|
On April 10 2013 02:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The fascinating thing about feminism to me is that the equal opportunity the movement was based around has been somewhat marginalized, at least in the selected statistics.
I mean, in order to truly equalize the absolute wage gap (the 77 cent one) you'd actual have to do some incredibly awkward social engineering and institute quota programs for men and women in various disciplines. Until you have a male nurse for every female nurse and a female plastic surgeon for every male one, you won't close this absolute gender gap.
The more persuasive statistics, to me, would be whether women that *want* to be surgeons are able to become surgeons. Whether women that *want* to become engineers are able to become engineers. To say that it's "wrong" for there to be more female than male nurses implies that we should somehow forcibly change the minds of the women that would like to be nurses, which seems incredibly degrading to me.
Jibba's saying that people's preferences, which are heavily influenced by their family and peers, reflect gender biases, which is probably true. If you consider the shaping of people's preferences to be forcible change, then that is happening already and has been happening since culture existed. You would have to remove someone from society to prevent this. I don't think the disparity in preferences would disappear entirely, but it would be much smaller.
|
On April 10 2013 02:19 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:44 Demonhunter04 wrote:Just curious, did you take time spent working into account when normalizing the wage gap? $.77/$1 doesn't account for that. On April 10 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm wondering if you could point me in the direction of some resources on this finding. It seems to be a pretty serious claim. Not denying you, since I've never touched that subject, but I'm interested to see some of the actual research too. Google didn't work :/ You drew an interesting comparison between comparing sexes to comparing races. On that topic I would say that women and men are much more distinct than individuals from the same sex but different race. Those of African ancestry have denser bones on average, which predisposes them to be better at many sports (but not swimming, in which their bone density reduces buoyancy). That's also why they are less likely to suffer from osteoporosis in old age. Not a controversial claim at all. You wanted a source, here's one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231Bone density at sampled sites was 4.5-16.1% higher (after normalizing for confounding variables) for black males than for white males, and 1.2-7.3% higher for black females than white females. This may not sound like a huge difference, but small increases in bone mineral density (like 5-10%) can improve bone strength by over 60% and make far less vulnerable to stress fractures. Look at how they "measure" race. Part of the problem with this, and most studies dealing with race in general, is that race isn't a real thing. It's a classification based on skin color, but skin color doesn't really tell you that much about a person's genetic makeup. The easiest example is in cats, where a calico male is an anomaly because those coat colors are attached to the X chromosome, so no one considers calico cats a separate breed, although by our definition they would be a race. That's what we have today. Especially in America, genetic makeup is so jumbled up that making classifications on skin color alone is problematic. Second, you haven't linked it to athletic performance nor shown the ranges. Athletes aren't given their bodies, they're shaped (including things like bone density and musculature) based on the activities they do and the setting they're in. The Olympic sports with the highest bone density requirements (gymnastics and weightlifting) don't show any "black dominance." Similarly, marathon runners often have lower bone density yet there the Africans dominate.
Your point about race not being a real thing is so true. The sad thing is - black men have a similar wage gap with white men as do men and women. That gap is not so much shrinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
And while there are elective factors (like area of interest) which lead to define gender wage gap, there really is no such thing to account for the disparity here.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 10 2013 00:56 crazyweasel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 00:34 Pjorren wrote:
Does anyone know why we still pay women less these days? It doesn't really make sense to me. Feminists have been complaining about it for many years know but nothing seems to have happened. I don't see any rational reason not to pay them equally. yet on the other hand there are still jobs that are mainly women's job like nurses, or hygienists etc. and they also have lower salaries compared to similar job (in term of education, degree, etc.) that are mostly male job.
Legally, part of the discrepancy for some people is a result of child bearing. For certain jobs, you get promotions after X period of time. As a result, if you choose to take maternity for a year you lose out on that time for your next raise or promotion.
In addition if a man were to do the same thing and take a full years leave for paternity, they would also lose that time. However, women will generally take more time than men simply because the 9th month of pregnancy is hard and they might not be able to work through it depending on their job.
