racketboy.com

elmagicochrisg wrote:

Michi wrote:There is still a 23.5% wage differential in the U.S. between equally qualified men and women.

Most of that difference is because a lot of women work part-time, or work in sectors that are less well paid. You cannot expect a woman to make as much as a man and only work part-time and / or do an easy job. A lot of women still depend on the man to do most of the hard work, but want to be treated equally moneywise. It doesn't work that way...

o.pwuaioc wrote:

elmagicochrisg wrote:

Michi wrote:There is still a 23.5% wage differential in the U.S. between equally qualified men and women.

Most of that difference is because a lot of women work part-time, or work in sectors that are less well paid. You cannot expect a woman to make as much as a man and only work part-time and / or do an easy job. A lot of women still depend on the man to do most of the hard work, but want to be treated equally moneywise. It doesn't work that way...

Actually, that statistic is for white women in the same job working the same hours, not wages overall.

The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work.

One economist testified to Congress that hundreds of studies have consistently found unexplained pay differences which potentially include discrimination.[3]:80 Another criticized these studies as insufficiently controlled, and opined that men and women would have equal pay if they made the same choices and had the same experience, education, etc.

elmagicochrisg wrote:Link?...

Michi wrote:Louis XIV - Sure he was one of the greatest king's of France and started fought in three major wars, but most men today wouldn't be caught dead wearing those fashionable heals and hose. But back then things like that weren't uncommon in aristocratic culture.

dsheinem wrote:http://youtu.be/oiXaT_1I-vw

Michi wrote:Non-Wikipedia link:
http://www.aauw.org/GraduatetoaPayGap/u ... Report.pdf

What accounts for the unexplained gap?

Consider a hypothetical pair of graduates—one
man and one woman—from the same university
who majored in the same field. One year later,
both were working full time, the same number
of hours each week, in the same occupation and
sector. Our analysis shows that despite these
similarities, the woman would earn about 7 percent less than the man would earn. Why do
women still earn less than men do after we control for education and employment differences?
Gender discrimination is one potential contributor to the unexplained pay gap. The increasing
numbers of claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the millions AAUW 3
of dollars employers pay annually in awards,
settlements, and other legal fees make clear
that gender discrimination remains a serious
problem in American workplaces. Experimental
evidence confirms that many people continue
to hold biases against women in the workplace,
especially those who work in traditionally male
fields. Thus, there are solid reasons to believe
that gender discrimination is a problem in the
workplace.
Yet discrimination is impossible to measure
directly, and many who discriminate—both men
and women—may not be aware that they are
doing so. For all of these reasons, it is likely that
at least part of the unexplained gap results from
discrimination.
Another possible explanation for the unexplained portion of the pay gap is a gender difference in willingness and ability to negotiate
salary. Negotiating a salary can make a difference in earnings, and men are more likely than women to negotiate their salaries. In part, this
difference may reflect women’s awareness that
employers are likely to view negotiations by men
more favorably than negotiations by women.
Nonetheless, negotiation may account for some
portion of the unexplained gap.

AppleQueso wrote:I think it's pretty absurd that the thread has been derailed into a discussion about gender roles in modern society all because I said I was uncomfortable with the idea of killing people.

I mean we have derails all the time here, but really?

elmagicochrisg wrote:

Michi wrote:Louis XIV - Sure he was one of the greatest king's of France and started fought in three major wars, but most men today wouldn't be caught dead wearing those fashionable heals and hose. But back then things like that weren't uncommon in aristocratic culture.

I wouldn't exactly call him a real man. Just like I wouldn't call most aristocrats in that time real men...

More like one of the first metrosexuals...

As for Roosevelt. It's not like he had a say in what clothes he wore when he was a little boy...

Michi wrote:Ideas of what is appropriate for each gender change over time. That's just how it is. What's happening right now is that the imaginary lines that people place on separating the genders is changing and that's unnerving for a lot of people because they're not sure how to react to it.

Really at this point though, I don't feel like derailing the tread any further. Please feel free to carry on with the original thread topic.