank player in a group. Sponser don't like to sponser number 100.

Re:Similar to most studies

[willy_me]

The guy donated some genetic material. The woman had the thing grow inside them for 9 months. Who's gonna be more connected?

You are correct that the woman is more connected and that it has to do with time - but not for the reasons you've implied. It really comes down to the fact that men can reproduce more frequently then women so they have less invested into each individual offspring. Women only get so many chances so it is worth it for them to invest the time to maximize the success rate. Men maximize their DNA propagation by procreating as frequently and with as many women as possible.

Men and women are different both on the outside and inside. Different brain chemistry leads to different behaviour. Why do some people (not parent poster) find this so hard to understand?

Re:Similar to most studies

[AmiMoJo]

Certainly in the UK few studies seem to take in hours worked, most just take the sex, the profession, and the annual salary and do nothing more than that.

They usually use the pro-rata rate which is not based on hours worked per week. Do you have a link to any studies that make this mistake, as I can't find any?

So the issue of disparity in most cases is that in most couples it's still the female that is taking on the role of housewife but this is entirely a choice between couples and not a workplace problem in the slightest beyond the fact that this also impacts womens career progression because statistically you're more likely to know the company better the more hours you spend there, and hence be a more suitable candidate for promotion, hence why women are less likely to be promoted - because they're also more likely to be less committed to work and more committed to home.

Society needs every woman to have an average of two children to maintain the current population level. If the fertility rate drops below 2.0 the population will start to fall, causing all sorts of problems as the ratio of young to old people gets worse. If you say to women "having a child is entirely your choice, a very expensive choice which will wreck your career and which we will give you little or no support for" you will find that they choose to have just one or none at all. That is what happened in Japan - women were forced to choose career or children, and a lot chose career and now the country as a whole has a massive problem.

Unless Japan can fix this problem with incentives to have more children their population is projected to drop from the current 125m to about 90m in 2050. They will have to get tens of millions of immigrants in, and even then will be screwed. The minister in charge of population decline pointed out that most couples do want children, they just can't afford them or fear that the women's career will be destroyed.

If men want a functional society when they get older they will just have to accept that subsidising women who have children a bit, through tax breaks and through making work more accessible and career progression not based simply on how many hours you put in. Of course any such subsidies should apply equally to men who decide to pick up the kids from school or take maternity leave.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Jane Q. Public]

"I haven't even heard of a study that says there is a significant wage gap for at least a decade. When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc. the worst I have heard is a 3% wage gap."

I mentioned this here the other day. Studies for decades have consistently shown (A) the "shortage" of women in tech is NOT due to discrimination, but rather to choices voluntarily made by women, and (B) the "wage-gender gap" does not actually exist as a factor of mere gender. But even so, there are still women complaining that this is all due to discrimination. We saw an example of an OP just the other day who was trying to perpetuate the (A) myth.

Note that this is NOT the same as saying there is no discrimination. That is a different matter. But it isn't the cause of a shortage of women in tech, or a gap in wages. The statistics could hardly be more solid.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Thomas Miconi]

When accounting for career, hours worked, experience, etc.

The assumption here is that all these factors are under voluntary control of the women themselves, as opposed to being forced upon them by employers and societal expectations.

Re:Similar to most studies

[orgelspieler]

You've hit the nail on the head. Engineering jobs vary a LOT on what your work/life balance is like. I make about $20k less than what I could be making if I were willing to spend another 8 to 10 hours a week at job with different work/life balance. I know people who make double what I do at a similar skill level, but they're on call all the time, frequently working past midnight. No thanks.

I guess that means I value my extra family time at $40/hr. Sounds about right. That's comparable to what I pay others to do things that would take about an hour of my family time.

You culture argument is compelling, but it's not just girls versus guys. I find working for married-with-children bosses is much better than working for bachelors or empty nesters. Being expected to go to lunch at a titty bar to impress a client just isn't my speed. I suppose if I were a bachelor, I would find it lame working for a guy that doesn't want to do that.

Re:Similar to most studies

[argStyopa]

Notice that the people still waving this old canard about "gender pay inequity are the ones that can derive personal/political power, or wealth from the assertion.

Re:Similar to most studies

[orgelspieler]

Some even like the household work. I was flabbergasted talking to one of the neighborhood moms. She explained to me that she *likes* feeling needed around the house. That she would hate it if her husband had to come home and do dishes or laundry or whatever. Of course, they're religious types, so that might play a role.

Re:Similar to most studies

[orgelspieler]

WTF is a Chief Calligrapher, and why does she make $97k?

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anrego]

Key words: usually

Plenty of terrible mothers and awesome dads.. we are talking general case here.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anrego]

I also think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that portions of who they are and how they behave are driven by genetic traits established back when you had to beat your dinner to death with a big rock and are mostly irrelevant in modern society.

Honestly I kinda am too, but at the same time I'm kinda fascinated by it. Sometimes we read too much into this kind of stuff, but a lot of how people behave today can be explained by some survival trait that would have been beneficial to our ancestors. A lot of the behaviour that causes our modern day problems probably kept us alive back then.

Re:Similar to most studies

[david_thornley]

Discrimination can discourage women from a technical career, and hence cause a shortage. Moreover, voluntary choices can be heavily influenced by what other people do. What we know is that there is no specific sex-based pay discrimination.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Jane Q. Public]

"Discrimination can discourage women from a technical career, and hence cause a shortage. Moreover, voluntary choices can be heavily influenced by what other people do. What we know is that there is no specific sex-based pay discrimination."

You missed the whole point. Discrimination CAN do lots of things. But studies have consistently shown that it HASN'T.

A number of studies done (the last one I read about was a few years ago) showed that most women decided on careers outside of tech before they even entered high school. Based on personal preferences, not some perception (real or otherwise) of discrimination.

If there is any cause-effect there, it is so indirect as to be indistinguishable from the noise in the data.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Nephandus]

Then why is the most likely child abuser the child's own mother?

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anrego]

We're talking general case here. There's plenty of terrible mothers and great fathers and lots of examples of extreme behaviour from both sides. Doesn't mean we can't generalize when talking about large scale social issues.

Re: Similar to most studies

[Anrego]

Good rebuttal.

I like that we can't point out actual observable differences between groups without somehow being labeled as a something-ist.

Scientists (using actual science and stuff) think lactation is what makes mother-child bonding so much stronger than father-child bonding via the production of oxytocin. Seems pretty damn nature-esq to me. As socially progressive as you want to be, most of what drives us is chemical reactions and genetics established back when one had to kill dinner with a rock.

But I'd love to hear an argument about how the "mother deals with the kids" behaviour seen in the vast majority of species on this planet has nothing to do with nature but is instead a social issue.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Nephandus]

Actually you were speculating without any rational basis, just a circularly derived myth. Pregnancy doesn't magically make women better parents, which my reference proves quite disturbingly. Children are programmed with your myth by self-serving mothers all the time. The presumption of righteousness involved is precisely why mothers justify their abuse including whitewashed manipulation such as maternal superiority and sanctity.

Re:Similar to most studies

[stdarg]

Remember that the gap isn't just about being paid the same for doing exactly the same job either.

Wrong, that's exactly what the wage gap is and that's all it is. Any attempt to alter that to include "opportunities to advance" and what-not is piggybacking a less popular issue onto a more popular issue for political expedience. Being paid the same for the same work appeals to everybody's sense of fairness and has widespread support.

Things like women leaving the workforce to have and raise kids to school-age, then having trouble coming back in because their skills have atrophied for 5+ years, and subsequently not getting the same "opportunities to advance" is a legitimate issue, but one with MUCH less popular sympathy. You'll find plenty of people who say "Yeah, so?"

You're only doing yourself a disservice because when those people find out that "wage gap" includes all these things they don't actually support, you get a strong backlash.

Children are a choice, but at the same time society needs them so that when we get old there are still skilled people around to carry on and look after us. If society makes them too much of a burden it ends up like Japan with massive population decline.

This is something that we have to solve. In my opinion, putting the burden on employers to solve it is the wrong solution, because it hugely disadvantages small employers. If I have 3 employees, I simply cannot afford to let one take a full year off with pay, for instance. In this case, the government needs to step in because it's a society-wide problem.

I think poverty is similar.. I am virulently against the minimum wage, because it puts the entire burden of helping the working poor on employers. You know what's supposed to help the poor? Welfare. Not requiring people to pay them more than their labor is worth economically. We are missing out on so many goods and services in our economy because we'd rather people be paid $3*X/hour instead of $X/hour, but $3*X/hour isn't "worth it" for these goods and services. As an example, child care. People in this country pay vast amounts for child care unless they are lucky enough to have family members provide the service below minimum wage (even free). The people who are unemployed or on welfare who can provide child care could do it for $1/hour with the government making up the difference, and suddenly lots more people could afford to go back to work and put their more productive skills to use.

Re:Similar to most studies

[stdarg]

So if we are guiding women into non-STEM careers, we are removing a large portion of the population from the training necessary to be capable of doing STEM jobs.

Those hypothetical female STEM workers who were guided into alternate careers can and will be replaced by males guided into STEM careers. There's no loss. If more women go into STEM, then fewer men will.

That is the problem our society is trying to solve by creating more female STEM workers.

There are two or more separate problems.
1. Not enough STEM workers
2. Gender balance of STEM workers doesn't reflect population
(3. Racial balance..)

If you are targeting the labor supply only (increasing female STEM workers) then you are going to do one of two things:
1. Make it easier for only women to get in than before with no impact on men, resulting in more job applicants, resulting in lower salaries, resulting in fewer men going into STEM
2. Make it harder for only men to get in than before with no impact on women, resulting in fewer job applicants, resulting in higher salaries, resulting in more women going into STEM

You are reducing male involvement one way or another, it just depends which end of the education-career pipeline you are pressuring.

To solve problem 1, I'd suggesting we begin employer subsidies for STEM jobs, which allows more jobs to be created (newly created jobs don't have to be as productive if they're subsidized), which will lead to more people going into STEM. (The existing productive jobs will see salary increases, the new less productive jobs will be comparable to pre-subsidy salaries.)

Re:Similar to most studies

[Anrego]

For rational basis, I tend to buy into the whole breastfeeding / lactation / production of oxytocin theory.

Children are programmed with your myth by self-serving mothers all the time.

I'd buy that this might be a component of it, however considering that the strong mother-offspring bond is seen in almost every species on this planet, and in many cases if the male is involved at all after birth it's as a snack for the mother, I doubt that it's the sole or primary cause.

People don't like thinking that how we behave is largely due to chemical reactions and genetic traits laid down millenniums ago, but we are basically animals, and scientists have shown (using actual science and stuff) that this behaviour can be altered in mice by mucking with these chemicals.

There will always be exceptional cases, but despite all the social progress in the world I doubt you'll see the mother-child bond supplanted any time soon in the large scheme of things.

Re:Similar to most studies

[Xest]

Why the assumption that our current economic methodology of building our future on the premise of ever growing population is the only option? It seems a little unfair to say to women - tough shit, you all need to have at least two kids, so that our fucked up pension system continues to work, but we'll make things nice for you and give you advantages over men to make up for it.

World population growth is slowing and reaching equilibrium, it's inevitable that we're going to have to make some kind of change to more sustainable living rather than relying on the next generation to pay for the last generation. It's not a bad thing either, because the earth only has finite resources to go around so the premise of perpetual population growth forever is an unsustainable fallacy regardless.

So given that we're absolutely going to have to change, because it's not our choice anyway then why not focus policy towards that rather than continue to prop up a broken unsustainable system which acts against genuine equality and also sustainability?

Re:Similar to most studies

[TranquilVoid]

By that logic, we should mandate a pay gap. If women are paid 25% less than men it will make motherhood much more attractive.

I do agree with Xest however. Unless we want to return to resource wars (well, obvious ones) the world population has to level out and perhaps reduce. Currently this is predicted to occur around 2050. We're probably going to have to get used to a different standard of living. Of some irony is the fact that feminism, with women entering the workforce, has propped up economic growth over the past 7 decades.

I am not surprised

[dptalia]

I've been discriminated against because of both my gender and my religion, but I have NEVER been paid less than my male colleagues. I may not have had the opportunities to grow given to me, but I've always made good money. In my current job I'm one of the highest paid people on my contract. My personal experience is that there's no pay gap - do your job and get paid accordingly,.

Re:I am not surprised

[Jason Levine]

My wife has experienced gender discrimination also. Most recently, our power company was coming by to do some work on a pole behind our house. They wanted to pull a giant truck up our neighbor's narrow driveway (right up against our house), onto our lawn, reach it over our garage, and do the work. When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit later, they treated me like an actual homeowner concerned about his house.

As far as pay goes, though, I have nothing to compare against. I don't know my co-workers' salaries and even if I did there are different levels of experience and they do slightly different jobs than I do. The two women I mainly work with might actually be paid more than me because of years of experience.

Re:I am not surprised

[Ol Olsoc]

When my wife voiced concerns about hitting the house with the truck, the guy actually said to her "So you're worried about your house because you're a woman?" Yet, when I expressed those same concerns a bit later, they treated me like an actual homeowner concerned about his house.

1. That hardly makes any sense, but okay.

2. Your wife and you have an extremely low bar for sexual discrimination.

So by your rather sensitive standards, every time I hear "You're not a woman - you couldn't understand", or "Men are pigs", then would that not be discrimination? Or about some feminine hygiene product being superior because it was invented by a female doctor? All of that is just more ways of saying "men are inferior".

