[JRS1]

Men with children appear to get an earnings boost, whereas women lose earnings. Men with children earn about 2% more on average than men without children, according to the GAO findings, whereas women with children earn about 2.5% less than women without children. Link

Age/experience vs time out of work raising babies.

This isn't even a complete sentence.

I shall expand. If you assume that women take time out from their career to raise children (what could be more productive to society, I dont know), then men with children, on average, would have more years under the belt than women with children.

If you are saying that women should be given allowances with the backing of the government, for time out raising children (up to a certain point) then I would agree with this. For instance if a woman takes a year or two out then this should be taken as experience / time served.

[Pants-of-dog]

I shall expand. If you assume that women take time out from their career to raise children (what could be more productive to society, I dont know), then men with children, on average, would have more years under the belt than women with children.

If you are saying that women should be given allowances with the backing of the government, for time out raising children (up to a certain point) then I would agree with this. For instance if a woman takes a year or two out then this should be taken as experience / time served.

Then the sexism is revealed through the assumption that the woman is the one who is supposed to pause her career for the kids while the man is not.

Giving men a free pass on parenting and then rewarding them financially for it actually supports sexist gender roles.

[JRS1]

I didn't say it was right that only women take time out to raise kids, I pointed out a more likely scenario behind the apparent disparity in mens and womens earnings.

You seem to think its down to a word you use.

Do you agree that women should be given allowances for time served raising kids in lieu of time in the workplace. I do, I think its honest and to societies best interests.

[Pants-of-dog]

I didn't say you said it was right.

I just pointed out that the "more likely scenario" is sexist.

I think it would be better to set it up so that both parents take equal time off from their careers to help raise the kids.

[JRS1]

I didn't say you said it was right.

Yep, my mistake.

I think it would be better to set it up so that both parents take equal time off from their careers to help raise the kids.

I personally think women are better attuned, better suited and actually want to raise children in the early years.

On a practical level, I don't think you can legislate for what goes on within in peoples four walls.

I'm actually advocating affirmative action here PoD, throw me a fricken bone.

[Pants-of-dog]

I personally think women are better attuned, better suited and actually want to raise children in the early years.

Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

On a practical level, I don't think you can legislate for what goes on within in peoples four walls.

I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that you make parental benefits available to both parents.

[JRS1]

Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

No. How would I get this given kids have been raised primarily by females since day one. Same as most mammals.

However I am not saying roles cant be reversed.

Do you disagree with what I said?

I am not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that you make parental benefits available to both parents.

Either parent, sure.

I still think women would more likely want to be with the baby they carried for nine months, and they are generally best suited to it, and they shouldn't be penalised for it.

[Quercus Robur]

The role of sexism vs other social factors in earning parity is interesting. I would start by defining sexism, which isn't hatred of women but incorrect or exaggerated assumptions about women in general or in particular based on her sex. On my view then, the mainstay of sexism is ignorance (not a 'male conspiracy' which strikes me as really a rhetorical position). Nobody would question that that is widespread, and furthermore that ignorance in relation to gender is likely to be intractable because dealing with gender is both tricky and emotive. I'm under the impression that widespread incorrect assumptions dog the economy general (and fox it too ) so surely they are at least capable of registering on the grand scheme of things. It might therefore not be a bad idea to use evidence of puzzlingly different earnings to demonstrate sexism, which is then used as a driving force behind policies designed to remedy it. There are two issues though. First of all, the difference in earning power may be due to a correct assessment of women's general ability to perform. For instance top female and male tennis players take home different prize money (much less different recently... but still) but that is due to competing in different types of tournament on the basis that women clearly have a different physiology that feeds directly into the sport (by making their serves on average about 10mph slower). Secondly the measure to address the perceived ignorance must still be effective in the scheme of things; redistributive policies such as affirmative action do not deal with the underlying issue of ignorance and it offends other of our sensibilities and is thereby demoralising to the workforce.

[Godstud]

The fact of the matter is, there will never be the same, because men and women aren't the same.

Then the sexism is revealed through the assumption that the woman is the one who is supposed to pause her career for the kids while the man is not.

Sexism is entirely warranted. The woman, after all, is the one giving birth, and missing a lot of work, not the man. Sexism makes sense. Men and women are NOT the same. Period. The women who do choose to do the career over the standard gender role do make equal pay. Ask Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice about this.

[Quercus Robur]

The fact of the matter is, there will never be the same, because men and women aren't the same.

