beergut
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 11, 2011 13:58:39 GMT -5
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by beergut on Mar 9, 2016 5:06:29 GMT -5
unequal results?
It seems to me that since people claim that a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man is paid X% less than a man for the same job, the issue is not one of opportunity, but one of results.
I don't think there are any occupations, especially high-paid white collar careers, where people discriminate based on gender.
I think women have just as much of an opportunity to get a job as men do.
However, you're never going to be able to equalize pay, because you're not talking about opportunity, you're talking about the end result. Women have just as much opportunity to earn as much as men do, but if they are paid less, that does not necessarily equal a gender wage gap. It just means, on average, one group is paid less than another group.
The reason given for the gap is gender, but the existence of a gap is not proof of discrimination.
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
I identify as a post-menopausal childless cat lady and I vote.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,979
|
Post by cronewitch on Mar 9, 2016 6:36:43 GMT -5
Women tend to be less aggressive than men when negotiating pay. Some woman are more likely to do a mommy track job even as a professional where they want to stay home when the baby is too sick for daycare and only work 40-50 hours a week not 50-70.
When a couple has children, parents and social obligations most couples throw the woman's career under the bus besides any time she takes off to give birth or be put on light duty while pregnant.
When I was young employers paid woman less because a man had a family to support and a woman only was earning a second income. My first accounting job a boy I went to college with told me he was getting $100 a week and I got $85. I was promoted and got $100 after a full year. I was told he got more because he had a wife and baby. I tried to get more money but they won't so I quit. I don't think most companies discriminate but woman are still the primary caregivers for children and parents so might choose flexible hours over money. My niece has a daughter with down syndrome and turned down a promotion because she gets her daughter from school then goes back to work and if her daughter needs her she is near, the new job was farther from school and home.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Mar 9, 2016 7:41:14 GMT -5
Pick a fluff major and any gender is going to be paid less.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 8:20:27 GMT -5
I see two issues with claiming "gender gap".
First, in my experience, women are much more likely to take significant time off to spend with children, they are much more likely to go on the "mommy track" at work (flex schedule or reduced schedule), women are much more likely to have restricted travel once she has children, and so on and so on.
Second, again, totally based on what I have seen, women are much less aggressive negotiating a starting salary. Unfortunately, once you start at a lower salary it is much more difficult to ever "catch up".
Those two issues are assuming a man and a woman are both doing the same or equivalent level jobs. Women are also much more likely to go into lower paid professions that are more family friendly. that isn't a gender gap, that is personal choice.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 8:22:58 GMT -5
Women tend to be less aggressive than men when negotiating pay. Some woman are more likely to do a mommy track job even as a professional where they want to stay home when the baby is too sick for daycare and only work 40-50 hours a week not 50-70. When a couple has children, parents and social obligations most couples throw the woman's career under the bus besides any time she takes off to give birth or be put on light duty while pregnant. When I was young employers paid woman less because a man had a family to support and a woman only was earning a second income. My first accounting job a boy I went to college with told me he was getting $100 a week and I got $85. I was promoted and got $100 after a full year. I was told he got more because he had a wife and baby. I tried to get more money but they won't so I quit. I don't think most companies discriminate but woman are still the primary caregivers for children and parents so might choose flexible hours over money. My niece has a daughter with down syndrome and turned down a promotion because she gets her daughter from school then goes back to work and if her daughter needs her she is near, the new job was farther from school and home. I just turned down a shot at a new job for basically the same reason. It would have been a $35k increase in salary but it wasn't worth the increased travel time for me. It would have increased my daily commute to 45 minutes a each way which would mean less time with my children. I am 15 minutes from my daughter's school and if I'm stuck working late, I can pick her up from daycare and bring her back to the office with me. That wouldn't work if I were 45 minutes away.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 17:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 8:48:17 GMT -5
