Victory for feminism - The wage gap is closed

[Slargos]

Women do most of the cooking, yet most great chefs are men. I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying mechanic is the same in both professions.

Yep.  I hesitate to comment on why that might be.

I suspect the answer is very simple.

Men want to get laid.

So they build bridges, fly to the moon and write poetry. All in an effort to stand out, gain recognition and: Get laid.

[Malthus]

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.

Lets take that example.  A construction worker does not work full time but project to project.  As a result a construction worker may well spend significant periods of time out of work.  A construction worker may earn a higher hourly wage (not sure about that but I will assume it for the sake of the argument) but in the long run the primary school teacher may well make more because the teacher has steady ininterrupted employment.

That is the problem with these kinds of gender inequality examples.  People can manipulate the data to show what they wish.

Heh not to mention the awesome perks that go with some teaching jobs that somewhat distort the picture one gets by merely comparing salaries - like a well-funded pension plan, great vacation time, PD days, job security, senority benefits, etc. Of course, if your construction worker is unionized, he may get some of that too.

It's the same reason why a mere salary comparison doesn't explain the whole difference between private practice and government work in law. We in private practice I think all shudder in horror at the pitiful salaries BB and co. make in gov't service - but that doesn't take into account a whole host of other factors, like pensions, and the relative lack of job security that exists in private practice (mind you, those salaries are still horribly low even so). 

Point being it is often very difficult to truly judge which profession has it better. Salary by itself doesn't always show the true picture.

[Oexmelin]

Leaving aside the issue of physical capacity, how does one determine whether an overrepresentation in a particular line of work is a function of societal pressure or of innate differences in preferences? 

If you are looking for a test, there aren't any, of course. It is part of our endless debate about nature vs nurture. I will simply remark that we are (or used to be) highly selective in things we are content to label "natural".

[Oexmelin]

while any woman who can pick up a book can become a teacher, while the number of men than can do construction work is far less than 100%?

This is certainly untrue, and part of a problem, in that we look at skills in construction as "real" skills, whereas we downplay those associated with other jobs as being something "everyone" could do. I could easily claim that any man who picks up a hammer can become a construction worker.

[Oexmelin]

That is the problem with these kinds of gender inequality examples.  People can manipulate the data to show what they wish.

Nobody said it was easy. But I can't help feeling most other arguments for status quo are simply asking to be content with whatever situation we are in, however unfair it might be - or to let "the market" (whatever that is) - deal very gradually with any unfair situation. I don't think the line "life is unfair, deal with it" offers a great moral, or political, or social, beacon. 

[Slargos]

while any woman who can pick up a book can become a teacher, while the number of men than can do construction work is far less than 100%?

This is certainly untrue, and part of a problem, in that we look at skills in construction as "real" skills, whereas we downplay those associated with other jobs as being something "everyone" could do. I could easily claim that any man who picks up a hammer can become a construction worker.

A lot of men are physically ill equipped for working in construction. It's easy to point out someone who doesn't know their ass from a hammer, and since they have clear production quotas it's easy to determine that one will not function while another will.

Teachers, be they men or women, can also be more or less able than others to perform their function, but it's not as easy to sort them. Hence, you can more easily hang on to a job as a teacher while less than competent than you can as a construction worker.

Smaller pool from which to draw candidates typically equals better pay.

There is nothing less "real" in teaching skill and I didn't make any such claim. Nice try, though.

[Slargos]

How long would a "no house left behind" policy function, you figure? 

A kid who leaves school hardly being able to read can still get rubber stamped, and a failure by the teacher can be explained by getting philosophical about socio-economics and structural racism. When a house crumbles because someone gives it a hearty kick, the builders are screwed.

[Ideologue]

Women do most of the cooking, yet most great chefs are men. I wouldn't be surprised if the underlying mechanic is the same in both professions.

Yep.  I hesitate to comment on why that might be.

I suspect the answer is very simple.

Men want to get laid.

So they build bridges, fly to the moon and write poetry. All in an effort to stand out, gain recognition and: Get laid.

So, to solve the equality problem, women should put out more readily.

I am: sold.

[Valmy]

Nobody said it was easy. But I can't help feeling most other arguments for status quo are simply asking to be content with whatever situation we are in, however unfair it might be - or to let "the market" (whatever that is) - deal very gradually with any unfair situation. I don't think the line "life is unfair, deal with it" offers a great moral, or political, or social, beacon. 

Ok what I thought was unfair and what I have been trying to piece together is the notion that women get paid less for doing the same job.  That is unfair and unjust and should be pursued and corrected to the best of our abilities.