I tend to agree because sex is generally such a significant factor for us, although it does depend on the job. In the field in which I work both men and women work differently and do better at rather different things. Women being in general far more reliable and stronger analysers, and men being occasionally more self reflective and as a result slightly deeper thinkers. Good deep thinkers are fewer than reliable or stronger analysers, so the field does tend to favour women who are beginning to dominate.

[sarah_buttercup]

Yes, women and men are different. I took a social psychology class at Penn State University and we learned that men are more likely to be perceived as assertive, dominant, self-confident, and controlling (agentic), while women are perceived as more helpful, warm, and concerned with other people's welfare (communal). For that reason, women are more likely to be placed in charge of units in crisis, which are truthfully positions where anyone is more likely to fail. Therefore, it is more difficult for women to even be promoted in the first place and to earn to same amount of money as men. Of course gender role perceptions are changing, but the point made about women wanting to take longer leave for their pregnancy is important too. The woman has spent the past 9 months carrying her child, and even for biological reasons, is obligated to give the baby care. Her husband may want to see his child too, but he doesn't seem to have quite the attachment that the mother does. I feel like it is almost as if we are biologically programmed to be sexist, or to have specific roles for the sexes that simply result in lower pay for women.

- But this will also affect single mothers who do not have husbands to support them like the traditional roles say they should.

With all of that being said, do you think we should just accept that men and women are different and will earn different pay? Or are the times changing so that we simply cannot do that?

[Soixante-Retard]

Then the sexism is revealed through the assumption that the woman is the one who is supposed to pause her career for the kids while the man is not.

Women nor men are "suppose" to do anything. They do what suits them. If a child needs to be raised then the parents will decide how to raise the child and if either one of them needs to sacrifice their work for it.

Giving men a free pass on parenting and then rewarding them financially for it actually supports sexist gender roles.

Who gives these men a "free pass"? Often women sacrifice their work because (for whatever reasons) their salary (and future salary) is usually less than the man's. Since the woman is raising the child, the man remains focused on his career.

Feel free to post them.

I would, however, with 68 references, not all of which are freely available, I won't. Though, I do encourage you to read that chapter.

do you think we should just accept that men and women are different and will earn different pay?

Yes. Men and women make different choices, however, undermining women's presence in work by requiring equal pay will not help. I want to see prejudiced and sexist employers bear a cost to exercise their prejudices (see the second video I posted in my first response to this thread).

[Quercus Robur]

I think there are two arguments there Buttercup. There is firstly the operation of sexist assumptions against women which would affect their promotion unjustifiably, and there is secondly the fact that internal procedures might favour men when women would be better able to do the job (and is therefore unjustifiable). The second one is very easy to get wrong. As a interviewer to try to remedy this by 'givingt a female applicant the benefit of the doubt' have to be dead certain about the value of the particular applicant. You cannot underestimate how potentially demoralising that could be to male applicants. Also, it comes back to the fact that those applicant selection methods may well be the best there are for determining the value of particular applicants. Nevertheless if defendable selection methods could be adduced that were more gender neutral that does serve as an argument to try for them.

[sarah_buttercup]

Yes that's a good point. Giving women the benefit of the doubt is not fair either because if the company is looking for specific characteristics in an employer, they need to make a hiring decision based on whether or not that person has those characteristics. Therefore, if it just so happens that men have more of certain characteristics that more companies want, more men will be hired and promoted while less women will be. I guess the issue would be how much of that applicant selection process is due to employers simply doubting a woman, even though she has the skills and poise, and how much of it is truly hiring the best person for the job? Is that too hard to tell?

[Pants-of-dog]

No. How would I get this given kids have been raised primarily by females since day one. Same as most mammals.

However I am not saying roles cant be reversed.

Do you disagree with what I said?

I don't discuss opinions.

Either parent, sure.

I still think women would more likely want to be with the baby they carried for nine months, and they are generally best suited to it, and they shouldn't be penalised for it.

Again, this is merely your opinion.

So, is it sexism to have opinions like "women naturally make better parents, so it's alright to assume that they should quit their careers and take care of the baby while the man gets paid more for not parenting"?

-------------------------

The fact of the matter is, there will never be the same, because men and women aren't the same.

More unsubstantiated opinions. Why is this so popular on PoFo?

I have an opinion! It is so very Zpsecial! I must tell it to everyone even though I have no support fo rit other than my own prejudices!!

Sexism is entirely warranted. The woman, after all, is the one giving birth, and missing a lot of work, not the man. Sexism makes sense. Men and women are NOT the same. Period. The women who do choose to do the career over the standard gender role do make equal pay. Ask Hillary Clinton or Condoleeza Rice about this.

Why can't the man miss work?