We see this sort of thing all the time, but have been conditioned to the idea that only men are ever sexist.

Re:I am not surprised

[realsilly]

Point 1, while I agree does happen, more often than naught, doesn't quite fit the topic of discussion.
Point 2, you have nothing to compare too.

As a woman, I have seen my own fair share of discrimination, but I know it exists under the surface and I go out of my way to try to prove myself. The study in this article does show a trend of hiring and pay practices in particular fields to show little to no discrimination; however in other fields such as a stock broker, or other high-paying fields, women don't fair as well. The higher up the chain of most companies the more white males see in a position of power and authority.

Granted not all industries are like that, but a majority, and pay discrimination at the beginning of a career is not indicative of the issues of pay disparity that women face the longer they are in a career. This of course, is not easy to break apart to find the one answer, because there is no One answer to this topic.

I have heard that in the past (don't know if it still happens today) that men in positions of authority would hold high level discussions at a Men-Only golf club or a strip club. I know this to be true because I've seen it first hand. These types of tactics by a few close out opportunities for women at the same level to move higher in ranks of their company. So a woman must either report the matter to HR, which always gets out, even though it's supposed to be private; or she must step into those uncomfortable situations, such as going to a strip club, to keep herself in the loop of what's going on in the company. If she's forcibly kept out of the loop, on open dialog then that is clear definition of discrimination which will lead to pay disparity.

Re:I am not surprised

[cryptizard]

How do you know any of that? It could be that she gets home earlier than him, has flexible hours, or works from home. You're bigotry is showing.

Re:I am not surprised

[geekoid]

That's a nice anecdote that will many peoples biased narrative. Thanks.

Next time try using data.
Did you negotiate your contract with the client, or did someone else hire you to contract to work for a contract they had?

I wonder how you know you're not getting paid less.

Re:I am not surprised

[Cederic]

I find that fascinating. Where do you live?

Every company I've worked for (since, and including bar work and waiting on tables) has had female management, and only once ever have I seen any disrespect on gender grounds - and technically that was less disrespect and more inappropriate admission of lust.

a non-trivial segment of men in her industry/department have a problem with women in charge

No, re-reading it still feels weird. Where are you, Saudi Back-in-the-Middle-Ages Arabia or somewhere?

All the same here

[germansausage]

I have 2 junior engineers and 2 engineers-in-training working for me. One of each sex (like Noah's Ark really) and men and women in each job class are paid the same. I have one senior guy who is paid more, but he has 25 years in the field and a lot more knowledge and skills.

Re:All the same here

[CadentOrange]

So if aliens invaded and wanted to create a super race of engineers, you're in for a good time?

Re:All the same here

[aaarrrgggh]

New EITs for us are at the same rate, but we actually see women accelerate faster. Unfortunately, they seem to catch on to the whole live/work balance faster than men which makes retention harder and flattens wages. On a case-by-case basis, it comes down to work output.

Right now though, we could pay a 40% premium for an exceptional female mechanical PE with 15-20 years of experience, but that is definately an outlier.

Misogyny

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if this is true, it will be labelled misogyny and never be accepted by rabid feminists.

Re:Misogyny

[Anonymous Coward]

Facts can be very annoying to people with strong convictions. Generally, they solve this by denying them and questioning the inetegrity of the messengers.

Re:Misogyny

[ShanghaiBill]

Facts can be very annoying to people with strong convictions. Generally, they solve this by denying them and questioning the inetegrity of the messengers.

They could also solve it by attacking the methodology. Is it really fair to correct for "hours worked" rather than "work done"? So the guys get paid more, but it is okay because they stick around till 9pm playing Minecraft and reading Slashdot.

Re:Misogyny

[ShanghaiBill]

there is no meaningful way to measure "work done" in tech fields.

Agreed. But this study assumes that "hours worked" is a meaningful measure. If Jane and John are equally skilled engineers, and Jane works 40 hours per week, and John works 80 hours per week, then it is likely that John will get more done. But it is unlikely that he will get twice as much done.

An engineer should be able to do two things:
1. Come up with good ideas.
2. Implement those ideas.
Working longer hours can help with #2, but doesn't help much with #1.

Re:Misogyny

[phantomfive]

They could also solve it by attacking the methodology. Is it really fair to correct for "hours worked" rather than "work done"? So the guys get paid more, but it is okay because they stick around till 9pm playing Minecraft and reading Slashdot.

Read the study, not just the summary, before commenting. Your comments will be a lot more informed and interesting.

Re:Misogyny

[HornWumpus]

Experience? I've known a dozen engineers that put in 10+ hour days but were consistent net negative workers.

That said, within non-self destructive ranges, hours worked has to average out to more work done averaged out over a large workforce.

Re:Misogyny

[geekoid]

You can't come up with good idea in a vacuum.
Also, most engineers are implementing, not thinking up new ideas.

Re:Misogyny

[strikethree]

Is it really fair to correct for "hours worked" rather than "work done"?

Grrrr. I wish pay was by "work done" rather than "hours worked". I would be making 100 times more money than most of my co-workers. As it is, I only make significantly more because my base pay is higher.

In other news...

[Christianson]

When you control for species, there are no differences between humans and lizards.

It's good that sexual discrimination legislation has (mostly) sorted out the problem of women not being paid the same for equal work. That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, there's a salary gap. As the linked article points out, some big factors out of this are the fact that women tend to leave their jobs more early, to have more intermittent commitments to work. The article seems quite content to leave the implication that, basically, this means that it's all the fault of women for just not caring about their career enough. Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment, and whether e.g. bullying in the work place, or unfavourable maternity/paternity leave arrangements are contributing to this. In the UK, for example, the statutes are actually quite sexist in this regard: statutory maternity leave is available for a year, but statutory paternity leave is only available for at most half a year, and that requires that the mother return to work; otherwise it is only two weeks. Which means that, should a couple wish to start a family, it is necessarily the mother that is going to take the brunt of time away from work and the perceived lack of career commitment that will result.

Re:In other news...

[bickerdyke]

Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment, and whether e.g. bullying in the work place, or unfavourable maternity/paternity leave arrangements are contributing to this.

That is a good point, but as usuall, the most likely but least obvious possibility is ignored: Sometimes called work/life-balance, but maybe women just don't see a point in taking part in that life-long pissing contest that "career" in our corporate world became? If that guy next to you does 10 hours of unpaid overtime to impress his manager, you're doing 12, right? The people deciding about promotions like that kind of commitment. And so on.

Re:In other news...

[pla]

That doesn't change the fact that, on the whole, there's a salary gap. As the linked article points out, some big factors out of this are the fact that women tend to leave their jobs more early, to have more intermittent commitments to work. The article seems quite content to leave the implication that, basically, this means that it's all the fault of women for just not caring about their career enough.

"Fault"? No. Relevant to someone's experience level and corresponding pay? Absolutely.

If a woman puts in 20 years steady, constantly learning new up-to-date skills while keeping the core skills well-honed, why the hell shouldn't she make more than some guy who started his career at the same time she did but just came back from a five year leave to raise a kid? And if she will continue to put in a solid 40+ hours a week while he spends the next decade taking 2-hour lunches to pick up the kids and can get called away by some school problem at a moment's notice, why shouldn't she get that promotion while he remains lower on the totem pole?

Oh, gee, did I mix up my genders there? Huh.

Re:In other news...

[cryptizard]

What you're not considering though is that, in order for that guy to be able to do 10 hours of unpaid overtime, he has to have a wife at home willing to do all the child care and house work, even if she also has a full time job. It is societally expected that women will do that for a husband, so they are able to do crazy things like that. Of course, he might not have a family, but that situation is not in the majority. Most men have families and their wife picks up the slack at home.

Re:In other news...

[aaarrrgggh]

It isn't legislation or litigation that changed things, it is the fundamental workforce demographics. For most families, being a "stay at home mom" isn't an option. Early legislation may have ensured that hostile workplace factors were taken out of the equation, which would have made a meaningful difference, but the balance is largely time.

As for the resulting pay gap factors, it is pretty hard for anyone who works from 22-30, takes 6 years off, works again from 36-48 half time, and then works full time for the remainder of their career to make as much as someone that works 7 years, one six month stretch off, and them for the rest of their career.

Mitigating factors to this trend are better sharing between husband and wife of the responsibilities of picking up and dropping off the kids, and the current generation that limits their work to just under 40 hours a week to ensure they have a good work/life balance.

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most men have families and their wife picks up the slack at home"

Talk about sweeping judgemental statements :)

Re:In other news...

[cryptizard]

Yes, being single is surely an option, but most people are not single. I was speaking to those situations, which are in the majority.

Re:In other news...

[bickerdyke]

I was considering that, but tried to focus on another question: WHY do that 10hours overtime at all?

Perhaps there is a "female" solution like: "I'm making enough for me and my family, I'd rather spend those 10 hours with them and leave that rat race to those guys who seem to enjoy it." Sometimes the only way to win a pissing contest is not to play. (And if you're honest, thermonuclear war is only a very violent form of a pissing contest. But that's another movie)

Re:In other news...

[cryptizard]

I agree 100%. I don't think the solution is to make women work more horrible jobs, but increase the quality of life for everyone by refusing to be exploited. One thing that people don't think about is that increasing the number of women in a particular field forces management to change their policies in ways that help everyone.

Re:In other news...

[godrik]

Well, I think the study is still interesting. Because we still often hear that women are paid less for the same job. That study essentially proves it wrong. Before you can fix a problem, you first need to understand where it comes from. From this study, the problem does not come from discrimination in the hiring process. And this is good news.

Re:In other news...

[bickerdyke]

I agree 100%. I don't think the solution is to make women work more horrible jobs, but increase the quality of life for everyone by refusing to be exploited.

Oh yes.. nice idea. The problem is, that this goes against the average male ego. For some reason, competition is a defining male quality. (probably due to all the reproduction stuff, but why doesn't matter here)

Who can run faster, who can drink more, who can bang his head harder against a stone wall. And of course who can lift more weight, who can carry more meat from A to B. That is already a "who can work harder". Society only rewards this with "Who can make more money", so it can exploit that trait. And not the workers. We will only follow that urge for competition and to the exploitation part ourselves.

Re:In other news...

[Bigbutt]

But all you need is one person who's willing to be exploited in order to get a better job/more pay to mess this up.

Personally I work extra hours because of stuff I do to make the job more enjoyable. I create scripts to retrieve information from servers in order to catch problems before they get worse. I'm certainly not doing it to try and get a better job.

[John]

Re:In other news...

[Bigbutt]

Sure I don't expect my wife to do all that work. But I find that when I do it, I'm not meeting her expectations of clean/cooking. She goes behind me and cleans it to her satisfaction. So it ends up that she does all that work around the house. I'll pick up my stuff and put things in the sink or dishwasher but I won't go shopping (unless it's with her) and won't clean or cook unless she's away.

I do yardwork (cleanup; mow, gutters, roof, leaves, trim bushes but no design stuff), manage the garage, and keep the vehicles going and build things.

If it has to do with the inside though, it's off limits (unless I'm doing the work like painting or moving furniture).

With that said, that's in the past now. She bailed a couple of years back so I do _all_ the work now. Turns out I'm a lot pickier about keeping the house clean than she was. She just needed to be in control. :)

[John]

Re:In other news...

[geminidomino]

In the US, the married/unmarried divide is pretty small (within 5%) .

So... [Citation needed].

Re:In other news...

[RightSaidFred99]

Rubbish. I also find it hilarious you posit that a law which gives women more options for leave is somehow sexist against women. Hilarious.

They are right to leave it at that - that's the explanation. Women can and do have babies and they are the only gender who can. Ergo they tend not to work as much or be as valuable to employers, and you are paid based on your value to your employer not what is "fair".

Re:In other news...

[geekoid]

The should get a maid, or stop working for free.

Re:In other news...

[Slashdot Parent]

Much more relevant would be an examination of why women are more likely to have this lack of commitment,

Maybe some women just would rather focus on the children?

I don't really know. My wife isn't overly-maternal. She's a good mom and all, but she went right back to work after her maternity leave was up. I took more time off than she did. But anyway, some women really would rather be at home with the babies than at work with people who act like babies.

Re:In other news...

[david_thornley]

Every time I see stats on hours of housework, men do significantly less of it than women, even in families where both are bringing in paychecks. It ain't judgmental if it's got the stats to back it up.

Re:In other news...

[stdarg]

Two paychecks doesn't mean the same number of hours or the same level of difficulty.

Also I wonder how comprehensive the definition of "housework" is. It should include all work outside of your job, I guess, not just stuff in the house. So things like taking the car for an oil change should count, coaching the kids' soccer team should count, etc.

Gender lies in society, wage gap

[MonsterMasher]

Of course anyone who has looked into the actual data has already discovered the amazing level of lies directed at the male in our society - and keeping him 2nd class. Just ask yourself - just how hard and how long did you have to work to earn your shot at reproduction.. and your sister? Did she just have to find some guy to enslave (18-24 years) .. that's the level or parity we have. Open eyes please.

Men 'earn' more. Normalized. The gap is life choice, not gender.

Actual decent information may be found at www.avoiceformen.com
The level of this is clear and disgusting. In the last year or so I have been staggering at what I realize was brain washing (that we all get! and still kids are.) otherwise this would leap out at you. Instead you will ignore and dismiss - most will.
My crazy comments here: http://www.salon.com/profile/S...

