The stat everyone seems to use, which is women earn like 75% of what do is based on teh average of what women make and the average of what men make. Well, women have a higher tendency to take non careerish jobs so they can still be a mom. Thus they make less opposed to the average man which has a career.
Wrong. These factors exist, but are not enough to account for the difference in pay. From a recent US government report that attempts to analyse the wage gap (emphasis mine):
Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men. Other factors that account for earnings differences include industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure.
When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000.
Who's dumber, the woman who just shows up to work and does nothing or the employer that hired her and continues to pay her?
...
I don't give a hoot if women want to be stay-at-home moms and the only jobs they have are less paying and less demandign than the average man's job.
Dude, the 1950s just called and they want their sexism back.
Ok, you do realize that as long as women leave the workplace to have kids, then they will tend to earn less. Also since women tend to be the primary caregiver for those children they will be less able to put in those 80 hour crunch weeks. As for sex objects, it takes two to exploit. And status quo it has worked pretty well so far.
No. The salary gap numbers compare workers with the same level of experience and qualifications. A mother who takes two years off to raise a kid doesn't add years of job experience, and would be compared with men having the same amount of experience. The gap is pretty big - being a woman results in about a 25% cut in pay. Your handwaving about raising kids doesn't convince me that sexism isn't the cause. And I'm not going to even start on your unfortunate "it takes two" remark.
I agree, the status quo has worked pretty well so far... for white men like me.
Case in point -- the article itself. Few people see anything wrong with MIT promoting one gender over another as long as the gender they are promoting is female.
[PS: I've been called sexist for discussing this viewpoint before. ]
Yeah, well as much fun as it is to be "politically incorrect" or whatever, men don't need promoting because they are doing just fine. Women still get the short end of the stick in this country. They earn less money than men for the same job positions, and get treated like sex objects. People expect them to be pretty and dumb.
The status quo is unacceptable, and idealistic views (such as claiming that promoting women is sexist) aren't doing anything to help.
Slashdot Mirror
Clan EIT 0wnz j00!
Yuo llamas don't stand a chance against us!!
We are teh mastars of DA ELEMENTEL PLANES!!!
and the CAPTAINS of your @ !!!
Wrong. These factors exist, but are not enough to account for the difference in pay. From a recent US government report that attempts to analyse the wage gap (emphasis mine): Who's dumber, the woman who just shows up to work and does nothing or the employer that hired her and continues to pay her?
...
I don't give a hoot if women want to be stay-at-home moms and the only jobs they have are less paying and less demandign than the average man's job.
Dude, the 1950s just called and they want their sexism back.
I agree, the status quo has worked pretty well so far... for white men like me.
The status quo is unacceptable, and idealistic views (such as claiming that promoting women is sexist) aren't doing anything to help.
We have been training for months for this tournament!
You are going DOWN!!!
hahahahaha