|
Randomly, I’ve been reading much more about feminism and women’s issues lately than I normally do, and while my thoughts are fresh in my mind, I thought I’d do well to put them on paper.
I recently read the following CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/york-equal-housework/ - and to me this sums up a lot of problems I have with the present-day feminist movement. The crux of the article is this: according to a study, on average, women spend about 2 hours more time each day on personal care, household chores, buying stuff, caregiving, etc. Meantime, men spend an additional 1 hour 16 minutes every day working, 40 minutes every day on sports/leisure, and four minutes on eating and drinking (you’ll note: she not-so-subtly puts the 1h 16m of work at the end of her list, which is apparently organized in order from most galling to least). She’s careful not so say it outright (as couching it in statements like “our choices for how we use our time need to be evaluated to ensure we are being equitable” allows her to leave her accusations unsaid), but she comes very close at the end of the article, saying “those 1.17 more hours per day that women spend on household and caregiving activities-” (note how earlier it was 2 hours split between a larger number of activities, down to just 1 hour, 10 minutes now) “-translates to 18 days per year. So we could set January 18 as Equal Housework Day to show that it takes men over 12.5 months to do what women do in 12 months”.
Here’s the thing – I have no doubt that there is still more household work being done by women and more outside-the-house work being done by men. That expectation isn’t fair to men who want to stay home or women who want to get a job. But what we should be paying attention to isn’t that “more” is being done by men here, more done by women here – it should be the magnitude of the “more” that we pay attention to. When basically every woman is being told that they must stay home, raise children and do housework (as was the case not even 100 years ago), that’s a big problem. When basically every woman must miss the episode of “Malcolm in the Middle” that a man can sit and watch, because societally he’s less on the hook for housework? Yeah – it’s still “unequitable”, but really, don’t we have bigger issues to worry about?
Like unfair pay, for instance – I have heard numerous sources cite that women make 77 cents on the dollar for the same work that a man does. Except… that the real number when you account for equal education/area of expertise is 93 cents on the dollar (SRC: http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/07/the-pay-gap-is-not-as-bad-as-you-and-sheryl-sandberg-think/ ). And I want to point out that this is just 50 years after it was actually legal to pay women less, just because they’re women, and tell them so – back when women were making 58.9 cents to a man’s dollar (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193820.html), not 77 cents (58.9 isn’t the right statistic, but I’m not sure the one for 50 years ago exists).
What do I mean by making these women’s issues out to be relatively minor? I don’t mean to overlook social ills, or say that 93% of pay is “close enough”, but there is another gender, too. And what are men’s issues looking like? Well, for one, men have, in the last 50 years, gone from outnumbering women in college 1.6:1 (around the time of women earning half what a man makes) to being outnumbered 1.4:1 (http://www.nber.org/digest/jan07/w12139.html ). Then, there’s the fact that 80%+ women get custody of children in a divorce (http://www.divorcenet.com/resources/divorce/for-men/divorce-for-men-why-women-get-child-custody-over-80-time ). About 9 times as many men are committing crimes, compared to women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime ) –and for black men, there are more in prison than there are in college.
The fact of the matter is that we’ve had a period where we felt like we were accomplishing something by bringing women from a place where they’re basically only good for childbearing, sex and beatings, and bringing them to nearly equal standing with men in a lot of places. That feels good and we want to keep fighting that fight (because it’s a fight we know). But while women’s identities has been radically altered, we still haven't altered our views on male identity. To some extent, the blame there can lie at the feet of men’s choices – but if it’s a societal problem, it should be one we treat as a society (instead of blaming individuals). And even if you don’t think we should be working on men’s issues, how about we work on racial equality or religious equality (let’s just say American Muslims are probably owed some apologies for the last 20 years, for instance).
But, let’s face it – though individual men and women are still victims of gender stereotypes and hate crimes, women aren’t the beleaguered and helpless social group they once were. They have a right to vote, representation in congress, a strong bid for the white house, close-to-fair pay, and a close-to-fair distribution of roles in the home. Isn’t that enough? Can’t we turn most of our attention as a society elsewhere now? Or if we're going to make social commentary in the lens of feminism, can't we at least make certain our commentary overshadows more pressing matters at hand? It's just plain disrespectful to oppressed groups everywhere when we spend our time complaining about which gender gets to have more chips with their nachos - which I'm sure women overseas who still refer to rape as "Monday" will completely understand and identify as a major women's issue. Perhaps January 18th should be National Bitch-About-Almost-Nothing Day. I could use a day to complain about SC2 race balance, anyway (zing!).