Societally, some men wont promote a woman for fear of her becoming pregnant and taking time off which would impact the company (pay leave AND pay a replacement AND train a replacement). So this leads men to promote other men and then this creates a cycle (since the man wont want to promote a woman and would promote a man instead who would etc etc etc.)
I am not saying it is right, but these are some known factors that influence women's pay rates.
Some women will also delay starting their careers to have children first and this puts them behind in experience and salary of a similarly aged man who began working 2 or 3 years earlier.
Some of this child rearing thing is societal pressures to have children and to care for them and a little tiny bit biological since women are more likely to take time off at the beginning of the child's life because of breast feeding and not wanting to use a pump to extract milk which I have heard is extremely painful compared to standard suckling.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 10 2013 02:53 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:19 Jibba wrote:On April 10 2013 01:44 Demonhunter04 wrote:Just curious, did you take time spent working into account when normalizing the wage gap? $.77/$1 doesn't account for that. On April 10 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm wondering if you could point me in the direction of some resources on this finding. It seems to be a pretty serious claim. Not denying you, since I've never touched that subject, but I'm interested to see some of the actual research too. Google didn't work :/ You drew an interesting comparison between comparing sexes to comparing races. On that topic I would say that women and men are much more distinct than individuals from the same sex but different race. Those of African ancestry have denser bones on average, which predisposes them to be better at many sports (but not swimming, in which their bone density reduces buoyancy). That's also why they are less likely to suffer from osteoporosis in old age. Not a controversial claim at all. You wanted a source, here's one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231Bone density at sampled sites was 4.5-16.1% higher (after normalizing for confounding variables) for black males than for white males, and 1.2-7.3% higher for black females than white females. This may not sound like a huge difference, but small increases in bone mineral density (like 5-10%) can improve bone strength by over 60% and make far less vulnerable to stress fractures. Look at how they "measure" race. Part of the problem with this, and most studies dealing with race in general, is that race isn't a real thing. It's a classification based on skin color, but skin color doesn't really tell you that much about a person's genetic makeup. The easiest example is in cats, where a calico male is an anomaly because those coat colors are attached to the X chromosome, so no one considers calico cats a separate breed, although by our definition they would be a race. That's what we have today. Especially in America, genetic makeup is so jumbled up that making classifications on skin color alone is problematic. Second, you haven't linked it to athletic performance nor shown the ranges. Athletes aren't given their bodies, they're shaped (including things like bone density and musculature) based on the activities they do and the setting they're in. The Olympic sports with the highest bone density requirements (gymnastics and weightlifting) don't show any "black dominance." Similarly, marathon runners often have lower bone density yet there the Africans dominate. Your point about race not being a real thing is so true. The sad thing is - black men have a similar wage gap with white men as do men and women. That gap is not so much shrinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_incomeAnd while there are elective factors (like area of interest) which lead to define gender wage gap, there really is no such thing to account for the disparity here.
Actually, in America there is. African Americans are over represented in the prison system (they dont get an income there) and also in low income areas (such as housing projects). Reasons for this are many and intricate and part of a societal problem. However as opposed to the man - woman wage gap, the reason isn't legal (such as child bearing time off) and more a result of socio-economic factors and poor social safety nets which perpetuate existing and historical problems related to low income families (white or black). The over representation of African americans in low socio economic strata is something I haven't really studied to much. Being Canadian, the over represented "race" as it were in low socio economic strata is Aboriginals who are also over represented in the prison system. Though the current prison over representation can slightly be explained through demographic factors.
Ah crap I double posted. I'm sorry 
|
On April 10 2013 02:29 Jibba wrote:The article is accurate, but it's only getting halfway there. Because of that, I think you're missing the issue Show nested quote +Which brings us to the bringing-it-on-ourselves part. Your occupation greatly dictates income, and women disproportionately enter low-paying fields such as teaching, nursing and social work. One could argue that those fields are low-paying because they’ve traditionally been occupied by women who were denied other career paths and were therefore devalued by society and in economic terms, but regardless, if we truly wanted to narrow the pay gap, women need to enter more lucrative fields.