I agree with most of what's been posted. Here's my list, with the preface that I know women who are shining counter-examples to all these generalizations: a niece who changed jobs 5 times in 10 years and has passed the $100K mark, women whose husbands truly pick up their fair share of house and kid duty or are stay-at-home dads, women who regularly cross the Atlantic for business trips. We're all different. 1. Women are more conscious of the need to be around for their kids. It's easier for men to throw themselves into their career because that's the way it's been for generations. This means women may be less willing to travel on business if they have kids, or take on jobs with longer hours and/or longer commutes. 2. Totally agree with Miss Tequila on salary negotiation. I always took what was offered other than once asking for an extra week of vacation and once asking for a company-paid cell phone (got both). 3. Women move around less. If I had it to do over again, I'd be far more aggressive in making moves both inside and outside my current employer. That's where the increases happen. I have one pension of $12K/year starting at age 65 from a company where I stayed for 10 years (then got downsized ) and another for $10K/year from a place where I stayed for 5 years (company got sold, I stayed but no more pension accrual) but I'm not sure that makes up for it. 4. One study showed that a man will apply for a job if he thinks he can do 50% of what's required. A woman will want to be sure she can do about 90% before applying. (I told this to the niece I mentioned and she said, "If it's a job I want to do and I think I can do TEN percent, I apply!" Darn, I wish I had had her confidence. 5. Women are too nice. We're brought up to be peacemakers. That has many advantages, but leaves us unequipped to deal with liars, passive-aggressive bosses, and many other nasty inhabitants of the business world. A perceptive boss once described me as "non-confrontational". I think that's true of more women than men. 6. Corollary to the above: when the work atmosphere is rife with profanities, pis*ing contests and other macho crap, a woman who gives as good as she gets is the recipient of some nasty labels. So, even when you're assertive enough to deal with sleaze and BS, you're criticized for it. Breaking the glass ceiling isn't impossible; I just read an article on the 100 most influential women in reinsurance and quite a few were with a previous employer and still more were actuaries I knew. I personally was not able to crack the code.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2016 10:18:38 GMT -5
Until the genders are equal there will continue to be a gender wage gap. And some of the reasons listed are part of the problem. There are still a fair amount of people who still believe women are less competent, do not want women bosses, etc.
I think women also have to walk a tighter line on clothing at least initially depending on the biases of the hiring managers. This study is old, but still valid IMO.
gap.hks.harvard.edu/orchestrating-impartiality-impact-%E2%80%9Cblind%E2%80%9D-auditions-female-musicians
Using a screen to conceal candidates from the jury during preliminary auditions increased the likelihood that a female musician would advance to the next round by 11 percentage points. During the final round, “blind” auditions increased the likelihood of female musicians being selected by 30%.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 9, 2016 10:38:44 GMT -5
unequal results? I don't think there are any occupations, especially high-paid white collar careers, where people discriminate based on gender. I don't think you can make that big of a sweeping generalization. I think there IS a lot of discrimination based on gender - it's just much more subtle these days than it was 30 years ago.
Just one thing would be a woman MIGHT opt to not go out for drinks with her male co-workers because she needs to pick up the kids or just needs to get home to accomplish some personal stuff (because HER husband is out having a drink with HIS male coworkers). Someone needs to keep the "home" running and it's usually a wife who does that.
If you aren't going out for drinks (or joining in other out side of work things) with your co-workers you are missing out on stuff that helps build your career or helps you climb the corporate ladder. And it's not just going out for 'drinks after work' - there are lots of guy only activities (that I'm sure guys like to engage in) which if they have female coworkers they WONT" be able to do.
Not being there for the informal "bonding" and/or networking can be a 'career killer'.
What's acceptable for guys to do socially as part of their 'work life' has to change... and it is.
Overall, it's not direct discrimination - as in "oh, a woman can't do that job" it's more like a woman (because of her gender and traditional place in society) has to CHOOSE her 'family' over her 'career'
"So, how do I combine a career and marriage/kids?", thought/said no man ever.
I think women have just as much of an opportunity to get a job as men do. I'd agree with that - as long as they make careful choices - they choose a husband who's willing to help them OR they are willing to sacrifice to have a kids without a husband, or they are totally comfortable without having a 'family' Again, how many men have given up a family for a job opportunity? The reason given for the gap is gender, but the existence of a gap is not proof of discrimination. I agree, sort of. Everyone has their own personal biases compounded by social/cultural biases. I think there is more awareness of 'gender stereotypes' and 'gender roles' which means that it's starting to loosen up a bit. But, gender roles/stereotypes still play a big part in 'discrimination'.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2016 10:40:52 GMT -5
This was posted recently, but nothing states it is new or older. Still there are people out there who definitely have beliefs about women working and they aren't all Duggars or Mormons with multiple wives. Gender discrimination based on beliefs about the genders still exists. Sometimes they don't say anything to reveal how they think, and then there are things like this -
notalwaysright.com/category/unfiltered/page/8
A customer has recently moved to the area. Often when he visits the store he talks about wanting to live like Little House on the Prairie. Today’s exchange went a little bit differently:
Me: (as I’m ringing him up) Hello, how are you doing today, sir?