Now the idea that it is unfair on some level that different jobs get paid different amounts is...well how exactly is that unfair?  And what do you propose is the enlightened solution?  Wage controls based on 'fairness' (whatever that is)?  How do we determine a 'fair' wage for a job?  Please explain why minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws are not sufficient.  I have a hard time figuring our what you are getting at...mandatory cuts for all construction wages because...it just feels wrong they make so much?

[LaCroix]

Now the idea that it is unfair on some level that different jobs get paid different amounts is...well how exactly is that unfair?  And what do you propose is the enlightened solution?  Wage controls based on 'fairness' (whatever that is)?  How do we determine a 'fair' wage for a job?  Please explain why minimum wage laws and anti-discrimination laws are not sufficient.  I have a hard time figuring our what you are getting at short of wage controls.  Mandatory cuts for all construction wages because...it just feels wrong they make so much?

if most prejudice and biased attitude is contained within the subconsciousness, then surely in a patriarchal society women would be at an inherent disadvantage regardless of how far we have progressed. thus, laws are in place to protect them. what is so complicated about that? less than a hundred years ago there were still states who denied suffrage to women. do you really think that we as a people could cast off firmly entrenched attitudes and truly treat women with equality (edit) within such a short time? a little naive, but for all i know this might be your shtick ala le revolution! 

[Valmy]

do you really think that we as a people could cast off firmly entrenched attitudes and truly treat women with equality (edit) within such a short time? a little naive, but for all i know this might be your shtick ala le revolution! 

I do not know but I think we should try. 

I fail to see where I said we should not have laws in place to protect women.  I am in favor of those laws.  What I said was I do not see how it is so unjust that wages for different jobs are different.  Very few jobs have the exact same wage and by what standard are the wages supposed to be determined?

If construction workers have it so great why not work to get more women into construction?  Of course here in Texas construction is largely considered a shit job but I digress.

I am really totally failing at communication is you think I am against laws to counter discrimination based on gender or that I think there are no problems in this society based on gender.  What I get annoyed at is that people seem to be eager to misrepresent what the problems are by manipulating data for their own agenda.  It gets hard to know what is really going on.  So I come on these threads to discuss what the problems might be.  Marty thinks we should help mothers more so their careers do not suffer that I think most people would be in favor of.  I am not so sure we should be stepping in to dictate wages because they may or may not have been set by gender prejudice in the past.  Mostly because wage and price controls have historically always been disastrously horrible policies beyond the sorta squicky authoritarian bent of it.

[LaCroix]

I do not know but I think we should try. 

Very few jobs have the exact same wage and by what standard are the wages supposed to be determined?

If construction workers have it so great why not work to get more women into construction? 

What I get annoyed at is that people seem to be eager to misrepresent what the problems are by manipulating data for their own agenda.  It gets hard to know what is really going on.  So I come on these threads to discuss what the problems might be.  Marty thinks we should help mothers more so their careers do not suffer that I think most people would be in favor of.  I am not so sure we should be stepping in to dictate wages because they may or may not have been set by gender prejudice in the past.  Mostly because wage and price controls have historically always been disastrously horrible policies beyond the sorta squicky authoritarian bent of it.

i might be too much of a realist to believe in humanity's ability to try to be reasonable without laws to make it so 

as they were in the age of man. a lawyer can be paid a lawyer's wage, but equally among the sexes

there will never be a majority of women in construction. the inherent differences between male and female are too great to assume that some day we all be the same. regardless of what swedish couples believed years ago, neuroscience has grown up since then. there are (to me) obvious factors why women won't flock to (say) construction, and simply asking them to enlist in manual labor--or offering incentives for it--won't fix that

everyone has an agenda, and they all play with statistics. what's really going on? look around you. who are beaten? not men. who are left with children to raise and little education, or why is it that in order to be successful in business a woman must adopt the personality of a man? if you have an understanding of race relations, that even today the level of bias against minorities is sickening, then i would imagine you could see the problems the fairer sex live with every day of their life. we are undoubtedly on top, and no matter what some article says, the advantage will remain in our favor for a very long time

i don't think a continued trend in gender or racial "wage and price controls" will result in a ruined economy, as haven't we been practicing it for the past few decades?

[Brazen]

I have been on an interview panel where the female candidate had children. A middle-aged man on the panel opined she would not be a good match for the job as "she'd probably have to take time off with her kids." I suspect the subject doesn't even come up for male candidates.

[Brazen]

I've always earned more than the man in my life, more than double in some cases.

This may say more for my lack of pulling power than the march of feminism 

[Josquius]

The feminists won't be happy till they get 50% more.