To be able to do that, women must choose to study subjects that lead to more lucrative occupations — information technology or economics over art history, for example. But they are not. Amazingly, the percentage of undergraduate computing and information-science degrees earned by women has actually dropped from 37% in 1985 to 18% in 2009, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. No wonder the Labor Department also reports that from 2002 to 2012, the percentage of female programmers dropped from 25.6% to 20%. The issue is that there's a cultural reason why women are directed more towards low paying fields like teaching (and perhaps we value teaching less because of that, but that's a different debate) and men are directed towards higher paying fields like engineering. Then when either group tries to cross over (men in teaching, women in engineering) they're met with a fairly hostile attitude that discourages them from continuing. For women, it might be office sexism/harassment. For men, it might be accusations of pedophilia (which is a horrible stigma male elementary school teachers face) That's the stuff we need to look at. The wages are skewed because women are in low paying fields and older women were denied opportunities. As the older women retire, the wage gap lessens but the areas of study thing remains an issue. That doesn't mean you get to declare gender equality "not a big deal anymore."
I never declared gender equality "not a big deal anymore" (far from it, I defined a number of gender inequality issues). I said that the complaints I've heard from feminism have seemed like more minor complaints. 93% of pay for similar work seems like a minor complaint, no? The fact that they want to do different work is a separate issue - and perhaps we should value caregiving and teaching fields more than we do in the salaries we give them, but society is moving in a different direction.
You're making some pretty lofty assumptions about why people choose certain areas of study - primarily that if you tell a woman they shouldn't study engineering that they're just going to do that. The bigger question is "why are so many women interested in x, and so many men interested in y"? That's not something we know decisively, but it's also not something feminists are complaining about (at least, not that I've read). People may complain that nurses/teachers/etc. are paid too little for what they add to society (which I agree with), but I seldom hear people complaining about how so few women want to become programmers - primarily because that's not something you can pin on society.
As far as resistance to women in engineering jobs on a social level, I have a few thoughts:
1. Education is different than the business end of things. In education, there are no middle-aged men telling you where you ought to sit or which classes will take you. There's just open seats. Yet, the engineering seats in the class seem to still be filled by men. If we want equitable wages for all, we need to change that - but I don't think anyone is advocating for telling certain women - "hey, go be an engineer".
2. On the business end of things, there may be individual cases where women are treated poorly or paid less, but by and large, the 93% salary statistic shows us that those employed in similar fields are paid similarly. If there is something socially awkward which makes a woman unlikely to stick with her job, that would be a problem (this has not been my experience with the few female qualified quantitative coworkers I've had). I will say that in the present day office environment, it's quite awkward to say anything which can be misconstrued as sexist.
3. Even assuming what you've said is correct, and there absolutely still a problem with accessibility in certain jobs for women - look at that 77% number and hold it up to the light against the other social problems I mentioned. Now consider that about half of women in this country are married (and therefore their household income mitigates this issue, as their husband gets any "benefit" from the "derimental" effect played against her). This is something that should be made right - and I completely agree with that. My problem is the amount of noise being put behind this for the relative size of the issue.