Re:Gender lies in society, wage gap

[Mitchell314]

*Sigh* This is what happens when you spend to much time living in a basement. Fermenting those sour grapes.

Re:Gender lies in society, wage gap

[serviscope_minor]

And today's angry lonely man award goes to... MonsterMasher (518641).

Perhaps if you got out of your mom's basement, took care of yourself and viewed women as other human beings just like men, you'd have an easier time of it. The thing is, of all the people you meet, you'll not have sex with 99.999% of them, even if you are "successful". You might find it more productive to treat basically everyona as a normal person you're not going to screw in daily interactions.

Of course anyone who has looked into the actual data has already discovered the amazing level of lies directed at the male in our society - and keeping him 2nd class.

lolwut?

just how hard and how long did you have to work to earn your shot at reproduction.. and your sister?

I assume by this that you mean how long did it take? To answer your question in the least specific way possible: I took less time.

Did she just have to find some guy to enslave (18-24 years) .. that's the level or parity we have.

Enslave? My brother-in-law seems pretty happy. They both have jobs, split the chores, look after the kid. Seems very much like a union of equals to me.

that's the level or parity we have.

The level of parity we have: my friends and family are generally in happy, stable relationships with people considered their equal. Sometimes there is division of labour along the money/housekeeping lines, sometimes there is not. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Open eyes please.

I have. All I see is a bitter, angry man in front of me.

Re:Gender lies in society, wage gap

[RightSaidFred99]

True enough, but hilariously those exact same sour grapes, turned around 180 degrees by the other gender, are seen as valid and meaningful..by people other than me.

Re:Gender lies in society, wage gap

[geekoid]

"find some guy to enslave (18-24 years)"
You're pretty much a huge ass.

"Men 'earn' more. Normalized. The gap is life choice, not gender."
wrong. factually, provable wrong.
Look at offers. Women are regularly offer less money to start.
Idiot.

no gap

[sdinfoserv]

As a manger in the tech field, I state for the record there is no pay gap. Starting pay is based on someone’s ability to negotiate and raises are based on skill. As far as a pay difference over all, a recent study says the entire pay gap is easily explained by choices of work. Women historically have selected employment that pays less. Teachers make less than engineers. The percentage of women in the teaching field is higher as is the percentage of men in the engineering field. Thus, if averaged just men vs women, men on average make more (in that example). However drawing that as a conclusion is erroneous, so people just need to get over themselves and do their best.

Yeah, but women want it all

[NotDrWho]

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this, but it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality" is very different from my definition. "Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group? Ridiculous. Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals. Don't they realize how much easier it is just to relax with a bunch of inaccurate preconceptions?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Thanshin]

Yes, you will indeed be accused of being sexist, because you are one.

From the moment when you think of "women" or even "feminists" as a single minded entity, with a single definition for a concept, you reveal that you indeed possess the common flaw of oversimplifying the world in at least one of the many possible ways.

There's no such thing as "what women think", just as there is not such a thing as "what human beings think".

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality"

Why on Earth would anyone accuse you of being a sexist merely on the basis of your making sweeping generalizations about what you think an entire gender group means by "equality", based on your limited experience with a few members of that group?

Feminist = entire gender group?

Bloody feminazis demanding that individuals be treated as individuals.

Might want to actually try seeing what these people are saying because it's about as far from that as one can get.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Mitchell314]

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

You're new to this planet. See, there's this thing called human nature . . .

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[sandytaru]

Not gonna say you're sexist, just that you hang out with bad women. What you've just described is the typical gal who hangs out in a bar waiting for Prince Charming to come along and pay her way through life. My sister was one such woman, and I viewed her as a negative role model. If a woman is hanging out in a bar trying to meet guys, it's because she's a boring person and doesn't have anything else better to do with her life. Women with actual hobbies and interests have no trouble finding men (which is why they're taken), and they tend to be nicer people overall.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[shadowrat]

I may get accused of being a sexist and all for saying this, but it's been my experience that a feminist vision of "equality" is very different from my definition. "Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

In short, they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want it all for FREE.

well, speaking as a man, i also want to get paid as much money as i can, be fawned over, and get free food all while not being physically attacked.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Anonymous Coward]

well, speaking as a man, i also want to get paid as much money as i can, be fawned over, and get free food all while not being physically attacked.

And if you demanded any of this, women would be the first to attack you or mock you for it. Unfortunately, they're so used to being sucked up to by men that they've developed quite the sense of entitlement for themselves (but not for anyone else, of course). It's why so many of them are selfish narcissists who can't handle any criticism.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Anonymous Coward]

making sweeping generalizations

So out of curiosity, how many women have you dated who wanted to go dutch on dates? Didn't expect you to buy them flowers or jewelry? Didn't want you to open doors for them? Didn't expect you to protect them in a fight?

Be honest now, Mr. Inaccurate Preconceptions. Show us evil sexists that we're soooo wrong, with all your stories of the women you've known who *really* wanted to be treated equally.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[NotDrWho]

Where the hell are you working/hanging out where it's ok for *men* to be physically attacked?

Are you seriously going to pretend that punching a woman in anger is no more taboo in modern Western society than punching another man? Seriously?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[QilessQi]

I know a lot of women who have self-identified as feminists for years, and not a single one of them fits the description you have. All the feminists I know are hard-working professional women, hard-working homemakers, or both. That includes some of my peers and managers in the tech field, by the way. Maybe you've just been spending time with some unusually selfish women -- it's possible; there are jerks of both genders out there. I suggest finding a different peer group, because your current one seems to have made you a little bitter.

Also: there's no "taboo" against people physically attacking a woman, or a man for that matter. It's just plain wrong.

(And yes, for making derogatory caps-lock- and scare-quote-heavy generalizations about a group of people so which you don't belong, you can expect to be labelled as biased. That seems pretty fair to me.)

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[YttriumOxide]

So out of curiosity, how many women have you dated who wanted to go dutch on dates? Didn't expect you to buy them flowers or jewelry? Didn't want you to open doors for them? Didn't expect you to protect them in a fight?

Not the person you're replying to, but I felt I should step in here...

My wife always paid her fair share when we dated. I honestly felt a little uncomfortable about it at first, but she insisted.

She loves it when I buy her flowers and jewellery, but she'll buy me stuff I like too; so that seems even to me.

I'll hold doors open for her, and she is happy that I do. But she'll hold doors open for me too, and I'm happy that she does.

She most certainly would expect me to defend her in a fight; but equally, I'd expect her to defend me in one. (neither of us is particularly physically inclined, but we're also not really the types to get in to fights; so thus far it hasn't been a situation that has arisen)

Basically my point is that just because a woman expects some things from the guy, it doesn't mean she's asking for unequal treatment... she may be willing to do all those same things too.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[asylumx]

And if you demanded any of this, women would be the first to attack you or mock you for it.

Really? Cuz he just did, and you were literally the first to attack or mock him for it. I assume you're not a woman, but I think that's a reasonable assumption given the context.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, a well-adjusted person who understands that women are people? What are you doing on Slashdot?!

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[thaylin]

Are you going to seriously pretend that is in any way what he said?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[jythie]

I don't know... I have generally found that women like that exist mostly in the imaginations of men trying to explain why they are not sexist.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[jythie]

Actually, all of the women I have dated have been like that. For that matter most of the women I know are like that. The ones you describe are more creations of men in internet forums telling other men how women are.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Curunir_wolf]

Where the hell are you working/hanging out where it's ok for *men* to be physically attacked?

Are you seriously going to pretend that punching a woman in anger is no more taboo in modern Western society than punching another man? Seriously?

Maybe not, but in our culture it is typically portrayed as perfectly acceptable for a woman to slap a man, or physically attack him in other ways (throwing drinks, etc.). There are really good, legitimate reasons for this double-standard, based on average strength / power differences, so I'm not necessarily against this. It is never considered acceptable for a man that feels insulted to respond with a physical attack, so to be fair it should not be considered acceptable for a woman to do so, either.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[OakDragon]

The way you put things, yeah that might be interpreted as sexist...

Honestly (and this is just my opinion), I don't think women want to look at it as "effort/time put in = money". They see the position, it is basically the same "tier" for a man and a woman, and the woman makes less. Never mind that particular man may have worked X more years and puts in Y extra hours.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[freak0fnature]

My ex wanted me to be prince charming, yet claimed I was too insensitive when she started talking to me with disrespect or accusing me of being incompetent or not smart enough to "properly" shingle a roof. She expected me to help out or do most of the "traditional female chores", and do all the "man chores", while we both worked full time and had a child. Not to mention she expected me to be happy in a relationship where she didn't put out, and spent far more than we could afford. She was a well educated, intelligent, good looking, had hobbies and interests, modern woman. We are both 130+ IQs, she had 2 bachelors and I had 1 (though I make 2x what she made). She left looking for something better and has spent the past 5 years saying how there are no good men out there. Even had the balls to say that to my parents. All of her friends are the same way. They take their children with them and expect as much money as they can squeeze out of their ex's. That is the modern view of "equality". Meanwhile I remarried the most opposite person I could find...someone who enjoys taking on traditional female rolls, enjoys being a wife, enjoys taking care of a man, is not lazy in the least bit (though is also educated, has a bachelors in biochem and speaks 3 languages fluently). The budget is balanced even with my ex getting child support and my wife isn't working. I know this relationship will last, because she is not a feminist.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[boristdog]

Women will get men to do stupid things for them as long as there are men willing to do stupid things for them.

Men will get women to do stupid things for them as long as there are women who will do stupid things for them.

It's almost as if people will take advantage of other people if they allow them to do so.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men. Logically the entire female gender consists of either people who believe themselves morally inferior to men, or are feminists.

I don't think I've ever seen feminism described in that way. The second statement does not form a valid dichotomy - even if I accepted your definition there is clearly absolutely no reason women could not see themselves as morally superior to men therefore invalidating this statement.

Meanwhile the fundamental principle of sexism (and racism, ageism, etc.) is that you are taking some empirical data (generally gathered informally) and extrapolating it to the entire gender (/race/age) group.

No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question. It may or may not be justified by anything - i.e. validity is irrelevent other than if you care about those things. A valid statement that is sexist is still valid even if one wishes to classify it as morally problematic.

An example of this would be mischaracterizing feminism per se, a basic principle agreed on by - for the sake of argument - all women, as an extreme viewpoint held by a small but vocal minority.

In other words: No True Scotsman has sugar in his porridge. I can only go by what people say. For a group of people who better characterise what you sum up feminists as Humanists would be a good choice.

OP expected to be called a sexist for making a fundamentally sexist remark, and I did so.

It's a fundamentally feminist-ist remark - not based on sex. By your definition above he is applying not to the entire set of women but the entire set of women who are feminists. These sets are not equal.

The real question here is why are you arguing with me, for calling him on his sexism, and not him, for being blatantly and admittedly and unapologetically sexist?

Because even if he is sexist, because even if sexism is a priori a moral evil, a clear reading of his statement is directed towards a feminist perspective, not a female one, regardless of whether or not you accept it as a valid one or a strawman.

But that's a question only you can answer ...

And with ease.

Read more carefully.

a feminist vision of "equality"

Important qualifier there.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[jythie]

More accurately, there are men and women who will take advantage of others, but that does not mean 'men' or 'women' do. There will always be jerks, but jerks do not define the whole.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[jedidiah]

> The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men.

The problem with this is that it's like prattling on about the fundamental principles of the Republican or Democratic parties. What these people say they believe and how they actually act are two entirely different things.

Ragging on feminists is not "sexism". It's strictly an ideological remark. It's not about gender. It's about a particular political faction with a certain name.

What you are trying to do is elevate feminists above criticism by smearing anyone that tries to criticize. It's kind of exactly the sort of thing the OP was complaining about.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[NotDrWho]

Well, since what I said in my original post was that women enjoy the perk of it being taboo to hit women, and he took issue with this assertion, I can only conclude that he or she is under the deep delusion (perhaps in some alternate universe) that it's just as taboo for men to hit men.

Just try that assertion with a judge sometime. Go punch a woman in a barfight and see if you get the same sentence as someone who punches another guy. You can lecture the judge on equality beforehand and see if he agrees.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[jedidiah]

There is still the social expectation that the man must make money but the woman is free to sit on her butt and atrophy. This disparity is rather widespread in those demographics where it's economically feasible.

These expectations (and other differences between the sexes in terms of social indoctrination) help feed into the labor statistics.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no "taboo" against people physically attacking a woman

What color is the sky in your world?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Nemesisghost]

It's not just feminist who are this way, but all special interest groups. Everybody claims they want equal treatment, but in reality what they want is preferential treatment. And the ones who get screwed over are those who belong to the formerly dominate class, but never leveraged this dominance for themselves, who now find themselves at a disadvantage because of the "equalization" that has taken place. As a straight white male in the United States, I can't compete equally with my minority peers, I have to be better than them. Otherwise, with all other quantifiable characteristics being equal, they will get the jobs & services I want.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[ranton]

Actually, all of the women I have dated have been like that. For that matter most of the women I know are like that. The ones you describe are more creations of men in internet forums telling other men how women are.

