Victory for feminism - The wage gap is closed

[Oexmelin]

however paying someone a different rate for different work and different effort because of their genitalia? That doesn't seem equal or right to me.

But that's been the case for a long time, and I am not quite sure these things are now completely equal. All "care" jobs have been historically very poorly paid, compared to manufacturing, or construction, jobs - jobs that usually required much less education. Now, one can very well say that trying to build equivalencies between a mine worker and a daycare educator is difficult, and everyone would agree. However, claiming that these equivalencies are simply the result of "the market" seems to avoid completely how that job market has been socially situated.

[Warspite]

We have been through this Nth times before so I won't bother this time.

Did you post this just to say 'fuck you' then?

Nah, but I am annoyed when people (read: men) come up with that argument. The gender equality is an illusion unless it takes into account (and embraces) different work styles (including those necessitated by parenthood) between genders. As long as a woman has to give up being a mother in order to enjoy being paid "equally" and have a career (whereas the guy who wants to be a father can do so easily), then there is no real pay equality.

Sure, but men, once they have their kids, suddenly find they're no longer earning money for themselves: everything they do, professionally, is for their new dependents. This is a heavy mental load for the majority of men out there who are not high-flying lawyers and have to live day to day like the rest of us, in uncertain economic times. I see it every day on the faces of my colleagues who can't just jump ship and find a better paid job, or move to a new city, or do this or that; what matters is where the food and clothing money comes from - for their children.

[Valmy]

However, claiming that these equivalencies are simply the result of "the market" seems to avoid completely how that job market has been socially situated.

Well I am not sure what jobs you are thinking of now.  Nursing is one of the most lucrative careers you can have for the education level.

[Valmy]

Anyway my question is solely with the claim that women get paid less for doing the exact same job.  The fact that having families or that some jobs pay differently than other jobs are certainly issues but they are not that issue.

[HVC]

But that's been the case for a long time, and I am not quite sure these things are now completely equal. All "care" jobs have been historically very poorly paid, compared to manufacturing, or construction, jobs - jobs that usually required much less education. Now, one can very well say that trying to build equivalencies between a mine worker and a daycare educator is difficult, and everyone would agree. However, claiming that these equivalencies are simply the result of "the market" seems to avoid completely how that job market has been socially situated.

I agree that's real life problem, but I think that professional wages are very little dictated by sex. But my argument in this thread is not aimed to that realm. My argument is that a male nurse and a female nurse, for example, with equal qualifications should make the same. If a male surgeon makes more then a female nurse it should be expected (same as it should it be expected that he's making more then the male nurse). To lump all medical professions together and then claim that men make more then women disregarding actual position and profession is disingenuous. When Marti claims it's alright to lump them because woman are at a disadvantaged anyway and should be making more to compensate is see that as wrong.

[derspiess]

I met a McCoy the other week at the state fairgrounds.  She was trying to sell some cookbook of Appalachian heritage cooking she wrote.  I didn't buy the cookbook, but I enjoyed her free samples of beer cheese.

Now I can't stop thinking of Hofbrauhaus pretzels with beer cheese.  Jerk

[Admiral Yi]

But that's been the case for a long time, and I am not quite sure these things are now completely equal. All "care" jobs have been historically very poorly paid, compared to manufacturing, or construction, jobs - jobs that usually required much less education. Now, one can very well say that trying to build equivalencies between a mine worker and a daycare educator is difficult, and everyone would agree. However, claiming that these equivalencies are simply the result of "the market" seems to avoid completely how that job market has been socially situated.

How much weight do you think this argument has in this day and age?  It seems more suited to the 1950s.

[derspiess]

There's maternity leave to ensure that mothers can take time off for the baby (although i think the US version is like insanely short), tax benefits for parents, and more and more state funded day care services.

How short is the US version?  And how much time do you think it should be?

[Oexmelin]

To lump all medical professions together and then claim that men make more then women disregarding actual position and profession is disingenuous. When Marti claims it's alright to lump them because woman are at a disadvantaged anyway and should be making more to compensate is see that as wrong.

But what you can get, when you lump all the "medical" professions together, might be the illustration of glass ceilings (i.e., how many woman get into surgery?). Which may or may not exist, per se, but when some professions progress through cooptation, I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

In other words, there are a number of issues embedded here:

1) how are predominantly female professions paid compared to predominantly male professions?
2) in the hierarchy of a profession, or a field, how are women represented at the top?
3) in both cases, how is the selection made? Is it socially? (fields that keep attracting more men than women). Is it discriminatory? (fields that actively, though subtly, today, discourage women). Is it through work-related organization? (cooptation from "old boys clubs"; no parent-friendly schedules, etc.)

[MadImmortalMan]

How short is the US version?  And how much time do you think it should be?

I think it's 12 weeks.

[Slargos]

What about fields that actively discriminate against men, both in employment and in recruitment for management?

[MadImmortalMan]

What about fields that actively discriminate against men, both in employment and in recruitment for management?

Shit, our education system does that.

[Slargos]

What about fields that actively discriminate against men, both in employment and in recruitment for management?

Shit, our education system does that.

More than 80% of managerial positions in Swedish health care are filled by females. 

[Oexmelin]

How much weight do you think this argument has in this day and age?  It seems more suited to the 1950s.

Are there lots of women in the US in construction work? Are there lots of men in daycare, or primary schools? From what I gather, a preschool teacher with a BA earns less than a non-specialist, construction laborer with a high school diploma.

I think it still has quite some weight.

[Valmy]

From what I gather, a preschool teacher with a BA earns less than a non-specialist, construction laborer with a high school diploma.

I think it still has quite some weight.

Having a BA means jack and shit.  I say that as somebody with a BA.  Anyway nobody wants to be a construction worker.  The hours suck, the work is not steady, it is hard, and it is outside.  More people want to be pre-school teachers than construction workers.  You get much better benefits, social presitige, and time off.  If you get paid a little less it is more than made up by other benefits.