And please provide evidence that women who do choose their career make the same as men. Also, explain why men who choose to have children get paid more, even though they should get paid less because they had kids, according to your logic.

--------------------------------------

Women nor men are "suppose" to do anything. They do what suits them. If a child needs to be raised then the parents will decide how to raise the child and if either one of them needs to sacrifice their work for it.

I completely agree, yet many people in this thread are claiming that women are more biologically suited for sacrificing their careers for their children.

Who gives these men a "free pass"? Often women sacrifice their work because (for whatever reasons) their salary (and future salary) is usually less than the man's. Since the woman is raising the child, the man remains focused on his career.

Thier employers apparently give them a free pass.

One of the main reasons why a woman's salary is usually less than men's is because of sexist wage disparities. Other reasons include the low pay associated with pink collar jobs, and the glass ceiling. Please note that these other reasons are also sexist.

I would, however, with 68 references, not all of which are freely available, I won't. Though, I do encourage you to read that chapter.

No. I have no interest in researching your argument for you.

[Soixante-Retard]

Thier employers apparently give them a free pass.

More fool the employers who promote employees for anything other than suitability to positions or their productivity.

One of the main reasons why a woman's salary is usually less than men's is because of sexist wage disparities.

Would you care to provide any evidence for this, that is employers are simply being sexist(?), because I have no interest in researching your argument for you. I suppose NBA team owners are racist since there are more black men than white men in the NBA...

My point being that you cannot say that "numbers collected at the employers place of business reflect simply the employer's policy, those numbers reflect underlying conditions throughout society".

[Pants-of-dog]

More fool the employers who promote employees for anything other than suitability to positions or their productivity.

I agree, but it happens.

Would you care to provide any evidence for this, that is employers are simply being sexist(?), because I have no interest in researching your argument for you. I suppose NBA team owners are racist since there are more black men than white men in the NBA...

It has already been provided in this thread.

I will repost the link:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censussta ... enspay.htm
Also: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ss/263776/

My point being that you cannot say that "numbers collected at the employers place of business reflect simply the employer's policy, those numbers reflect underlying conditions throughout society".

I never claimed that sexism was the only factor, but it is a factor, and it also influences many of the other factors.

[Soixante-Retard]

POD, neither link that you provided demonstrated that sexism is to blame for why comparable women are paid less to comparable men. They only speculate, or assert.

For instance, a single woman who has been out of the labor force for 10-20 years raising a family is not comparable to a single man who worked continuously for the same amount of time.

In my work there are a number of women who have the same duties and responsibilities as I have but are paid more than I am, probably because they've worked in that position longer than I have and thus they certainly have more technical knowledge than I have and hence they are more productive than I am and hence they are valued more than I am and so they are paid more than I am. I demand equality!

[Pants-of-dog]

POD, neither link that you provided demonstrated that sexism is to blame for why comparable women are paid less to comparable men. They only speculate, or asserted.

For instance, a single woman who has been out of the labor force for 10-20 years raising a family is not comparable to a single man who worked continuously for the same amount of time.

I will quote the relevant text (from the second link):

So overall, women who work full time make 77 cents for every dollar men make. But how much of that can we actually blame on discrimination, and how much is due to other factors, like the fact that women often work in lower paying industries?

I'm going to refer to a study with my colleague, Professor Lawrence Kahn at Cornell. In the data set we were using, women were making 20 percent less per hour than men overall. That would be what we call the unadjusted differential. As you're pointing out, this could reflect a variety of factors. It could reflect discrimination. But it also could reflect gender differences in work experience, or differences in industries and occupations. So first we statistically adjusted for human capital, which is a detailed measure of prior work experience and education. The adjusted gap was 19 percent, only slightly less than the unadjusted differential. So traditional human capital factors, taken together, do not explain that much of the gender gap. Then we have another specification, where we control for human capital but we additionally control for gender differences in industries and occupations. And that got us down to 9 percent less.

So there was a 9 percent difference in pay you couldn't explain even when you considered the jobs women do, the education they have, or the years they spent in the workforce.

Right.

So, after we adjust for things like experience and other factors, there is still a wage gap.

In my work there are a number of women who have the same duties and responsibilities as me but are paid more than I am, probably because they've worked in that position longer than I have and thus they certainly have more technical knowledge than I have and hence they are more productive than I am and hence they are valued more than I am and so they are paid more than I am. I demand equality!

Please see above.

[Soixante-Retard]

As I said POD, they do not demonstrate. It is erroneous to believe that a) the 9% gap is all that remains after adjusting all relevant factors and that b) this can only be explained by "sexism".