While anyone saying women never pay is being ridiculous, so is anyone saying most women pay their own way while dating. The first site that popped up in a Google search showed that 83% of women either don't offer to pay or only offer with the expectation that the offer will be turned down. Unless you are using a dating site while filtering on liberal women, or dating inside a small circle of friends with a very liberal mindset, it is unlikely that you are going to come across many women who are willing to assist with paying for early dates. After a month or so women are far more likely to help start paying, but that usually only starts once a strong relationship has begun.

That said, women also spend far more money preparing for those dates. When you include things like makeup, hair maintenance, clothes, etc. I would be surprised if men actually pay more money overall during the dating process.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[sandytaru]

I'm the wife in the situation. I just wrote my husband an $800 check for my cut of the mortgage and food last month. Problem?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[geminidomino]

The fundamental principle of feminism is that woman are morally equal to men

What the hell does "morally equal" even mean?

Re: Yeah, but women want it all

[geminidomino]

I don't suppose there's a transcript or video of that around you could point me to. I'm intrigued, and would love to hear what her logic *was*.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[thaylin]

No, that is not what he asserted, all he did was asked where it is ok for men to physically be attacked in the work force, from that you made a giant logical leap to make your assumption.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly how I took it, but I've seen almost the exact same complaint from a man I work with. He is smaller than average but very vocal, and I've come to realize that his life experience includes being beaten and physically bullied many times, while simultaneously being ridiculed as a weak man by women who also rail against the "patriarchy". I almost think that his real issue with feminism is that they exclude him from their ranks of people who need to be treated as equals.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[jythie]

Well, the solution to that is simple at least, if people do not like the behavior of socially conservative women, date more liberal ones.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[AmiMoJo]

Yes. Here they are both equally bad, in both our society and in law. Maybe hitting a woman could be seen as worse due to the typical physical size difference, but the same thing would apply if it were a child or a much smaller man.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[PFactor]

Not that I disagree with your point but clothing and makeup purchases can be amortized over several dates. A man might pay less overall than that specific woman, but he is probably paying more for the date he is actually on with her. She can wear the same outfit, use the same makeup, and have the same haircut for another date the next night and her cost per date just halved.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[stenvar]

No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question.

That's bullshit. "Racism" is an (incorrect) theory that there are intrinsic differences between races that make some inferior and some superior. "Feminism" is a political movement to increase the power of women. Neither term refers to discrimination. "Socialism" is another political movement with different goals. The only -ism I can think of that is about discrimination is "ageism". The suffix "-ism" has no consistent meaning, and it rarely denotes a form of discrimination.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[fsck-beta]

As I woman I have trouble labeling myself a feminist today because of the very vocal 'feminists' who really want exactly what you are describing. I just want equal pay, equal time off (give men mat leave too if they so choose), equal respect.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[almitydave]

Yeah, get back in the basement and compute me some pi!

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Actually, I do RTFA]

"Equality" in their mind is getting all the perks of being a woman (men fawning over you and buying you free food and drinks, sexual power, the taboo on physically attacking you, etc.) while simultaneously also getting all the perks of being a man (higher breadwinner pay, political power, etc.)--and all without having to suffer ANY of the downsides of either gender.

Well, let me say, I think it's entirely reasonable for both genders to expect a "taboo on being physically attacked" (exceptions for friendly scuffles aside).

If you're talking about "free food" being dinner, that's probably offset by the higher priced clothes, makeup and haircare.

If you're talking about "sexual power" as the inability to hit on a guy, and needing to wait for him to hit on them, or she's overly aggressive/slutty.... well, that may or may not be a better position than guys have. I'm not even sure.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I take it then that your wife/GF insisted on going dutch on all your dates?

Ummm... yeah. With the exception of first dates (or maybe the first few dates), I find almost all women want to go dutch. Or, more likely, take turns buying dinner.

I suppose you have to be nice enough/not misogynistic enough to get a second date for that to pan out, so maybe that explains why you're inexperienced with this phenomenon.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[DaveV1.0]

That said, women also spend far more money preparing for those dates. When you include things like makeup, hair maintenance, clothes, etc. I would be surprised if men actually pay more money overall during the dating process.

That is a false statement. Women who don't date still buy makeup, spay for hair maintenance, clothes, etc. I knew a woman who stated that she couldn't be bothered to improve her appearance to be more appealing to men, but she still had clothes, shoes, makeup, and occasionally paid a pretty penny to get her hair done.

Women claim to being spending all this money to attract men, but the fact is women spend money to impress other women. Not only can clothing and makeup purchases be amortized over several dates, they can be amortized over general daily use. That leaves off women getting dressed up to go out for ladies' night, or just going to bar and getting drinks bought by interested men but whom the women will never see again.

You are simply grasping at straws.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminists are not a gender group, they're a political group. My wife is quite female, and not a feminist, thank God.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[DaveV1.0]

Really? So, how many women do you know, how many of the women you know are like you, and how many are like your sister? I would be very interested in an honest answer. But, I have a feeling any answer I get will be as honest as what women say when asked what they want in a man.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

So out of curiosity, how many women have you dated who wanted to go dutch on dates? Didn't expect you to buy them flowers or jewelry? Didn't want you to open doors for them? Didn't expect you to protect them in a fight?

Not the person you're replying to, but I felt I should step in here...

She most certainly would expect me to defend her in a fight; but equally, I'd expect her to defend me in one. (neither of us is particularly physically inclined, but we're also not really the types to get in to fights; so thus far it hasn't been a situation that has arisen)

Well, let's be real here. Would you defend her if she were fighting Catwoman? .. and would she defend you in a fight against Batman? .. on acid?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[gbjbaanb]

they all refer to a form of discrimination - they are all forms of prejudice, where someone is pre-judged on external appearance that suggests belonging to a group with perceived negative associations rather than judging that individual on their own merits.

You can discriminate against someone on the colour of their skin, the wrinkles on their face, the bumps on their chest, or anything else too - their (lack of) height, their (excess of) weight, deformity of leg, choice of editor. Anything.

And it works the opposite way too, some supposedly discriminated-against "minority" groups will support their own and discriminate against the "mainstream".

Many of the -isms do refer to this discriminatory problem, ageism as you say, but sexism and racism is just the same - its not a theory, racism means to pre-judge based on race. not all of them - feminism for example isn't one of these, its a social/political movement.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[gbjbaanb]

but the woman is free to sit on her butt and atrophy

no, that's just your mama.

Most women who become "homemakers" do a lot of work around the house, all that cleaning and cooking and child-rearing is a lot of effort. Try it some time when you get home.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Slashdot Parent]

I'm the wife in the situation. I just wrote my husband an $800 check for my cut of the mortgage and food last month. Problem?

Yes. Who the fuck uses checks in 2014?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[AmiMoJo]

It's a historical hang-up from the days when men used to beat their wives for disobedience. The standard marriage vows used to be "love and obey" FFS. You are right, these days it isn't acceptable from either gender.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Valdrax]

Really? So, how many women do you know, how many of the women you know are like you, and how many are like your sister? I would be very interested in an honest answer. But, I have a feeling any answer I get will be as honest as what women say when asked what they want in a man.

Besides being patronizing and insulting, your response is essentially, "Counter my generalizations based on anecdotes with anecdotes of your own. Which I won't believe anyway. Because you're a woman, and women lie, in my anecdotal experience."

Misogyny, circular logic, and bad statistics, ho!

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[AmiMoJo]

The ex you describe is not the feminist model of a woman by a long shot. One bitch doesn't mean all self proclaimed feminists are like that, just like one asshole doesn't mean all men are misogynists. Don't let your hatred of your ex lead to prejudice against other women.

FWIW your new wife sounds more like a model of a modern feminist. She got an education but decided she enjoys what she is doing now so does it, with a guy she seems to genuinely like. When feminism started female education was not taken seriously and women were often expected to marry people they were not particularly fond of, and then become a domestic slave even if they had other desires in life. That doesn't mean a woman can't choose not to work, the point is simply that it is a choice.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[JeffAtl]

Exactly. Women who insist on splitting the bill on initial dates do it as a sign that they aren't interested and don't want to feel obligated.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[orgelspieler]

My ex ... Even had the balls to ...

I think I discovered your problem.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Cederic]

Tell you what: Inform a judge that there was no crime because you punched a man and not a woman.

See if the judge agrees.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[JeffAtl]

Women who insist on splitting the bill on initial dates are not interested. That's all that means. It's not complicated.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[misexistentialist]

It's a tautology to say that most people in any large group are "average people just like you and me". "Most Nazi supporters were good people," "most people at the NSA are patriots", blah blah blah. No, we look at the leaders these people follow and their core doctrines and determine that they are all of them 100% pieces of shit. Since we know feminism is the creation of Communist sympathizers and lesbian psychopaths, you can flush with confidence.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[DaveV1.0]

No, you said something about yourself and your sister and implied that more women are like you than like your sister. I asked about all the women you know to increase the sample size. Calling it misogynistic, etc. is just you throwing names out instead of answer the question in an attempt to deflect the question. You know, like liberals screaming "Nazi!" at anyone who disagrees with them. Or, in your case, like a feminist screaming "Misogynist!"

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Enigma2175]

That said, women also spend far more money preparing for those dates. When you include things like makeup, hair maintenance, clothes, etc. I would be surprised if men actually pay more money overall during the dating process.

So women spend money on themselves, and men spend money on women. Not to mention the fact that for 2 of the 3 categories you listed (hair maintenance and clothes) men also have costs. I don't know why anyone would have a problem with this, seems perfectly equitable.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[slew]

Problem? No.
Question? Maybe.

Why do you feel it is still necessary to have a separate checking account and only reimburse *him* for mutual expenses? (credit card, I can understand keeping credit separate has some actual benefits)...

Is it some sort his money is our money and my money is my money issue? Or some sort of trust issue? Just asking, to each their own, but since you seemed to make it into some kind of strange point of paying your husband (which is somewhat different than paying your live-in-boyfriend). I assume both names are on the mortgage, (so the bank could come after you if your husband didn't pay it). Why the asymmetry?

I guess I'm the all the money in one pot kind-of person. My wife pays all the bills online from our joint checking account and we are both effectively authorized to transfer money willy-nilly from each other's accounts, but when we were dating, of course it was totally different.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[QilessQi]

Hmm, I was going to congratulate you for some nice trolling there, but judging by your previous Slashdot comments, you really do seem to be a frustrated person who believes a lot of depressing things about other people. I can only hope that things get better for you, and that maybe you'll meet some better people who will make you rethink some of your views. Life in your world sounds like it would be kind of miserable.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[ultranova]

We are both 130+ IQs,

Just out of curiosity: how does a pair of abstract concepts conceive a child?

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Grishnakh]

The liberal ones probably put out more too.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[walshy007]

The problem I find with well meaning and otherwise nice people feminists I've encountered, tends to be.

1. Having a very female-centric view of things at times.

2. Having a very oversimplified view of both history and the nature of human interaction.

3. Using these to form very pro-female policies without consideration of how it affects others than the target group.

We see people advocating effectively banning males from positions etc, which of course ran afoul of the sexual discrimination act 1975.. so what did they do? amend the act do it was ok to discriminate by sex so long as it was men who were being barred from positions.

Preaching equality is nice and all, but a lot of people here go by practical actions we have seen, and the public face of feminism is what people visibly do under it's name. Unfortunately a lot of nasty shit can be justified by some people under the name of 'equality'. I honestly think that the majority believe they are being good people, and doing the 'right' thing, there is just no consideration of the other groups they are affecting.

As for there is being difference in reaction to a man hitting a woman to a woman hitting a man. This video is an example of that kind of thing

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[slew]

If you had separate accounts, why not just have the husband write 1/2 the mortgage check and the wife write the other 1/2 to the bank and put both check in the envelope and mail it to the bank? Why write the husband a check for 1/2 the mortgage?

If the husband buys all the food, then presumably he would know how much was spent on food and ask for 1/2 from his wife so he must know not to spend too much or too little if there was a joint account (there must be money in the account to spend before the wife contributes her monthly share). Or if there is a budget for food, you could have a recurring transfer for food money from one account for another. Why write the husband a check for 1/2 the food?

You may not find discussing money and expenses a useful discussion, but that doesn't mandate that solution either.

If you are writing your own printf for a multi-threaded system, you may not want all thread to write into the same buffer, but similarly, you wouldn't necessarily make one thread server (of money) and one thread the client (of client), you might have a thread that join the output of the two thread into a single buffer (say a joint buffer where you store all the characters that you output from the system). Hmm, maybe a *joint* checking account?

Re: Yeah, but women want it all

[Jamlad]

She needs somebody to enforce the equality. Potentially with a stick.

Re: Yeah, but women want it all

[HornWumpus]

Power of the pussy has to be balanced by something.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[QilessQi]

I suppose we move in different circles, which will happen. I suppose I'm lucky. For example, I'm currently doing work for an IT shop that is around 50% female and that has people from many different countries. Women (some with kids, some without) are in developer positions, management positions, etc.

Most of the feminists I know went to school with me, and given their degrees I don't think they have oversimplified views of history or human interaction: one has a PhD in Social Psychology, one has a PhD in Anthropology, one is practicing Public Policy Law, one is a professional grief counselor, and one has an advanced degree in some kind of Animal Behavioral science (she works with dolphins and bonobos).