 
|
Gender equality unbalanced! Men imba!
|
Sweden5554 Posts
On April 10 2013 00:11 Treehead wrote:
And I want to point out that this is just 50 years after it was actually legal to pay women less, just because they’re women
So... if something has been illegal for 50 years, it's okay that we still do it today?
|
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 guess this comes with the fact that you just can't please a woman. 
|
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.
|
Honestly, why do women have to compare themselves to men? It's not even an apples to apples comparison. The simple fact is that men and women are different. Ex. Men typically swim faster than women due to body shape. This even extends to races. Ex. Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm not being racist or anything, but certain races have their advantages and disadvantages. As for the the feminism argument, I can understand the saying that "women can do anything that men can do", which society has also accepted. Almost all jobs are available to women. But, isn't that enough? If females keep beating at this topic till the point where female salaries are equal or EVEN higher than men's salaries. Then a whole "masculinism" debate will come up where men want equality against women. It'll become a cycle of pointless argument. There's a point where one should accept one's successes and not push it. Let's not be little kids where we push our limits till our parents punish us. We don't have "parents" to punish us in real life.
|
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.
|
On April 10 2013 01:20 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Olympic results?
|
Not to stir anything up, but I'd probably pay somebody less if I was required by law to give them a year of vacation out of the blue (because they get pregnant). You are simply less valuable if you can just up and leave for a year and I'm compelled by law to not hold it against you.
Maternity leave laws vary from country to country though.
|
On April 10 2013 01:26 Desires wrote: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. Olympic results?
That's not scientific proof though.
|
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:Show nested quote +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/9024231
Bone 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.
|
On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Honestly, why do women have to compare themselves to men? It's not even an apples to apples comparison. The simple fact is that men and women are different. Ex. Men typically swim faster than women due to body shape. This even extends to races. Ex. Black people run faster than other races due to their bone structure. I'm not being racist or anything, but certain races have their advantages and disadvantages. As for the the feminism argument, I can understand the saying that "women can do anything that men can do", which society has also accepted. Almost all jobs are available to women. But, isn't that enough? If females keep beating at this topic till the point where female salaries are equal or EVEN higher than men's salaries. Then a whole "masculinism" debate will come up where men want equality against women. It'll become a cycle of pointless argument. There's a point where one should accept one's successes and not push it. Let's not be little kids where we push our limits till our parents punish us. We don't have "parents" to punish us in real life.
Wow.. Just wow.
"women can do anything that men can do", which society has also accepted. Almost all jobs are available to women. But, isn't that enough? If females keep beating at this topic till the point where female salaries are equal"
Why on earth shouldn't the salary be equal if you acknowledge that it's the same job?
What does running/swimming have to do with anything? How do advantages in those fields apply to functionality within society?
Your entire post is like a snapshot of the 50's copy pasted and used as flame bait in equality debates.
|
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.
I didn't. I don't have the empirical data - just the results as reported by the statisticians.
On April 10 2013 00:29 salle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 00:11 Treehead wrote:
And I want to point out that this is just 50 years after it was actually legal to pay women less, just because they’re women So... if something has been illegal for 50 years, it's okay that we still do it today?
This isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that in 50 years, we've gone from (best estimate for the time) 56% of pay to women to (best estimate for today) 93% of pay to women. I'm saying that's better - so we don't need the warhorns today that we did 50 years ago.
Simple "more" and "less" statements are easy to make and easy to understand - but they don't really reflect the reality of the topic at hand. If I were to state that in my profession, women make 100.5% of a man's wages - therefore I'm underpriveleged, you'd laugh at me, I'd hope. This isn't all that different.
|
Almost all comments about unfair pay could have been answered before posting by reading http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/07/the-pay-gap-is-not-as-bad-as-you-and-sheryl-sandberg-think/
On April 10 2013 01:10 Desires wrote:
Honestly, why do women have to compare themselves to men? It's not even an apples to apples comparison. The simple fact is that men and women are different. Ex. Men typically swim faster than women due to body shape.
This is why men and women don't compare themselves based on swimming speed (see: Olympic competitions). They compare themselves based on quality-of-life statistics, which should be (and very nearly are) similar.
My viewpoint is that if Elizabeth Cady Stanton could get a job, could be well-educated (in present day better so than her male counterparts), had social power over her husband, had the ability to vote, and had female representatives to vote for - she probably need not have done any of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Cady_Stanton
|
I'll tell you what. This stat is right and that stat is wrong and your sexist.
Did you really think "here they’re basically only good for childbearing, sex and beatings," was some sort of clever funny?
|
United States22883 Posts
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 (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.
|
United States22883 Posts
The article is accurate, but it's only getting halfway there. Because of that, I think you're missing the issue
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."
|
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.
|
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.
How do you know how they measured race? They didn't say they used skin color. This is just one study finding that black people have denser bones on average. As for Olympic sports, if what you say is true, then I was wrong. Perhaps maximum mineralization is no different, I don't know. And yes, I know that the body is shaped by what you do.
Calico cats are usually female...the males are XXY, which is not considered a separate race in humans. Neither is albinism or any other condition causing such a change in skin color. I understand your point, but poor example. Homogeneity in racial background cannot be expected, but it can be expected that a person will be mostly of one background or another. At least for now. But by then there will be more reliable ways of determining someone's racial background than what we have at present.
|
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