Customer: Awe, isn’t that so sweet. It’s just so sweet of a cute, young, married girl like you to go and get a part-time job to help her husband so they have extra spending money. That’s just so sweet.
Me: All right, thank you very much and have a great day! (Later, to my coworker as I recount the story: Hello, and welcome to the 1950’s! I’ve gone from a single, non-dating, and independent woman to married and dependent on my husband!)
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Mar 9, 2016 10:47:38 GMT -5
unequal results? It seems to me that since people claim that a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man is paid X% less than a man for the same job, the issue is not one of opportunity, but one of results. I don't think there are any occupations, especially high-paid white collar careers, where people discriminate based on gender. I think women have just as much of an opportunity to get a job as men do. However, you're never going to be able to equalize pay, because you're not talking about opportunity, you're talking about the end result. Women have just as much opportunity to earn as much as men do, but if they are paid less, that does not necessarily equal a gender wage gap. It just means, on average, one group is paid less than another group. The reason given for the gap is gender, but the existence of a gap is not proof of discrimination. I beg to differ. I do get treated differently than men. I am often not taken seriously. I am often assumed I am not competent until I prove otherwise. It seems to me that generally men are perceived as competent until they prove otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 17:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 11:01:57 GMT -5
Again, how many men have given up a family for a job opportunity? Tons of them. If you're talking about ditching the wife and kids to pursue a career, none that I know of. The majority of the people with children at home who take jobs with long hours, extensive travel and other demands, knowing that they are giving up family time in pursuit of lofty career goals, are men. My nephew by marriage is in that category; he was one of the youngest to make partner at a very large accounting firm and when my niece had twins after some intervention from fertility specialists, she gave up a job she didn't really like to stay home with them. He's a treasure; he's wonderful to her and the twins, but he works his rear end off and travels a lot. I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Mar 9, 2016 11:10:32 GMT -5
I don't think there are any occupations, especially high-paid white collar careers, where people discriminate based on gender. Well, you're wrong.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 11:13:01 GMT -5
Again, how many men have given up a family for a job opportunity? Tons of them. If you're talking about ditching the wife and kids to pursue a career, none that I know of. The majority of the people with children at home who take jobs with long hours, extensive travel and other demands, knowing that they are giving up family time in pursuit of lofty career goals, are men. My nephew by marriage is in that category; he was one of the youngest to make partner at a very large accounting firm and when my niece had twins after some intervention from fertility specialists, she gave up a job she didn't really like to stay home with them. He's a treasure; he's wonderful to her and the twins, but he works his rear end off and travels a lot. I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand. Exactly. I spent 17 years in a large, regional account firm (top 15). I knew many women who went on flex time, reduced hours, limited travel, etc. I hobeslt can't think of any men that did the same. Those women had their careers limited because of their choices and I think that is fair. If you can't travel because of family obligations that means someone else has to pick up your slack. If you can't work as much as your counterparts then someone else has to pick up your slack. It only seems right that you are paid less.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 9, 2016 11:15:25 GMT -5
Again, how many men have given up a family for a job opportunity? Tons of them. If you're talking about ditching the wife and kids to pursue a career, none that I know of. The majority of the people with children at home who take jobs with long hours, extensive travel and other demands, knowing that they are giving up family time in pursuit of lofty career goals, are men. My nephew by marriage is in that category; he was one of the youngest to make partner at a very large accounting firm and when my niece had twins after some intervention from fertility specialists, she gave up a job she didn't really like to stay home with them. He's a treasure; he's wonderful to her and the twins, but he works his rear end off and travels a lot. I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand. But, the men in your example haven't given up a family in the sense I'm talking about. They may not spend a lot of time with their wife and kids and beautiful house - but they still have a family to come home to. I would assume they don't have many responsibilities at home. I assume they have someone at home keeping "home" running smoothly... be it their wife, husband, or butler (as in the old TV show Family Affair)
You illustrated what I was saying with your last sentence: I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand.