Female-centric? Well, on issues like abortion, I assume they're all pro-choice. Most of them are currently in long-term relationships with men (and some are also raising sons) so I wouldn't call their lives exclusively female-centric or they'd have been divorced long ago. The ones I know who are lesbian are, of course, leading women-centered lives. I would guess that most, if not all, are "pro-sex feminists" in the generally-understood sense of the word. They believe in legally unfettered access to birth control, and they want the government (and church) out of the bedroom.

And as for the public face of feminism, I wouldn't judge feminism by the actions of Camille Paglia and Andrea Dworkin, any more than most Christians would want to be judged by the actions of Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps.

(Oh, and I agree that there is a very different reaction in our society to a man striking a woman versus a woman striking a man. But striking a woman is not "taboo"... "taboo" has a whole deeper connotation. In some parts of American society today, sadly, women get battered by men who probably think it's normative because they saw the men of their father's generation do the same thing.)

 

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[stenvar]

No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question. It may or may not be justified by anything

they all refer to a form of discrimination

Look at some isms:

rheumatism synergism imperialism aneurism extremism empiricism
ritualism monotheism Zionism Catholicism Unitarianism prism ventriloquism
Sufism utilitarianism criticism separatism Shintoism individualism leftism
mysticism dogmatism mesmerism neologism Hinduism feminism skepticism
metabolism Hellenism Afrocentrism materialism neoclassicism Dadaism

The suffix "-ism" occasionally is used for doctrines that are related to discrimination, but most uses of "-ism" have nothing to do with discrimination.

You have to be utterly illiterate to believe that "A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question"

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[sandytaru]

I have student loans, he doesn't. We both make enough that we have enough to set aside for retirement/savings on top of that. But I like to splurge on electronics, and he is more interested in setting aside money for travel throughout the year (he goes on lots of weekend trips to conventions without me.) We do have a joint checking account that the mortgage is paid out of, but it's from a different bank than our regular checking accounts. Rather than have to wait a few days for inter-bank transfers to go through, I just write him an all in one check, then he writes a check to the mortgage account. Horribly inefficient but we get a quarter of a percent off the house interest rate for using the mortgage bank's checking account, so we do it.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[sandytaru]

That wasn't me.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[sandytaru]

I suppose if we had anything besides kitty cats (e.g. we were having kids) that might be the case. But we earn the same amount of money, work the same amount of hours, and have no children. We both have pensions through our jobs, and we're both stuffing as much cash into our Roths/401(ks) as we can. Why shouldn't we split expenses and keep the rest for ourselves? That way I know I can drop $300 on a new video card or at the mall on clothes and he can spend $300 traveling for a conference, and neither of us resent the other one for using more than their fair share of a fairly equal pot.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[sandytaru]

People who like having paper records of transactions.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

That's bullshit. "Racism" is an (incorrect) theory that there are intrinsic differences between races that make some inferior and some superior.

My ability to be tolerant of lactose is "superior" if I want to drink milk compared to the "races" of people who generally don't have that ability. Fact.

Sorry, genetic differences do exist. I'm not going to pretend that nobody is different out of misguided moral crusading. I'm perfectly happy to deal with the notion that we are all different, all have various strengths and weaknesses and that they may occur along population groups with certain shared characteristics.

It's only a problem if you use those differences to divide rather than to co-operate.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[walshy007]

The most reasonable feminists I see tend to rather be egalitarians than feminists. Funnily enough I'd consider trying to equate 'fair' with 'feminine' as slightly sexist itself.

Your friends, do they support affirmative action? If so to what level do you think they would find acceptable? Do you think sexism in the name of reducing sexism is a good idea?

Egalitarianism has troubles too, it can conflict with meritocracy (and meritocracy has it's own issues also).

The kinds of feminists I know are the sort that go to rallies and whose facebook feeds are a trove of propaganda. They mean well, but the intellectual dishonesty in their means of achieving their goals can aggravate at times.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[gbjbaanb]

I notice you left all the discriminatory isms out of your list. And that you failed to bother quoting the rest of my post where I described that not all are discriminatory terms.

I may be illiterate, but you sir are a bigot.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[QilessQi]

I think they would definitely self-label as both feminist and egalitarian. In one case, both the husband and wife work and have kids, and for a while I think he was the primary caregiver because of the differing demands of their jobs. In another case (no kids) the woman and her male partner share household tasks equally but tend to fall in gendered roles out of habit (she does more cooking, he does more home repair, but they both do things like painting and cleaning).

Do they support affirmative action? I honestly don't know... it never comes up in conversation. I think many of them support allocating identical funds for male and female athletics in K-12 and colleges/universities. I've never heard any of them say anything like women should be paid more than men or given preferential treatment in business. Certainly nothing about quotas.

I agree that egalitarianism will compromise meritocracy, but in America we don't have a pure meritocracy anyway. If you're born into money, or if your family name is Kardashian or Bush or Kennedy, you're on third base already. If your family is affluent, white, and lives in the LA suburbs, you're going to have an easier time reaching your goals than if your family is poor, Latino, and lives in North Philadelphia -- no matter how hard you try. Now, we all know that life isn't fair, and we can never hope to make life completely fair. But economic disparities and lingering racial and ethnic and sexual prejudices mean that creating a perfectly-level playing field doesn't suddenly give everybody an equal chance.

I know the sorts of feminists you have encountered... I've gotten yelled at by at least one of them on Jezebel. There are jerks in any movement, usually at its radical fringes where the most passionate and alienated people tend to congregate. It's a corollary of egalitarianism that women can be rude, disgusting, obnoxious jerks... just like men. :-) When I find myself dealing with a jerk, I try to move slowly out the range of their spittle and venom, and find better people to talk to. Fortunately the jerks do not represent mainstream feminism -- which, like the mainstream of most movements, is pretty tame:

Marie Shear said, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people". It sounds flippant, but to me it means this: at the core, women are simply not so different from men that they can't understand each other's viewpoint. The average Western woman wants the same basic things that the average Western man does: the right to control their own body, the right to pursue sex and the right to deny it, the right to vote and have a career and be a parent and worship the God they choose to worship without fear of violence being done to them, and the right to be judged by their capabilities rather than their appearance (or vice-versa, depending on the individual and the social context). To me, feminism means support of those rights -- nothing more and nothing less.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Valdrax]

I never said anything about anyone's sister; you have confused and blurred people together in your head by not paying close attention. You know, kind of like your entire generalization of women.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Shirley Marquez]

Your bank still sends back your checks? All the banks around here just send you printouts with little pictures of checks, assuming you haven't opted out of paper statements. If you have you can download PDFs with little pictures of checks instead. It's not really any more of a paper trail than the printed statement listing your electronic payments is.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Shirley Marquez]

Having three accounts (my money, your money, and our money) is a common arrangement for couples, including married couples. It keeps you out of a lot of fights about how you spend the non-shared money. Pooling everything works for some people but not for everyone.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Actually, I do RTFA]

To avoid any feeling of obligation you mean? Probably

But as I said, once the initial (few) date(s) are over, most women start going dutch. In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of the last beyond-third date I went on where it was expected that I continue to be the only one paying.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[bhiestand]

We are both 130+ IQs,

Just out of curiosity: how does a pair of abstract concepts conceive a child?

While I want to agree with the AC here, I should point out that there is some research into this. Relationships with large differences in IQ do not tend to be successful.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[TranquilVoid]

What the hell does "morally equal" even mean?

It's a philosophical term meaning the same level of consciousness/dignity etc. Related to the sense of right and wrong, but more stemming from the notion that morality is what sets humans apart from other creatures.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[JeffAtl]

Don't you just take turns paying? I don't think I've ever split the bill on a date or with a girlfriend.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[stenvar]

My ability to be tolerant of lactose is "superior" if I want to drink milk compared to the "races" of people who generally don't have that ability. Fact.

You believe that there is a valid concept called "race" and that it is responsible for genetic differences between humans. That makes you a racist. Whether you choose to discriminate based on that belief or not doesn't matter. In reality, the concept of "race" has no biological reality. It's as arbitrary as dividing people up by the first letter of their last names (which also correlates with lactose intolerance).

You're also mistaken that being lactose tolerant is "superior". First of all, you pay a metabolic price for your lactose tolerance. In addition, your lactose tolerance may encourage you to make bad nutritional choices.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Yeah, in reality that's what happens.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

You believe that there is a valid concept called "race" and that it is responsible for genetic differences between humans

Not really. Also the description springs from the phenomena - not the other way around.

That makes you a racist.

A racial discrimination based on fact isn't morally problematic as I outlined above. I know you don't get this.

In reality, the concept of "race" has no biological reality.

Regardless genetic differences in populations do even if catergorisation of people's based on skin colour is crude to say the least.

That is reality and you cannot pretend otherwise.

You're also mistaken that being lactose tolerant is "superior". First of all, you pay a metabolic price for your lactose tolerance. In addition, your lactose tolerance may encourage you to make bad nutritional choices.

Again why I quote it because I'm fully aware that superiority is relative to the environment one finds themselves in.

What you seem to have problem with is admitting the simple fact that people *are* *DIFFERENT* and that those differences *do* occur in population groups.

You are adept though at ignoring the vast amount of content, misunderstanding a portion of it and then attacking a strawman.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Slashdot Parent]

People who like having paper records of transactions.

I'm not sure what's to like about paper records, which are tedious to keep and prone to errors, but you can always write on paper that you transferred $800 to your husband electronically, just like you would write in your check register.

For what it's worth, I'll suggest to you the system that my wife and I used when we first got married and hadn't yet combined our finances. We each had individual checking accounts where we deposited our paychecks and paid for individual expenses, and we also maintained a joint checking account, from which we paid the rent/mortgage, utilities, food, and whatever else we agreed would be "joint" expenses. Then, each month, we'd each electronically transfer our half of the money into the joint account to cover the joint bills, and from that account, we'd pay the bills. All records were electronic.

This is all proven technology, by the way. It was proven back when we did this, and that would be 1999. All records were electronic and we both had transparency into what was going on in the joint account, who contributed what and what was paid out of it, all automatically. I imagine that this is probably easier today than it was 15 years ago.

Hope this helps save you both some time and effort and errors!

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[Slashdot Parent]

Your bank still sends back your checks?

It's impractical for banks to mail checks to customers under Check 21. Most checks aren't physically transferred from bank to bank anymore. Images are transferred instead, and the payments are settled electronically.

Paper checks should be phased out here like they were in the rest of the world, in my opinion. They are insecure, expensive to clear, and error-prone.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[steg0]

So, there is some kind of unfair scheme being pursued by women in which they achieve an unmatchable degree of perceived physical attractiveness (hence the sexual power and the fawning), and expect equal pay on top of it?

(1) If there is, they have been failing rather badly at it over the past few decades, unless you take these 111% mentioned in TFA for granted, but I'm really not that sure about it.

(2) Your view of what's physically attractive is always biased by your own gender; meaning if you're a (hetero) man, you'll likely find an unfair advantage in attractiveness in the female; a good part of it might not have anything to do with any intent on their side. In fact, the assumption that they're guilty of making you feel attracted to them, give them presents etc. (i. e. bewitching you) is a pretty problematic line of thought. For any observable incident involving dollar-spending on the male part, an equally justifiable explanation is always that of a naive, romanticized idea of chivalry on behalf of the spender.

(3) Wouldn't any agenda that aimed at getting better treatment by physically appealing to the other gender cancel itself out once 50% of all management positions were held by females? So all we have to do is sit down and wait...

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[stenvar]

You are adept though at ignoring the vast amount of content, misunderstanding a portion of it and then attacking a strawman.

Definition of "racism" from Collins:

1. the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

2. abusive or aggressive behaviour towards members of another race on the basis of such a belief

The doctrine is unscientific because (1) cultural characteristics are not determined by hereditary factors, and (2) races are not intrinsically superior over others. The doctrine is unscientific because, while there are lots of hereditary factors, they are not determined by race any more than they are determined by your last name or your native language.

The problem here isn't with me, it's with you: you hold racist beliefs, you simply think it's OK because you don't discriminate.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[walshy007]

For the most part I'd advocate avoiding unnecessary interference. Let people be people. There are feminists out there who believe we should engineer society to be a certain way, and I'd disagree with that.

In regards to helping people in poor economic circumstances, I'd advocate not discriminating by race, do it by need. If one race happens to be more disadvantaged than another they can get help, but I do not see race-based advantages and laws working at all. In some cases they can even prove a detriment to the very groups they were made to help.

For the most part, I don't give a damn what other people want to do. It's none of my business. However when people interfere with something I'm involved in entirely on the premise of race or sex.. then I have issue. In regards to people who just want to get out there and get a job done, the only time feminism would appear is when it is causing unnecessary issues from possibly over-sensitive people.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

Definition of "racism" from Collins:

Hold it right there. I have very clearly stated what is meant here and as such the definitions you quote are irrelevant.

Would you like to address the meat of the point now?

The problem here isn't with me,

It is.

you hold racist beliefs, you simply think it's OK because you don't discriminate.

Not as you defined - clearly impossible since I already stated that I perfectly agree that what are referred to as races are a caricature of reality that have little utility. I am simply pointing out the facts here. That I am not concerned with moral panic and trying to make reality fit my prejudices rather than adjusting my perspectives to how the world is what you seem to have a problem with.

I am not going to pretend people aren't different no matter how you are going to define it because someone calls it a "moral issue" to not pretend we're all the same. So if you want to call me racist for that you go right ahead. That really is your problem.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[stenvar]

Hold it right there. I have very clearly stated what is meant here and as such the definitions you quote are irrelevant.

