[sarah_buttercup]

Women have made huge advances in the past few decades, but they are still set back in many ways. One being in their pay checks. Obama is passing the Paycheck Fairness Act in June, however will this mean equal respect for women in the workplace as well? Will companies truly follow through with the law?

[slybaldguy]

Can you provide evidence that women are paid less than men when doing identical jobs and working the same number of hours?

[mikema63]

That effect vanishes when you look at women who don't marry or have kids.

It's not sexism in the workplace that causes women to have lower pay, it's gender roles in society (and to a lesser extent biology with the whole pregnancy thing) that causes lower pay for women.

[sarah_buttercup]

Well those are good points to consider. Well, how do you know it isn't sexism in the workplace causing this gap? According to research done by Professor Lawrence Kahn at Cornel, there is a 9% unexplainable gap between women's and men's pay after factoring in human capital and gender differences in the workplace. That 9% could be any number of things including discrimination (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ss/263776/), so it seems unreasonable to completely write that option out. The article lists other factors such as negotiating skills or difference in motivation, that could account for part of that 9%, but that could also indicate that discrimination is ultimately taking over. What we think of as "Masculine" skills such as assertiveness and determination are ultimately valued, and because these traits are deemed in our unconcious minds as "masculine", women are not trained to master them as they grow up, and therefore cannot earn the money they want and deserve - the glass ceiling.

The article also addresses the issue of unmarried men and women working the same number of hours. The statistics do not take into account age, which only accounts for younger people. As people get older then, there are many other factors thrown in there such as women having kids and not being promoted as they age, etc, which then creates a gap.

[Godstud]

Women simply don't work as hard as men. There, that explains it. <ducks the flying objects aimed at him by female pofoers>

[Quercus Robur]

Well those are good points to consider. Well, how do you know it isn't sexism in the workplace causing this gap? According to research done by Professor Lawrence Kahn at Cornel, there is a 9% unexplainable gap between women's and men's pay after factoring in human capital and gender differences in the workplace. That 9% could be any number of things including discrimination (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ss/263776/), so it seems unreasonable to completely write that option out. The article lists other factors such as negotiating skills or difference in motivation, that could account for part of that 9%, but that could also indicate that discrimination is ultimately taking over. What we think of as "Masculine" skills such as assertiveness and determination are ultimately valued, and because these traits are deemed in our unconcious minds as "masculine", women are not trained to master them as they grow up, and therefore cannot earn the money they want and deserve - the glass ceiling.

The article also addresses the issue of unmarried men and women working the same number of hours. The statistics do not take into account age, which only accounts for younger people. As people get older then, there are many other factors thrown in there such as women having kids and not being promoted as they age, etc, which then creates a gap.

All interesting factors.

Have to pose a question though. What if those masculine traits actually were more valuable (on whatever scheme you're using to determine value)? Would you ever accept that there are gender differences that affect significant traits linked to esteem and social position?

The question is linked to the question you posed above. If there are substantive differences in such traits between men and women then that doesn't necessarily meant the government should impose sexist policies, or tolerate direct sexist policies within institutions (both of which could be justified by preventing attacks on the esteem of particular members of the victimised group), but it would clearly undermine any goal of substantive equality. So I suppose I am asking - do you believe the genders are 'equal', what does that mean, and what criteria are there. Personally I find the idea of criticising society based on unequal outcomes on the basis that they betray the ideal of equality to miss the point a little, although still relevant; the interesting things are the criteria that go towards establishing how acts are valued.

[JRS1]

Who are all these women who accept lower wages for the same job / hours/ conditions / experience / qualifications?

I've never met a woman stupid enough to stand for this.

[mikema63]

According to research done by Professor Lawrence Kahn at Cornel, there is a 9% unexplainable gap between women's and men's pay after factoring in human capital and gender differences in the workplace.

I'm partial to the argument that it's upbringing in gender roles, boys are simply taught to work harder and have most intrests that fall outside a fairly narrow range (science, sports, business, etc) basically beaten out of them. On the other hand young girls ate directed towards different subjects which pay less and get a completly different story about work ethic. In fact women tend to be less workaholic and allow more time to unwind compared to guys who are pushed by society to basically work themselves into the grave.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't understand why there is much hesitation to accept the fact that people are still sexist.

[mikema63]

Most simply aren't, certainly not enough to produce such a large effect.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yet the effect is still there.

How can you say they don't cause the effect when we are looking right at the effect?

Something is causing it. Why is it being assumed that it can't possibly be sexism?

[mikema63]

I think gender roles make more sense, I suppose you could consider that sexism but my explanation is just as valid. Aside from the difference in wages there really isn't much evidence to support widespread and rampant business sexism.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you are enforcing traditional gender roles and then rewarding only those with masculine gender roles, then the cause is still sexism.

[mikema63]

Well then there you go, it isn't however active sexism, most people don't realize the've done it.

[Pants-of-dog]

To be honest, I think that is only part of it.

I think that sexism in modern society is a lot like racism in that we have decided it is no longer an issue because we have outlawed overt expressions of such belief. However, this does not address the ongoing unconscious discrimination that continues.

And even when there is evidence of sex and gender based discrimination, such as here, we also tend to minimise it for that reason.

[Soixante-Retard]

Women have a huge disadvantage; childbirth. See two economists on "equal pay" here and here.

Basically, what Mike has already said.

[Pants-of-dog]

Women have a huge disadvantage; childbirth.

Yet men who have children get paid more than men who haven't had kids.

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.

So, why do you pay a woman less for having kids but pay men more for having kids?

See two economists on "equal pay" here and here.

Can you summarise the evidence they bring to the table? I don't feel like wading through polemic videos to find the evidence for you.

[Soixante-Retard]

POD, women having children isn't inconsequential. If women look after their children more so than the man then the man is free to pursue his career while the women spends time raising their children. But, they first have to have children to be eligible for that. That is why childbirth is a disadvantage for women.

If you would like to look at the empirical evidence then I would suggest wading through the footnotes to Chapter 3: Male-Female Facts and Fallacies of Economic Facts and Fallacies, by Thomas Sowell. (An older video of Sowell addressing a female activist on this subject can be found here).

[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.

[Pants-of-dog]

POD, women having children isn't inconsequential. If women look after their children more so than the man then the man is free to pursue his career while the women spends time raising their children. But, they first have to have children to be eligible for that. That is why childbirth is a disadvantage for women.

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.

If you would like to look at the empirical evidence then I would suggest wading through the footnotes to Chapter 3: Male-Female Facts and Fallacies of Economic Facts and Fallacies, by Thomas Sowell. (An older video of Sowell addressing a female activist on this subject can be found here).

Feel free to post them.

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

Age/experience vs time out of work raising babies.

This isn't even a complete sentence.