A woman WOULD very likely have to give up having a family for a job opportunity - she can't work long hours AND take care of a house and the kids full time.
A guy can come and go (for work- not extramarital affairs!!!) from his family/home without it being an issue. Not so much with a woman. And that's where the discrimination comes in.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Mar 9, 2016 11:16:35 GMT -5
Tons of them. If you're talking about ditching the wife and kids to pursue a career, none that I know of. The majority of the people with children at home who take jobs with long hours, extensive travel and other demands, knowing that they are giving up family time in pursuit of lofty career goals, are men. My nephew by marriage is in that category; he was one of the youngest to make partner at a very large accounting firm and when my niece had twins after some intervention from fertility specialists, she gave up a job she didn't really like to stay home with them. He's a treasure; he's wonderful to her and the twins, but he works his rear end off and travels a lot. I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand. Exactly. I spent 17 years in a large, regional account firm (top 15). I knew many women who went on flex time, reduced hours, limited travel, etc. I hobeslt can't think of any men that did the same. Those women had their careers limited because of their choices and I think that is fair. If you can't travel because of family obligations that means someone else has to pick up your slack. If you can't work as much as your counterparts then someone else has to pick up your slack. It only seems right that you are paid less. I agree. However, there often seems to be an unspoken assumption that the woman will automatically be the one who turns down the assignments.
It seems like some people are genuinely surprised when they see the professional is a woman. I have lost count of the people who assume that I am the secretary in the office.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,593
|
Post by happyhoix on Mar 9, 2016 11:26:43 GMT -5
unequal results? It seems to me that since people claim that a woman with the same experience and qualifications as a man is paid X% less than a man for the same job, the issue is not one of opportunity, but one of results. I don't think there are any occupations, especially high-paid white collar careers, where people discriminate based on gender. I think women have just as much of an opportunity to get a job as men do. However, you're never going to be able to equalize pay, because you're not talking about opportunity, you're talking about the end result. Women have just as much opportunity to earn as much as men do, but if they are paid less, that does not necessarily equal a gender wage gap. It just means, on average, one group is paid less than another group. The reason given for the gap is gender, but the existence of a gap is not proof of discrimination. I beg to differ. I do get treated differently than men. I am often not taken seriously. I am often assumed I am not competent until I prove otherwise. It seems to me that generally men are perceived as competent until they prove otherwise. Same here. I had a boss once who referred to the female managers who reported to him as 'hysterical' when we brought up an issue that needed to be addressed. He also told me once I was 'not nice' because I pointed out something illegal someone was doing. I also had a male coworker tell me once that I shouldn't get paid as much as he did because he was a father supporting a household and he had a SAHW and I had a DH who had a job. Another one told me I should be staying at home with my child rather than working because that was the 'right' thing to do.
I also had a boss that once admitted to me that the reason women didn't get promoted at our company at the same rate as the men was that people tend to be biased into promoting people that are similar to themselves, and white men are biased towards promoting other white men. (He promoted me, by the way - I guess he was trying to help the women break the glass ceiling).
|
|
bobosensei
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:32:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,561
|
Post by bobosensei on Mar 9, 2016 11:49:33 GMT -5
I worked at a company where at least with the people reporting to me women made less than men starting out. When I saw women try to negotiate (when they had valid reasons for earning more) they were totally shut out. HR would say the starting salary is 27-32k, then give an offer of 27k and when the woman would ask for more even with valid reasons they were just told no. The men got higher offers to start with, and were often allowed to negotiate. I know this because I used to help with the hiring and read the email strings with offers and such going back and forth. I never saw a woman start out at anything higher than the first offer given, and I never saw a man start out that low. Now there were many more women working those positions than men, but no one could ever tell me why that was.