|
On April 10 2013 03:30 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:53 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2013 02:19 Jibba wrote:On April 10 2013 01:44 Demonhunter04 wrote:Just curious, did you take time spent working into account when normalizing the wage gap? $.77/$1 doesn't account for that. On April 10 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm wondering if you could point me in the direction of some resources on this finding. It seems to be a pretty serious claim. Not denying you, since I've never touched that subject, but I'm interested to see some of the actual research too. Google didn't work :/ You drew an interesting comparison between comparing sexes to comparing races. On that topic I would say that women and men are much more distinct than individuals from the same sex but different race. Those of African ancestry have denser bones on average, which predisposes them to be better at many sports (but not swimming, in which their bone density reduces buoyancy). That's also why they are less likely to suffer from osteoporosis in old age. Not a controversial claim at all. You wanted a source, here's one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231Bone density at sampled sites was 4.5-16.1% higher (after normalizing for confounding variables) for black males than for white males, and 1.2-7.3% higher for black females than white females. This may not sound like a huge difference, but small increases in bone mineral density (like 5-10%) can improve bone strength by over 60% and make far less vulnerable to stress fractures. Look at how they "measure" race. Part of the problem with this, and most studies dealing with race in general, is that race isn't a real thing. It's a classification based on skin color, but skin color doesn't really tell you that much about a person's genetic makeup. The easiest example is in cats, where a calico male is an anomaly because those coat colors are attached to the X chromosome, so no one considers calico cats a separate breed, although by our definition they would be a race. That's what we have today. Especially in America, genetic makeup is so jumbled up that making classifications on skin color alone is problematic. Second, you haven't linked it to athletic performance nor shown the ranges. Athletes aren't given their bodies, they're shaped (including things like bone density and musculature) based on the activities they do and the setting they're in. The Olympic sports with the highest bone density requirements (gymnastics and weightlifting) don't show any "black dominance." Similarly, marathon runners often have lower bone density yet there the Africans dominate. Your point about race not being a real thing is so true. The sad thing is - black men have a similar wage gap with white men as do men and women. That gap is not so much shrinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_incomeAnd while there are elective factors (like area of interest) which lead to define gender wage gap, there really is no such thing to account for the disparity here. Actually, in America there is. African Americans are over represented in the prison system (they dont get an income there) and also in low income areas (such as housing projects). Reasons for this are many and intricate and part of a societal problem. However as opposed to the man - woman wage gap, the reason isn't legal (such as child bearing time off) and more a result of socio-economic factors and poor social safety nets which perpetuate existing and historical problems related to low income families (white or black). The over representation of African americans in low socio economic strata is something I haven't really studied to much. Being Canadian, the over represented "race" as it were in low socio economic strata is Aboriginals who are also over represented in the prison system. Though the current prison over representation can slightly be explained through demographic factors. Ah crap I double posted. I'm sorry
I didn't really consider "going to prison" an elective factor, like choosing a major. You may if you wish though. 
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 10 2013 03:47 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 03:30 ZeromuS wrote:On April 10 2013 02:53 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2013 02:19 Jibba wrote:On April 10 2013 01:44 Demonhunter04 wrote:Just curious, did you take time spent working into account when normalizing the wage gap? $.77/$1 doesn't account for that. On April 10 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm wondering if you could point me in the direction of some resources on this finding. It seems to be a pretty serious claim. Not denying you, since I've never touched that subject, but I'm interested to see some of the actual research too. Google didn't work :/ You drew an interesting comparison between comparing sexes to comparing races. On that topic I would say that women and men are much more distinct than individuals from the same sex but different race. Those of African ancestry have denser bones on average, which predisposes them to be better at many sports (but not swimming, in which their bone density reduces buoyancy). That's also why they are less likely to suffer from osteoporosis in old age. Not a controversial claim at all. You wanted a source, here's one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231Bone density at sampled sites was 4.5-16.1% higher (after normalizing for confounding variables) for black males than for white males, and 1.2-7.3% higher for black females than white