Stop lying. You wrote "No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question." That's not a statement about what it means "here". Furthermore, you don't get to arbitrarily redefined words and then criticize people for not accepting your redefinitions. The suffix "-ism" does not denote "discrimination", period. A very small fraction of words that have that suffix happen to be related to discrimination, but that has nothing to do with the meaning of the suffix.

I am not going to pretend people aren't different no matter how you are going to define it because someone calls it a "moral issue" to not pretend we're all the same. So if you want to call me racist for that you go right ahead. That really is your problem.

The problem isn't with the fact that people are different (they are), it's with your attempt to determine what those differences are based on race and then treat people differently accordingly.

And the fact that lots of people are racists, like you are, is actually a big problem for our society. It doesn't matter that you believe that your racism is positive rather than negative.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

Stop lying.

I would have to start first.

You wrote "No. A -ism simply is a discrimination on the principle property in question." That's not a statement about what it means "here".

I do not see how this doesn't apply to racism unless you are saying there is no discrimination based upon the property of race whether or not that property is well defined - which isn't relevant.

Furthermore, you don't get to arbitrarily redefined words and then criticize people for not accepting your redefinitions.

I certainly do when I am clearly donig so for the purposes of hypotheticals in an argument.

I will outline this again for you.

I scare quoted racism - "racism" - since as it is commonly understood has additional baggage not relevant to the basic point as to whether or not acknowledging the existence of differing properties in population groups is a priori a immoral - something you refuse to make a statement on.

If you have such a problem with the word substitute whatever you want in its place that has effective meaning and then get back to what was actually said rather than what you think was said that allows you to have some righteous moral outrage.

it's with your attempt to determine what those differences are based on race and then treat people differently accordingly.

Please quote where I made such an attempt. "Treatment," is such a broad term but I can assume that you only mean that it can be derrogatory. Since I don't know entire phenotypical properties from the first glance of an individual nor since I have no particular yardstick by which to determine if there were any particular actions to take with regard to any individual based upon that other than obvious things like a deaf person isn't going to be able to communicate with me in the same way a hearing person would - a statement you will no doubt find problematic despite its obvious practicality - I have no specific approach to take any such action. You are obviously forming a caricature in your own mind based upon simply what the example is in question which again strikes to the point that you are the one with the problem and cannot take a dispassionate approach to a subject and you are infact the one with the prejudicial problems.

And the fact that lots of people are racists, like you are, is actually a big problem for our society.

Ignoring the fact that you basically don't know what my beliefs are with regard to people of other cultures are since I haven't said anything - although it would be rather problematic if I was the caricature you have formed in your mind for me in certain intimate interpersonal relationships that aren't relevant and you don't have to believe exist, you can simply read what I actually said on the matter rather than what you believe I have.

It doesn't matter that you believe that your racism is positive rather than negative.

Hypothetical question here: is the NBA racist? Is the 100m dash racist? Is the bobsleigh racist?

You keep on asserting I am making proscriptional statements on how one should behave rather than descriptional statements on factual matters.

So please, could you quote me somewhere where I've said we should whack a cracker or lynch darkies? I don't believe I said anything to this effect anywhere. This is all of your imagination and inability to read what is said on a controversial subject without jumping to your predujiced conclusions.

Again, *you* are the problem for "our" (since I probably am not part of it) soceity. Unthinking, emotionally laden, prejudiced moral panickers that would have us all mointored 24/7 for thoughtcrimes.

Re:Yeah, but women want it all

[cyborg_zx]

Geez, you really are intellectually challenged, aren't you.

High praise indeed from an Anonymous Coward.

You made a general statement about "-isms".

Which made no attempt to be an exclusive definition but clearly only pertaining to the relevant discussion of discrimination. So I ignored your irrelevant side track because it was irrelevant, and still is irrelevant.

Intellect has never even attempted to challenge you has it?

Re:Pretty much this

[SJHillman]

I've also known a few guys who spend more time at work to get away from the wife, but rarely do I see the opposite.

Money talks

[BreezeDM]

If I could hire females with the same qualifications, same productivity, and willing to work the same hours why would I hire a male if I could pay females 75%? We could cut payroll by 25% by just hiring women. I believe that misogyny exists, but i doubt it would be enough to increase payroll by 25%. Even the most misogynistic business owner would hire just females to save on costs. Since this isn't the case, we know women are not being paid less than their male counterparts generally.

Re:Money talks

[serviscope_minor]

I believe that misogyny exists, but i doubt it would be enough to increase payroll by 25%.

You appear to be douting that humans will make irrational decisions.

This amuses me.

Re:Money talks

[Anrego]

Obviously there's warning time, but that doesn't mean having someone disappear for a huge chunk of time isn't disruptive regardless of how much notice you have.

Also as the time approaches, there's a growing list of restrictions and accommodations that have to be made, and frequent doctors appointments. Beyond that, there are major personality changes (call me a sexist pig if you want, but denying that women get really weird emotionally when they are pregnant is absurd). Stressful job and person who gets emotional at the drop of a hat isn't fun.

It's definitely something that the misogynist in this scenario is going to consider if they think they are getting a deal by hiring a women for less pay than an equivalent male.

Obviously these same kind of problems come up when someone arbitrarily quits or as you said, gets hit by a truck or throws their back out. Maternity leave just seems to stand out for some reason (probably because unlike those other things, it is specifically tied to an identifiable group).

Re:Money talks

[RightSaidFred99]

You seem to assume they are making, en masse, irrational decisions which cost them money. This is even more amusing.

Re:Money talks

[serviscope_minor]

Hmm?

What are you assuming that I am assuming that people make?

I merely pointed out that the OP is assuming that humans are rational. This is demonstrably not true. You're assuming that humans en masse won't make irrational decisions which cost them money. This is also demonstrably not true.

If it were true, then payday loan companies would not be in business.

So, while you may be amused by the concept of people making en masse, financially poor decisions, that doesn't alter the verifyable fact that they do.

Re:Money talks

[geekoid]

For the same reason women get offered less. "A Man can do it better! So I'll hire a man."

For the vast majority of people that is going on deep in their brain. This include women who make job offers to other women.

Re:Fixed the Problem

[SJHillman]

Your solution to being paid less than male colleagues is to eliminate the male colleagues?

Controlling for...

[Sockatume]

I was under the impression that one of the issue was that women are less likely to get offered exciting projects, overtime, etc. etc. so they wind up stuck in relatively junior positions doing limited hours.

Re:Controlling for...

[Anonymous Coward]

They get offered all that at first but company stops asking after constant rejections. Young women, at least from my personal experience, are more focused on things outside of their career. There were several female co-workers who were more talented than me but unlike them I was willing to put in more hours to deal with problems at work. Last I heard one of them now runs a Yoga studio and another went back to school for PhD.

Re:Controlling for...

[Xest]

But it's a chicken and egg scenario isn't it? are women doing limited hours because they're not getting offered exciting projects, or are they not getting offered exciting projects because they're doing limited hours as they've made a choice with their partner to be the one that goes home early to collect the kids from school?

I suspect you're right, but the underlying cause of that discrepancy is still not so clear cut.

Re:Controlling for...

[Slashdot Parent]

I think it depends on the woman and her assertiveness. My wife is not the type of person to get stuck like that, but maybe some women just prefer to go to work, get paid, and then do other things that are more important to them than work.

I can't say that I disagree with that perspective.

Re:Controlling for...

[AmiMoJo]

Putting in lots of extra hours is macho bullshit. If the company doesn't employ enough people that is their problem. I do occasionally stay a while after hours but not habitually like some places expect you to.

Re:Controlling for...

[oursland]

Men aren't offered exciting projects, overtime, etc.; they actively pursue it. In the book "Ask For It: How Women Can Use the Power of Negotiation to Get What They Really Want" on Page 2, Linda Babcock describes exactly this scenario. All the male colleagues get the good jobs and the women get the less exciting roles. Upon inquiring why this was so, she was informed that the women simply never asked!

Link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/Ask-For-...

this isn't new

[Trailer Trash]

Forbes and WSJ pointed this out a couple of years ago:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...

If you actually look at how much work is done and actual years worked (not just age) etc. the gap disappears. Actually, according to the summary here there *is* a gap as women get paid more. I'm sure the feminists and looney lefters will want to fix this new problem. Not.

Re:this isn't new

[cryptizard]

The problem is that you are controlling for things that actually do matter. Why are women less likely to work long hours? Because if you have a family, it is societally expected that the wife will pick up the slack in order for the husband to work longer. Look at any "high powered" man with a family and you will find that situation. Even if the wife has a full time job, she still has to do the majority of the work at home. It is not acceptable for a woman to work more and a husband to do the house work, so there is no opportunity for them to do it (of course there are exceptions, but I am talking on the whole).

Re:this isn't new

[sribe]

Even if the wife has a full time job, she still has to do the majority of the work at home.

Says who?

I remember when I first read about these issues, 30 years ago, one of the surveys claiming that women did the majority of work at home, counted exterior house maintenance, yard maintenance, and car maintenance as mens' hobbies instead of work at thome.

Re:this isn't new

[cryptizard]

Says the pigeonhole principle. If the man is working 80 hours weeks he doesn't physically have time to do the work at home. Those situations are common for men, but women cannot afford to do overtime because they don't have a safety net to take care of the work at home.

Re:this isn't new

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that it's begging the question (in the Latin sense). If a woman were working 80 hours a week, she wouldn't have time to work at the house, and a man wouldn't be able to do overtime because he's the only one doing the work at home.

Re:this isn't new

[cryptizard]

I know many couples where this is true. That's not to say that it is universal, but it still happens quite a lot, especially outside of liberal urban areas.

Re:this isn't new

[phantomfive]

If the man is working 80 hours weeks he doesn't physically have time to do the work at home. Those situations are common for men

That situation isn't common for men.

Re:this isn't new

[DaveV1.0]

You didn't address his very valid point of the survey skewing the statistics by manipulating the input. If exterior house maintanence and yard work are hobbies, then so are interior house maintenance and laundry.

Re:this isn't new

[geekoid]

That would be a great point if people got paid by the hour. They do not. Hence we have a gap.

as a technical person

[fermion]

I would hate to be judged on my hours worked. Sometimes I am less efficient than others and have to work more hours, sometimes I am more efficient and have to work less. I have generally been salary, generally been expected to work enough to get my work done, and generally been paid for the getting work done. Now, if I were a paper pusher then the hours worked would be a good metric. If I were a check out person at walmart then the hours worked would be a good metric. But hours worked has never seemed to me a good metric for technical people, unless you are talking about the geek squad.

IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would employers be hiring so many overpriced men?

Re:IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY...

[erroneus]

Now THAT is an insightful rhetorical question.

Employers, especially today, have loyalty only to their money; their profit margins; their bottom lines. It doesn't actually fit that there would be institutionalized sexism if only because it is not the most profitable way to do things. All of these "-isms" are lies. Who profits from the lies? Turns out a lot of people do. Look to the budgets and pay of SPLC leadership among others. These non-profits are very expensive to run.

Re:IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY...

[joe_frisch]

It would seem that ideal economics would do away with discrimination, but it doesn't seem to do so. I think the problem is that the assumption of perfect decision making on the part of management is false. Especially in high tech fields, it can be very difficult to judge the real productivity of workers. With a lack of clear quantifiable metrics, managers need to fall back on their intuition. Intuition is easily skewed by bias.

If the business situation were static, over a very long time the companies that did a better job of accurately evaluating workers would succeed, but the high tech business environment is constantly changing and I think this "noise" swamps the inefficiencies from biased hiring.

There is also a "nonlinear" problem. (to make up a case for example) Lets say that women are as productive as men, but the productivity of men decreases when they work with women. In that case if you start with an all male team, adding a woman would reduce its productivity even though she was as or more productive than the men. (AGAIN THIS IS JUST FOR EXAMPLE, I'M NOT CLAIMING THIS IS THE CASE).

Re:IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY...

[Luckyo]

There is one claim to support this: because men are not overpriced but worth the extra money.

Several things happen at least here in Finland where when woman has a baby, she is entitled to a long paid vacation to take care of her baby and employer is required to keep her work spot for her. If you're a big company, you just amortise the costs with temporary workers. It hits your bottom line but it's not a major issue, as men are for example more accident prone, in more danger of alcoholism related issues and so on. But if you're a small company with just a few employees, suddenly having to find an entirely new temp worker and pay what essentially amounts to almost two salaries for the same piece of work for years (if woman has several children in short time span) can bring the entire small company down.

This causes many smaller business to shun women of child bearing age, while larger incorporate a "childbearing risk" reduction in women's salaries. It's illegal and but it's common, easily obfuscated and it does make sense. Especially with companies that need professions dominated by women taking a huge hit from this, while firms like engineering where women are generally far less common than men can afford to not really care about the issue.

Re:IF THERE WERE SUCH A PAY DISPARITY...

[Luckyo]

Let's not go into hyperboles. Women that make "almost six figures" will usually work from home when on their maternity leave. They won't be risking not having their high paid job a couple of months after coming back because they didn't stay "in the loop".

The problem is far more prevalent in low-paid jobs like nursing, education and so on.

You guys will end up on Jezebel

[sandbagger]

You're gonna be in trouble. I'm telling.