females. This may not sound like a huge difference, but small increases in bone mineral density (like 5-10%) can improve bone strength by over 60% and make far less vulnerable to stress fractures. Look at how they "measure" race. Part of the problem with this, and most studies dealing with race in general, is that race isn't a real thing. It's a classification based on skin color, but skin color doesn't really tell you that much about a person's genetic makeup. The easiest example is in cats, where a calico male is an anomaly because those coat colors are attached to the X chromosome, so no one considers calico cats a separate breed, although by our definition they would be a race. That's what we have today. Especially in America, genetic makeup is so jumbled up that making classifications on skin color alone is problematic. Second, you haven't linked it to athletic performance nor shown the ranges. Athletes aren't given their bodies, they're shaped (including things like bone density and musculature) based on the activities they do and the setting they're in. The Olympic sports with the highest bone density requirements (gymnastics and weightlifting) don't show any "black dominance." Similarly, marathon runners often have lower bone density yet there the Africans dominate. Your point about race not being a real thing is so true. The sad thing is - black men have a similar wage gap with white men as do men and women. That gap is not so much shrinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_incomeAnd while there are elective factors (like area of interest) which lead to define gender wage gap, there really is no such thing to account for the disparity here. Actually, in America there is. African Americans are over represented in the prison system (they dont get an income there) and also in low income areas (such as housing projects). Reasons for this are many and intricate and part of a societal problem. However as opposed to the man - woman wage gap, the reason isn't legal (such as child bearing time off) and more a result of socio-economic factors and poor social safety nets which perpetuate existing and historical problems related to low income families (white or black). The over representation of African americans in low socio economic strata is something I haven't really studied to much. Being Canadian, the over represented "race" as it were in low socio economic strata is Aboriginals who are also over represented in the prison system. Though the current prison over representation can slightly be explained through demographic factors. Ah crap I double posted. I'm sorry I didn't really consider "going to prison" an elective factor, like choosing a major. You may if you wish though.
Its not elective. It is however explanatory for lower wages due to over representation. I will need to go back to my notes but I believe something like 25% of African American males under the age of thirty will be in prison (or convicted in some way) at least once in their lives. This is STUPID. Simply being convicted greatly reduces the types of employment you can see so imagine the impact this has on a median income of a population.
Upon fact checking quickly I was slightly wrong:
One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
From the NAACP - http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
Though I will look through my stuff at home at some point and try to find the correct stat about the age thing there.
AND I misread your position on elective factors XD I thought you meant no elective factors but ignored non-elective (one could argue elective I guess based on choosing to commit crime for example) factors. Then I didn't clarify that while there may not be as many elective factors there are non elective factors that influence the wage income. To ignore the non elective ones and assume that only elective factors apply is short sighted.
|
On April 10 2013 03:48 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 03:47 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2013 03:30 ZeromuS wrote:On April 10 2013 02:53 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2013 02:19 Jibba wrote:On April 10 2013 01:44 Demonhunter04 wrote:Just curious, did you take time spent working into account when normalizing the wage gap? $.77/$1 doesn't account for that. On April 10 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm wondering if you could point me in the direction of some resources on this finding. It seems to be a pretty serious claim. Not denying you, since I've never touched that subject, but I'm interested to see some of the actual research too. Google didn't work :/ You drew an interesting comparison between comparing sexes to comparing races. On that topic I would say that women and men are much more distinct than individuals from the same sex but different race. Those of African ancestry have denser bones on average, which predisposes them to be better at many sports (but not swimming, in which their bone density reduces buoyancy). That's also why they are less likely to suffer from osteoporosis in old age. Not a controversial claim at all. You wanted a source, here's one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231Bone density at sampled sites was 4.5-16.1% higher (after normalizing for confounding variables) for black males than for white males, and 1.2-7.3% higher for black females than white females. This may not sound like a huge difference, but small increases in bone mineral density (like 5-10%) can improve bone strength by over 60% and make far less vulnerable to stress fractures. Look at how they "measure" race. Part of the problem with this, and most studies dealing with race in general, is that race isn't a real thing. It's a classification based on skin color, but skin color doesn't really tell you that much about a person's genetic makeup. The easiest example is in cats, where a calico male is an anomaly because those coat colors are attached to the X chromosome, so no one considers calico cats a separate breed, although by our definition they would be a race. That's what we have today. Especially in America, genetic makeup is so jumbled up that making classifications on skin color alone is problematic. Second, you haven't linked it to athletic performance nor shown the ranges. Athletes aren't given their bodies, they're shaped (including things like bone density and musculature) based on the activities they do and the setting they're in. The Olympic sports with the highest bone density requirements (gymnastics and weightlifting) don't show any "black dominance." Similarly, marathon runners often have lower bone density yet there the Africans dominate. Your point about race not being a real thing is so true. The sad thing is - black men have a similar wage gap with white men as do men and women. That gap is not so much shrinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_incomeAnd while there are elective factors (like area of interest) which lead to define gender wage gap, there really is no such thing to account for the disparity here. Actually, in America there is. African Americans are over represented in the prison system (they dont get an income there) and also in low income areas (such as housing projects). Reasons for this are many and intricate and part of a societal problem. However as opposed to the man - woman wage gap, the reason isn't legal (such as child bearing time off) and more a result of socio-economic factors and poor social safety nets which perpetuate existing and historical problems related to low income families (white or black). The over representation of African americans in low socio economic strata is something I haven't really studied to much. Being Canadian, the over represented "race" as it were in low socio economic strata is Aboriginals who are also over represented in the prison system. Though the current prison over representation can slightly be explained through demographic factors. Ah crap I double posted. I'm sorry I didn't really consider "going to prison" an elective factor, like choosing a major. You may if you wish though. Its not elective. It is however explanatory for lower wages due to over representation. I will need to go back to my notes but I believe something like 25% of African American males under the age of thirty will be in prison (or convicted in some way) at least once in their lives. This is STUPID. Simply being convicted greatly reduces the types of employment you can see so imagine the impact this has on a median income of a population. Upon fact checking quickly I was slightly wrong: Show nested quote +
One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
From the NAACP - http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheetThough I will look through my stuff at home at some point and try to find the correct stat about the age thing there.
Right - so this (I think you're saying) chalks up to discrimination, which is one of the reasons I said it was sad how much an impact something as superficial as race plays such a role in determining income.
|
On April 10 2013 03:25 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 00:56 crazyweasel wrote:On April 10 2013 00:34 Pjorren wrote:
Does anyone know why we still pay women less these days? It doesn't really make sense to me. Feminists have been complaining about it for many years know but nothing seems to have happened. I don't see any rational reason not to pay them equally. yet on the other hand there are still jobs that are mainly women's job like nurses, or hygienists etc. and they also have lower salaries compared to similar job (in term of education, degree, etc.) that are mostly male job. Legally, part of the discrepancy for some people is a result of child bearing. For certain jobs, you get promotions after X period of time. As a result, if you choose to take maternity for a year you lose out on that time for your next raise or promotion. In addition if a man were to do the same thing and take a full years leave for paternity, they would also lose that time. However, women will generally take more time than men simply because the 9th month of pregnancy is hard and they might not be able to work through it depending on their job. Societally, some men wont promote a woman for fear of her becoming pregnant and taking time off which would impact the company (pay leave AND pay a replacement AND train a replacement). So this leads men to promote other men and then this creates a cycle (since the man wont want to promote a woman and would promote a man instead who would etc etc etc.) I am not saying it is right, but these are some known factors that influence women's pay rates. Some women will also delay starting their careers to have children first and this puts them behind in experience and salary of a similarly aged man who began working 2 or 3 years earlier. Some of this child rearing thing is societal pressures to have children and to care for them and a little tiny bit biological since women are more likely to take time off at the beginning of the child's life because of breast feeding and not wanting to use a pump to extract milk which I have heard is extremely painful compared to standard suckling.
Except that this kind of logic is illegal. When they say "you can't discriminate for your job position based on gender", they didn't add a clause that says "unless it might cut into the company's profit margins". Besides, nobody knows how they will handle having children until they do. I wanted to quit my job and stay home with my son after he was born - something I never would have expected until my paternity leave. Unfortunately, so did my wife - and she won that argument.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On April 10 2013 03:55 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 03:48 ZeromuS wrote:On April 10 2013 03:47 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2013 03:30 ZeromuS wrote:On April 10 2013 02:53 Treehead wrote:On April 10 2013 02:19 Jibba wrote:On April 10 2013 01:44 Demonhunter04 wrote:Just curious, did you take time spent working into account when normalizing the wage gap? $.77/$1 doesn't account for that. On April 10 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm wondering if you could point me in the direction of some resources on this finding. It seems to be a pretty serious claim. Not denying you, since I've never touched that subject, but I'm interested to see some of the actual research too. Google didn't work :/ You drew an interesting comparison between comparing sexes to comparing races. On that topic I would say that women and men are much more distinct than individuals from the same sex but different race. Those of African ancestry have denser bones on average, which predisposes them to be better at many sports (but not swimming, in which their bone density reduces buoyancy). That's also why they are less likely to suffer from osteoporosis in old age. Not a controversial claim at all. You wanted a source, here's one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231Bone density at sampled sites was 4.5-16.1% higher (after normalizing for confounding variables) for black males than for white males, and 1.2-7.3% higher for black females than white females. This may not sound like a huge difference, but small increases in bone mineral density (like 5-10%) can improve bone strength by over 60% and make far less vulnerable to stress fractures. Look at how they "measure" race. Part of the problem with this, and most studies dealing with race in general, is that race isn't a real thing. It's a classification based on skin color, but skin color doesn't really tell you that much about a person's genetic makeup. The easiest example is in cats, where a calico male is an anomaly because those coat colors are attached to the X chromosome, so no one considers calico cats a separate breed, although by our definition they would be a race. That's what we have today. Especially in America, genetic makeup is so jumbled up that making classifications on skin color alone is problematic. Second, you haven't linked it to athletic performance nor shown the ranges. Athletes aren't given their bodies, they're shaped (including things like bone density and musculature) based on the activities they do and the setting they're in. The Olympic sports with the highest bone density requirements (gymnastics and weightlifting) don't show any "black dominance." Similarly, marathon runners often have lower bone density yet there the Africans dominate. Your point about race not being a real thing is so true. The sad thing is - black men have a similar wage gap with white men as do men and women. That gap is not so much shrinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_incomeAnd while there are elective factors (like area of interest) which lead to define gender wage gap, there really is no such thing to account for the disparity here. Actually, in America there is. African Americans are over represented in the prison system (they dont get an income there) and also in low income areas (such as housing projects). Reasons for this are many and intricate and part of a societal problem. However as opposed to the man - woman wage gap, the reason isn't legal (such as child bearing time off) and more a result of socio-economic factors and poor social safety nets which perpetuate existing and historical problems related to low income families (white or black). The over representation of African americans in low socio economic strata is something I haven't really studied to much. Being Canadian, the over represented "race" as it were in low socio economic strata is Aboriginals who are also over represented in the prison system. Though the current prison over representation can slightly be explained through demographic factors. Ah crap I double posted. I'm sorry I didn't really consider "going to prison" an elective factor, like choosing a major. You may if you wish though. Its not elective. It is however explanatory for lower wages due to over representation. I will need to go back to my notes but I believe something like 25% of African American males under the age of thirty will be in prison (or convicted in some way) at least once in their lives. This is STUPID. Simply being convicted greatly reduces the types of employment you can see so imagine the impact this has on a median income of a population. Upon fact checking quickly I was slightly wrong:
One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
From the NAACP - http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheetThough I will look through my stuff at home at some point and try to find the correct stat about the age thing there. Right - so this (I think you're saying) chalks up to discrimination, which is one of the reasons I said it was sad how much an impact something as superficial as race plays such a role in determining income.
No, not really discrimination as a sole determining factor, it really is much more complicated than that.