Re:This is really simple

[cryptizard]

You can get months off whenever you want for any medical condition you or your family might have. It's called FMLA and your employer is required by law to respect it. You probably won't get paid, but you can't get fired either. Maternity leave is the same in a lot of (most?) places. You can use your sick leave if you have any, but then you are taking unpaid.

At my wife's work they don't badge...

[fonske]

She hates to be reminded of the fact that she can't be working more then 6 hours a day. Yet she has a way of making sure that all my surplus hours are carefully filled in with me doing extra tasks like grocery shopping, going to the doctor with the kids etc... She get's to appreciate both sides of the spectrum all in her advantage.

Re:Be careful...

[sideslash]

I know. It's almost as repugnant as musing about new agricultural opportunities in Siberia or Canada due to global warming. These Things Are Not Discussed.

Thanks HR department!

[the_scoots]

I guess the race to pay everyone as little as possible has leveled the pay out!

Because men don't quit to have children

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, troll. But I'm serious. It's a factor in manpower planning, especially in smaller teams.

Re:Because men don't quit to have children

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, troll. But I'm serious. It's a factor in manpower planning, especially in smaller teams.

Jeesuz.. are you indoctrinated with political correctness or are you just prematurely trying to fend off flames? I've worked with many female engineers and scientists, and was married to one for nearly 20 years.

Three biggest factors I see:

1. Women stop to have children, and the *may* come back to the work force. Many never do, so there aren't as many females in senior paying positions.

The next two are anecdotes I've noticed over my own career that seem to be a constant theme (e.g. I legitimately think there's a trend):

2. Women are weaker negotiators during the hiring and raise/evaluation phases. While there are some monster bitches out there, they're not called the 'fairer sex' for nothing. Men are much more likely to take a stand and risk their job for what they deem to be 'fair'.

3. Women get sick of the engineering work environment, the lack of personal fulfillment, and say 'to hell with this, I'm out of here".

Re:Because men don't quit to have children

[OakDragon]

I know, troll. But I'm serious. It's a factor in manpower planning, especially in smaller teams.

Right. It ain't called "womanpower" planning. Amirite fellas?!

Re:Because men don't quit to have children

[sdoca]

I'm sure this is very uncommon, but I worked with a guy who took a year off when his wife had their third child (she only took a month). Why? Partly because he wanted a chance to be the primary caregiver but mainly because she made more money than him and it made economic sense.

So, if women were paid better than their husbands, would we see more situations like this? I think yes, but probably never the majority.

Re:Because men don't quit to have children

[ilcylic]

Re: 2.) "Women are weaker negotiators"

Women are also "weaker negotiators" because women are often considered to *be* "monster bitches" just for negotiating in the same way a man would, much of the time.

Prejudicial thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

There's none so blind as those who refuse to see. Studies showing the pay disparity disappears when you account for "non-gender" differences have been around for decades, but they have always been ignored, as this one will be, because they don't advance the prejudicial concept that men are bad.

Re:This is really simple

[Zeromous]

But you won't be put on Project X that delivers next quarter either. There are trade offs to life choices, and Women are definitely at a disadvantage in this area no matter what the stats and laws say.

Personally in my experience my tech job is well represented with women who make choices to take a laid back approach to work for this reason. Furthermore I report to 7 managers, 4 of which are women right on up to the highest level. I think there is room for both archetypes.

Why Men Earn More

[defaria]

If women really did get paid only $0.75 per a man's $1 and yet performed equally to men then I must ask you - which businessman would not hire all women seeing as they are 25% off! The so called gender pay gap is just a myth that women attempt to use to get more money for nothing. Warren Ferrell's book, Why Men Earn More, explains all of this.

Re:This is not news; it is also not PC

[sskang]

Taking months or years off for child raising, or working only part time, or refusing to travel - none of these things should affect your career or your pay. It ought to be possible to drop out of the workforce at 25, raise your kids full-time for 20 years, and then rejoin the workforce as a senior manager.

I assume you're aiming this dig at women, when the truly enlightened nations extend this courtesy to both men and women. And nobody takes paid parental leave for 20 years, sorry. Everyone who goes away for that long comes back at an adjusted career level, and I'm sure you know that. Why stoop to hyperbole?

It makes as much sense as the rest of the progressive agenda...

Let me guess - over the age of 50? You are being left behind, just like your parents were left behind on such progressive concepts as the end of colonialism and racism. It's not something to be upset about, it's just how civilization works.

Missed a few things.

[jythie]

I applaud the author for trying to keep things even and dig into the numbers, but she missed two rather critical things.

The first thing she touched on was women staying in STEM. She dismisses this as personal choice and finding something 'more fulfilling', but most women I have talked to that dropped out of STEM did so more because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers. They did not really want to leave the industry in order to take a lower paying job in another field, but they found treatment to be pretty bad and opportunities to be fairly restricted.

And that brings us to the second point, opportunities. While it is true that actual pay for the same job tends to be fairly even, advancement opportunities for women still tend to be pretty limited. The same quality of work is often praised more for a male then a female and men are generally seen more as 'management material' and 'leaders', while the same leadership behaviors in women are often dismissed as being 'bitchy'. Dominance is often rewarded in men and punished for women, which results in fewer women getting those higher paying jobs within the same organization.

Re:Missed a few things.

[phantomfive]

Those are interesting hypotheses, but as you mention, the evidence in the article directly contradicts your first point. It would be interesting if you found a study or something better than your friends to support that point.

And let's be honest, who hasn't had lousy bosses and annoying coworkers? Those are reasons to find another company, not to change careers.

Re:Missed a few things.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in the sector I've been working in, at least not anymore. I've been working for almost 40 years in IT, and the men here are positively whipped now. Sure there are still incidents, but most of those are blown out of proportion. Sure, there is still sexism and ill will, but not much more of it from the guys than the gals.

In fact the last time I spoke with a junior coder who felt oppressed, it was all a perceived notion. She wasn't willing to understand the men, and blowing things out of proportion. Her female peers had adjusted, and the men had adjusted to them. But she was less willing to do so, and viewed every gender difference as some attack on equality ("why should we have to act like the men when we're supposed to be welcome here?").

That doesn't really won't fly anymore. Women have to try harder to co-exist with guys and understand them, rather than treating them like strange relics from the 50s and then getting upset when they act out those expectations. Men aren't the only ones who have to adjust their attitudes. This isn't a free ride, and it really is a tough world out there.

I also dispute your notion that there are fewer opportunities. Everywhere I've gone, women rarely work the longer hours, and are more willing to take vacation pay. In that kind of environment, of course the more eager men will grab the opportunities. Even worse, the women don't seem to want them a lot of the time. Their attitude seems to be "let the men have the stress if they want it". Thankfully this seems to finally be slowly changing.

I say all of this as a woman who's tired of hearing these arguments while seeing women act in ways that ensure they are self-fulfilling prophecies. There's still much work to be done, but we have to be honest about what's left. Otherwise we're just going to engender bad blood.

Re:Missed a few things.

[GoCrazy]

If we're going to go off anecdotal evidence, most of the women I've met who no longer do engineering have done so for personal (raising a family), career (joined politics) or academic (pursued PhD in Physics instead) reasons. You leave a job because of coworkers. You leave a career due to personal choice.

As for the rest of your post, I refer you to the last line of the article:

this perception is just one more factor discouraging women from entering the tech space.

Re:Missed a few things.

[avandesande]

I've been at this 20 years myself and only was privy to one instance of 'harassment' due to a remark that I thought was relatively minor- person was reported to HR, written up and sent home for a week WO pay.

Maybe if you thrive on a certain social environment, going out to lunch etc IT might not be what you want in many cases.

Re:Missed a few things.

[DaveV1.0]

but most women I have talked to that dropped out of STEM did so more because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers.

Most of the men I know that have dropped out of STEM did so because of problems they encountered with coworkers and managers through out their careers. They got tired of the crap, but the stuck it out for a long time. From what you are saying, women don't stick it out as long. BTW, you don't mention what the problems were. Was it because the manager wanted her to work 60+ hours per week? Was it because she was expected to be available on vacation? Was it because she was expected to be on-call? Was it because the co-workers got tired of swapping shifts, on-calls, etc?

The same quality of work is often praised more for a male then a female

Really? do you have any evidence to back this up? Or, is it that you considered your work to be the same quality as your male counterparts and your boss didn't?

Your post is just you grasping at straws to justify your preconceived bias.

Re:Missed a few things.

[argStyopa]

All of your "assertions of fact" smell strongly like you pulled them from your butt.

"...Treatment pretty bad and opportunities pretty limited" - according to most of the people I've talked to in tech fields, frankly, this experience is the same whether you have a Y chromosome or not.

Got ANY sources for any of these 'facts' or is it just what you believe?

Women make less because they are smarter

[Zeorge]

They took a look at the single guy, fresh out of college, who wails himself against a wall for that extra few percent and they are like: have it! They apparantly figured it out awhile ago that getting that last few percent relates to an exponential increase in effort and it's just not worth it. Why work 60+ hours a week (+50% increase in hours) for a +7% increase in pay?

Re:Women make less because they are smarter

[PoopMonkey]

wtf..

So what? and false

[raymorris]

Let's pretend that's true. Let's pretend most families are like that. They aren't, but let's pretend you're right.

Bob works for me, and he puts in 60 hours / week when needed, 50 hours average. His wife, Sally, works for a competing company, you. She leaves at 3:00 to pick up the kid from school. Are you going to pay Sally as much as I pay Bob, because she has a good excuse? As your competition, I sure hope so because you'll go broke that way. Bob, working those long hours, produces twice as much.

You know what's funny? In that "traditional family" where mom takes care of the house and kids, they don't even CARE if both paychecks are the same. They go into the couple's bank account anyway , so Sally and Bob are perfectly happy if "Bob's" paycheck is three times the size of "Sally's" - either way, it's THEIR money.

Re:So what? and false

[geekoid]

Since I actually no how to run a company and can make decisions based on 10-20 year plans, I would destroy you company, and NO ONE would be working more then 40 hours.

"Bob, working those long hours, produces twice as much."
nope. In fact he will produce less then a 30 hour work week if it goes on for too long.

Choice vs. non-choice factors

[davidwr]

If you control for # of hours worked, that's fine and dandy as long as this factor is something NOT based on gender discrimination.

If men get offered longer-hours, and therefore more-annual-pay, jobs or assignments, because they are men or because of some underlying factor where men have an advantage because they are men, then you SHOULD NOT be factoring this out.

If everyone gets offered such assignments without any gender discrimination and men choose to work longer hours, or if the reasons for any differences between what men are offered and what women are offered are all based on things that happened earlier in life that were based on free choices rather than gender discrimination, then you SHOULD factor these out.

Example:

If promotions are offered to those who have current skills for the new job, and those current skills are usually developed by taking extra training classes on the employee's own time, this may seem like a gender-neutral reason for selecting who gets promoted, even if its effect is to have many more of one gender promoted than another. In some environments, it may actually BE a gender-neutral way of selecting who gets promoted.

However, if the company's employee pool has a large number of women who simply do not have the time to take such classes (say, due to being single parents - single moms significantly outnumber single dads in the USA) and the employer either knows this or would have to be willfully blind to not know it, then using "who has current skills for the new job" for internal promotions without finding some way of ensuring everyone has a REAL opportunity to get skills training is, at best, indirect gender discrimination. If it's a deliberate "bwuhahahaha let's see if we can fool everyone into thinking we can play fair while ensuring most promotions go to men bwuhahahaha" deliberate technique, then the company better hope there is no smoking gun or they will lose any related employment lawsuit and probably alienate their customers as well.

Re:Choice vs. non-choice factors

[neminem]

Because some crazy people want enforced absolute gender equality in all things, and screw what the people doing the work actually want.

It is well known that, biologically, men are, on average, more interested in high-risk/high-reward careers. That doesn't mean that all males are, or that no females are, but on average, that sort of career is going to have a lot more guys interested, just by the nature of it, and that is not primarily a social difference. That category includes "risk of physical danger" jobs like firefighting and police work, yes, but it also includes "risk of no free time and stress burnout" jobs like high finance and certain types of programming work, where you're making mad bank, but good luck finding time to enjoy it.

Thus, it would make perfect sense to me that if you separate out hours worked, men and women would be making roughly equal pay, but if you didn't, men would make more. Not because they're being paid per hour, nor because they're being "offered" longer hours, but mostly because they're working more jobs where longer hours are just *expected*.

I'm male, and working at a software company. I've been told I could probably make a lot more with the same experience if I worked at a different company, but I *like* working at a company where flexible hours are the norm, and working a standard 40 hours a week is expected. I know people who make a lot more, but working upwards of 50-100% more hours a week. No thanks. Girls (again, on average) have the right of it.

Re:This is really simple

[CastrTroy]

Although I don't really agree with paying women less on the chance that they might get pregnant and take 6-12 months off work, I certainly see it as a very real problem. In many fields, people aren't instantaneously replaceable. You can't just call in a replacement for someone and they are instantly as productive as the person they are replacing. Plus, the other employees who must help train them lose efficiency as well. And then there's the time spent having the old employee catch up after they come back. I don't have any hard data, but in a technical role, I would say that over the course of somebody taking a year off, 3 months (minimum) of work would be completely lost, due to training the new person and catching up the original employee. That' a huge expense for businesses.

people don't care

[stenvar]

Many differences in outcome can be explained by controlling for variables; people who advocate "equality of outcome" don't care. If there are variables that cause unequal outcome, then whatever causes those variables to be different must itself be racist/sexist. Women work fewer hours? It must be a sexist society that allows men to work more hours than women.