On April 10 2013 04:07 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 03:25 ZeromuS wrote:On April 10 2013 00:56 crazyweasel wrote:On April 10 2013 00:34 Pjorren wrote:
Does anyone know why we still pay women less these days? It doesn't really make sense to me. Feminists have been complaining about it for many years know but nothing seems to have happened. I don't see any rational reason not to pay them equally. yet on the other hand there are still jobs that are mainly women's job like nurses, or hygienists etc. and they also have lower salaries compared to similar job (in term of education, degree, etc.) that are mostly male job. Legally, part of the discrepancy for some people is a result of child bearing. For certain jobs, you get promotions after X period of time. As a result, if you choose to take maternity for a year you lose out on that time for your next raise or promotion. In addition if a man were to do the same thing and take a full years leave for paternity, they would also lose that time. However, women will generally take more time than men simply because the 9th month of pregnancy is hard and they might not be able to work through it depending on their job. Societally, some men wont promote a woman for fear of her becoming pregnant and taking time off which would impact the company (pay leave AND pay a replacement AND train a replacement). So this leads men to promote other men and then this creates a cycle (since the man wont want to promote a woman and would promote a man instead who would etc etc etc.) I am not saying it is right, but these are some known factors that influence women's pay rates. Some women will also delay starting their careers to have children first and this puts them behind in experience and salary of a similarly aged man who began working 2 or 3 years earlier. Some of this child rearing thing is societal pressures to have children and to care for them and a little tiny bit biological since women are more likely to take time off at the beginning of the child's life because of breast feeding and not wanting to use a pump to extract milk which I have heard is extremely painful compared to standard suckling. Except that this kind of logic is illegal. When they say "you can't discriminate for your job position based on gender", they didn't add a clause that says "unless it might cut into the company's profit margins". Besides, nobody knows how they will handle having children until they do. I wanted to quit my job and stay home with my son after he was born - something I never would have expected until my paternity leave. Unfortunately, so did my wife - and she won that argument.
I never said it was legal. But you assume its possible to prove that gender is the sole determining factor in hiring someone. It isn't. If two people with the same qualifications shows up for a management position its entirely possible they pick the man for reasons of mat leave and just claim he did better on the interview. It isn't right, but it is documented to happen. Granted this needs quite a lot of assumptions from the hiring manager's perspective but assumptions are made every day right or wrong.
I also need to add that I disagree with your initial position in the OP but I don't really have time to completely work on it and break down why I am opposed.
|
If she isn't making me a sandwich she isnt allowed to open her mouth
User was warned for this post
|
On April 10 2013 01:44 Demonhunter04 wrote:Just curious, did you take time spent working into account when normalizing the wage gap? $.77/$1 doesn't account for that. Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm wondering if you could point me in the direction of some resources on this finding. It seems to be a pretty serious claim. Not denying you, since I've never touched that subject, but I'm interested to see some of the actual research too. Google didn't work :/ You drew an interesting comparison between comparing sexes to comparing races. On that topic I would say that women and men are much more distinct than individuals from the same sex but different race. Those of African ancestry have denser bones on average, which predisposes them to be better at many sports http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9024231
Thanks but I'm missing the link between running faster and having denser bones. You suggest that stress fractures may play into it, but this is not a fact supported by that paper. The paper concludes there is a difference in bone density. There is no causal link from bone density to running faster. This is your own guesswork.
Anyway, I have done some very brief poking around, and have found that evidently a study from Duke suggests there may be a difference in running ability due to center of gravity differences via longer legs/shorter torsos for West African test subjects.
Thanks for taking a stab at it though. These sorts of topics are pretty interesting to me
|
My opinion on the housework issue is that if women do more housework because they choose to, is that a sign of inequality?
From what I observe, guys just have lower standards of cleanliness for the house than girls do. A guy living alone would likely spend less time on housework than a girl living alone does. So when they start living together, the girl does more because she is the one having higher standards. So say both do 10 hours of housework a week to get it up to the guy's standards, and the girl does another 5 hours to get it up to her standards, I think you can't really blame the guy for not helping, in a way its "her hobby". Think of it this way, if the guy spent another 5 hours on cultivating his bonsai plant because he feels it beautifies the house but the girl doesn't help, would people hold that there is inequality against the guy? I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