It all depends on where you work

[ErichTheRed]

Not all companies are crazy software development shops run by 20somethings who don't mind working 100 hour weeks. If you go to a company like that and ask about wage parity, you'll get all the excuses that were posted in this thread -- time off for kiddies, inability to travel, inability to work 100 hour weeks when needed, etc.

The reality is a little different. My wife and I both work, and we have 2 little kids. They take an insane amount of BOTH our time. Both of us have to share the responsibility of sick days, chores around the house and running errands, and especially this winter, snow days. We both have technical jobs, mine in IT, hers in finance. The difference is that we work for companies that don't expect 100 hour weeks. So far, it's worked out as long as one of us isn't taking all the time off work. It's not the 50s anymore -- most companies are mainly concerned with whether you get your work done and less obsessed with the butts-in-seats factor. The trade off for this is that sometimes we end up having to do a little extra work to catch up after the kids go to bed, which sucks when we're dead tired for working AND taking care of the kids. But, we're (at least not publicly) referred to as the one team member who can't get their stuff done.

So it's less of a female wage parity problem, and more of an "old guy/girl with kids" problem. That really bites as the two of us get older. We have to be smarter about the type of companies we choose to work for, and yes, both of us are leaving money on the table compared to the wages in our area. Single people who just graduated and have zero obligations will always have more choices. They can choose to work at an investment bank, or for a consulting firm that will fly them to clients' offices 300 days out of the year. They could go work for EA and fulfill their "lifelong dream to break into the exciting video game industry." These are choices only, not necessarily good or bad ones. It's just that as we get older, if we don't want to ignore our kids, we have to give up some of our options. ECO 101 - opportunity costs.

For fathers that aren't totally disconnected with the responsibility of raising kids, it can be very close to the same amount of extra time off the woman needs. You need to be there for them. It's harder to understand as you get to your late 30s and are still single or married and childless, but in my experience good managers have been able to at least relate. If one of your team members is still doing great work and needs to work a weird schedule, you would be silly to dump them and replace them with a fresh grad who doesn't have the experience but is willing to work themselves to death for you.

Opportunities

[thelinuxfan]

First, men and women are not the same. One would think this is obvious, but it is not noticeable when people speak about opportunities. If I thought that there was a chance a woman would get pregnant and require a substantial leave of absence, why would I want to entrust a great deal of responsibility to her? This is not sexist; it is sensible. Women are the compassionate sex. They leave work to take care of aging parents or sick family more often than men. They give birth and raise children. They require more time away from work, so if there is a gap in opportunity because of that, that is understandable and not inequality, but the market adjusting to reflect the difference in the sexes. Trying to treat a woman as a man should be humiliating,not galvanizing.

Re:Opportunities

[david_thornley]

You're making sweeping generalizations. If a woman has a spotty work history due to being pregnant, raising kids, etc., and gets paid less, that's one thing. It's another when a woman doesn't get an opportunity because her boss thinks women in general do those things.

Article schmarticle

[LynnwoodRooster]

Did you see the photo of the author, Cynthia Than? She's freaking hot!

Outliers for male rockstar coders skew the average

[echtertyp]

What I remember in California was that one had approximately 4 categories of developers: 1. Journeyman level, typical employee, good enough 2. Short term hired guns, contractors 3. H1-b visa guest labor from India, very affordable at the time so very popular 4. Truly exceptional guys, the much talked about rockstar talent For the rockstar guys, they were so much more valuable and productive than the other 3 categories that it was well worth it to pay double the prevailing wages. The interesting thing in hindsight is that these rockstars really were all guys. No women. Given how the arithmetic behind averages works, I can't help but think that the pay packages of male rockstar techies in the U.S. skews the figures. If one removed the top and bottom 10% of the pay data for men and women in tech work, I think you'd find the average pay for men vs. women would be much closer.

Re:This is really simple

[geminidomino]

Although I don't really agree with paying women less on the chance that they might get pregnant and take 6-12 months off work

I don't think that actually happens. What does happen is that they stop getting paid once they DO take the time off (and burn their sick leave).

I'm the last one to jump on the "businesses have to make money, so whatever they have to do to that end is OK" bandwagon, but honestly, this one just boggles my mind. Moreso because the intersection of people who consider it a problem (apparently a business is supposed to pay someone who stops working for a year, so they can make life decisions) has such a large intersection with the set that is devoutly opposed to the concept of paternity leave.

Re:This is not news; it is also not PC

[sskang]

I assume you're aiming this dig at women

If you read the the grandparent a bit more carefully, you would have noticed it was about feminism, not about women.

Oh, I read it carefully enough. The goal of feminism is to provide equality to women in society, and this includes distributing the responsibility of child-rearing to both genders.

Nice strawman though.

You appear to be unclear on what this term means.

Re:Its somewhat simple

[HornWumpus]

Everything you say is true. They are still better managers then short men.

Re:qz.com is a shit site

[DaveV1.0]

I am guessing you are the same rabid feminist who has been commenting all over this post as an AC, yes?

All I know is I trust anonymous posts

[WillAffleckUW]

I trust anonymous posts pretending there is no pay gap about as much as I trust the corporations behind the anonymous posters.

Re:In An Industry

[DaveV1.0]

Oh, so women as a whole should get paid exactly equal to men as a whole? So, we can expect women to make up exactly half of every single industry, yes? And work exactly half the total hours worked by the entire workforce? And, if not enough women want to be garbage collectors(a job that pays well considering), well, we will just have to force them to do the work, right?

Re:I've heard that before somewhere... oh yeah, on

[erroneus]

The amount of fraud generated by the SPLC is evidence of their character. They wouldn't have to create incidents if any occurred naturally. And like the other race baiters, their "contributions" are usually not quite as voluntary as you might think.

As for these assassination attempts? Citations required.

Re:This is really simple

[geekoid]

Yes, not getting money and end up in the street is a good solution.

"Third, I don't get months and months free time off constantly like women do every time they get pregnant."
You would in a civilized country where you could take off time when you wife is pregnant.

"You can't afford to lose someone for months at a time in important positions."
The you have crap of management. Don't blame women becasue you can't mange projects well, and you company screws you over from spending time with your new born child.

So how exactly is your company doing? Mine has 60%

[raymorris]

> Since I actually NO how to run a company ... I would destroy YOU company

I'm glad you _no_ how to run a company, since you don't know basic English. So how exactly is your company doing.
One of mine has 60% market share.

Cynthia Than is the by-line, not Synthia Tan

[More Trouble]

Also? Cynthia Than's headline is the opposite of the conclusion in the research results. A more serious treatment of the structural problems that lead to these gaps.

Re:This is really simple

[geekoid]

"But you won't be put on Project X that delivers next quarter either"
SO? What is so special about project X? There will be a project Y, then a project Z,then a project AA and so on.

" laid back approach to work"
oh, is that what misogynist are calling it now?

As a person anecdote: Every female programmer I know that leave for a family issue work at home at night. SO lets not forget about that.
Good luck fitting that into you dumb ass narrative.

" 4 of which are women right on up to the highest level. "
So? WTF does that have to do with anything?

Exactly. It's systemic.

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Also an assertive woman risks being called a "bitch", then women get blamed for not negotiating high enough salaries.

Re:This is not news; it is also not PC

[geekoid]

Bad studies should be ignored.
Point me to one that doesn't have to carve up the data is nonsense ways to show that there is no gap.

"Taking months or years off for child raising, or working only part time, or refusing to travel - none of these things should affect your career or your pay. It ought to be possible to drop out of the workforce at 25, raise your kids full-time for 20 years, and then rejoin the workforce as a senior manager."
The only people who claim that are dumb ass twads who seem to think there is no gap while ignoring the gap of women ho DON'T do that.

I know, you have to take the opposite of whatever is popular becasue that's easier then learning to apply critical thinking and logic to anything outside your personal expertise.

People have been making those claims since the 60's and they are as stupid as ever.

I see you were in the Air Force. I lie how you sucked down all that tax payer money to get trained and then fled to another country.
Jack Ass.

Re:This is not news; it is also not PC

[geekoid]

Well, he is a guy who took tax payer money for school, then resigned his commission and fled the country just as we were going to war.
He hasn't even been in the country for 20 years, and he lives where men get time off to spend with their newborn children.

So, in short, a typical neo-conservative loud mouth.

Re:Cake. Have and Eat.

[ewibble]

While I also think women don't actually get paid less in general, when taking into consideration other factors, like hours worked (over lifetime), other rewards such as more emotionally gratifying jobs. Women an men are different we may in general look for different qualities in jobs. Is that such a bad thing?

All the surveys I have seen, seem to be look at the average wage of a male, compare it with females, and say oh no we have wage inequality.

But to play devils advocate it, maybe profitable to pay women less money and still hire more men, because women maybe willing to accept less for some physiological reason. (Women in general may be just be less pushy). You still have to hire people, and there is only a limited supply, it is skilled labor which may mean getting the right person may be more important to your bottom line than paying them a bit less. So out of 100 potential employees you pick the best, say 10% are women, assuming random skill level you hire 10% women. Then you negotiate in sexist manner either, consciously or unconsciously.

The simple fact is wages are not fair, they do not accurately reflect skill/effort put into it. If it did why do fund managers get paid millions when their funds under perform the market (basically you would expect trained monkeys to do better). I doubt they work harder than say a fruit pickers either. You may say they have more risk, but that is not really true either, say they loose all your money, as long as they didn't commit a crime while doing it, the worst that will happen is they will have to get normal paying job like the rest of us. If you want fair you are living in the wrong world.

Re:So how exactly is your company doing? Mine has

[HornWumpus]

Geekoid's sig explains 100% of geekoids posts.

Missing criteria

[whitroth]

How many of those careers where there is allegedly no pay gap are civil service, or on contracts where the pay is equalized with civil service?

                    mark, working for a federal contractor, and yes, my salary *is* dead even with civil service salaries"

lol

[raymorris]

Lol

Re:This is really simple

[Zeromous]

What the hell are you talking about? You want to call me a misogynist, you don't know SHIT about me.

Managers are going to insulate project against risk that someone might leave FOR ANY REASON. I'm talking there are two types of workers: Ones who are driven to work for the company and ones who want to work 9-5 and go home for to their families. It's a life choice, MALE or FEMALE.

I'm saying where I work, in terms of women, both groups are pretty equally represented. We have driven women, who receive the support they need to be promoted up to the highest levels and it's not just one. It's a huge distribution. Then we have women who are more home oriented, and they are well represented in my area (tech) as well. Managers are not going to select their next star project member from the latter group, men or women.

so seriously get off your high horse, and listen to what people are actually saying, not your ridiculous narrative of oppression and patriarchy.

Re:WHY?!?!?!

[Enigma2175]

Let me take a look....Yes, right now, in my company, there are 2 women, and 50 men. I agree with you, i should not have believed my eyes, but some obscure funny organization to tell me what is right and what is wrong.

Absolutely. The plural of anecdote is not data, actual data is much more useful than your anecdote. Plus, this story and the parent post to which you are replying have nothing to do with the number of women at your company, they have to do with how much women in the tech field get paid relative to men.

No pay gap if your good ....

[jerryjnormandin]

There is no pay gap for those who are talented. At least if a woman was working for me and she could code, or function as a Sr. Systems Engineer I'd pay her whatever is allowed for top contributors.

Re:Fixed the Problem

[gmhowell]

Your solution to being paid less than male colleagues is to eliminate the male colleagues?

Third wave feminism for you.

Re:This is not news; it is also not PC

[gmhowell]

Oh, I read it carefully enough. The goal of feminism is to provide equality to women in society, and this includes distributing the responsibility of child-rearing to both genders.

Then why do most feminist groups object to presumed shared parenting scenarios in divorce situations?

Hiring overpriced men?

[psithurism]

For unskilled labor, you are absolutely right.

For skilled labor though: pay is largely determined by how well you can convince management of your worth. In technology, management or really any white collar area, there are few metrics that really measure how well employees are performing, and management has to go with their perceptions to decide who is on target and who is falling behind and those perceptions can be clouded by all sorts of things that have nothing to do with how much an employee actually deserves.

You can not tell me overpriced employees don't exist; I know plenty who will readily admit to being those overpriced employees. I have no idea where you work, but I think if you take a moment to contemplate it, you'll realize that no one is paid anywhere near what they are actually currently worth to the company.

I have seen one small company where gender was a known factor in deciding which employees were more valuable. Being a small company, salaries were all over the place and they had plenty of overpriced men and a couple overpriced women (I got a lot of this from the accountant who told me nothing about this if asked in court). Luckily this does not seem to be the case across the industry.

We are also assuming throughout this discussion that men and women perform at the same level in tech careers...maybe we _should_ be seeing a pay disparity in one direction or the other and it is shocking that we don't.

Women earn procreation rights next!?

[MonsterMasher]

What!? Women earn procreation rights next!?

What a nut. Pretty soon he'll be pointing at the fact that men have ALWAYS had to earn procreation rights, and now women not only can earn more money at the same job doing the same work - she doesn't even need to spend any of that setting up a home.. just have to find some fool, and then clame a richer fool is the father.

What!? You want equality this side of death!? Ha.

Women vs Men

[iMactheKnife]

There are two kinds of people in the world: those that divide people into two kinds and the others.