And I knew that a male peer made 15k more than me for doing the same job. Now the technicality was that when you were filling in a higher level management position for the interim you got the title, but no pay increase. So what I tended to see happen was that they tried to find a woman to temporarily fill a position if needed (and usually had her do her old job and the new job with no help). But the temp workers doing a 6 month or so assignment were almost always men, and thus where hired at the higher level title and being paid the higher rate. It was such crap, because the women were doing more work and producing better results. More was expected from them in terms of taking on extra projects, but they didn't want to give them credit. The women only did this so that they could try to snag the next full time job when it was open, and very often they got them. I've heard the saying that a man is hired/promoted based on potential and women are hired/promoted based on past performance. That certainly rang true with my experience at that company.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 11:52:05 GMT -5
Tons of them. If you're talking about ditching the wife and kids to pursue a career, none that I know of. The majority of the people with children at home who take jobs with long hours, extensive travel and other demands, knowing that they are giving up family time in pursuit of lofty career goals, are men. My nephew by marriage is in that category; he was one of the youngest to make partner at a very large accounting firm and when my niece had twins after some intervention from fertility specialists, she gave up a job she didn't really like to stay home with them. He's a treasure; he's wonderful to her and the twins, but he works his rear end off and travels a lot. I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand. But, the men in your example haven't given up a family in the sense I'm talking about. They may not spend a lot of time with their wife and kids and beautiful house - but they still have a family to come home to. I would assume they don't have many responsibilities at home. I assume they have someone at home keeping "home" running smoothly... be it their wife, husband, or butler (as in the old TV show Family Affair)
You illustrated what I was saying with your last sentence: I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand.
A woman WOULD very likely have to give up having a family for a job opportunity - she can't work long hours AND take care of a house and the kids full time.
A guy can come and go (for work- not extramarital affairs!!!) from his family/home without it being an issue. Not so much with a woman. And that's where the discrimination comes in.
How is that discrimination? A woman could very easily tell her husband that no, she wasn't going to take care of everything at home while he works a lot of hours. A woman is CHOOSING to take care of the kids and the home. If she can't stand up to her husband that is certainly not her employer's fault. Or maybe she really wants to be home with the kids and is just pissed that decision comes with reduced compensation.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 17:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 12:11:04 GMT -5
Same here. I had a boss once who referred to the female managers who reported to him as 'hysterical' when we brought up an issue that needed to be addressed. He also told me once I was 'not nice' because I pointed out something illegal someone was doing. [/p][/quote] That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You put up with bad situations, you lose. You point out bad situations, you lose.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 9, 2016 12:24:29 GMT -5
Tons of them. If you're talking about ditching the wife and kids to pursue a career, none that I know of. The majority of the people with children at home who take jobs with long hours, extensive travel and other demands, knowing that they are giving up family time in pursuit of lofty career goals, are men. My nephew by marriage is in that category; he was one of the youngest to make partner at a very large accounting firm and when my niece had twins after some intervention from fertility specialists, she gave up a job she didn't really like to stay home with them. He's a treasure; he's wonderful to her and the twins, but he works his rear end off and travels a lot. I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand. Exactly. I spent 17 years in a large, regional account firm (top 15). I knew many women who went on flex time, reduced hours, limited travel, etc. I hobeslt can't think of any men that did the same. Those women had their careers limited because of their choices and I think that is fair. If you can't travel because of family obligations that means someone else has to pick up your slack. If you can't work as much as your counterparts then someone else has to pick up your slack. It only seems right that you are paid less. This is it. And this might account for a portion of the wage gap. If you're not at work, you're not doing the work, getting promoted etc. If women in general are more likely to take time off from work to raise children, help take care of elderly family members or whatever....there is a definite consequence.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2016 12:27:03 GMT -5
Exactly. I spent 17 years in a large, regional account firm (top 15). I knew many women who went on flex time, reduced hours, limited travel, etc. I hobeslt can't think of any men that did the same. Those women had their careers limited because of their choices and I think that is fair. If you can't travel because of family obligations that means someone else has to pick up your slack. If you can't work as much as your counterparts then someone else has to pick up your slack. It only seems right that you are paid less. This is it. And this might account for a portion of the wage gap. If you're not at work, you're not doing the work, getting promoted etc. If women in general are more likely to take time off from work to raise children, help take care of elderly family members or whatever....there is a definite3 consequence. Our society's beliefs continue to push that work onto women. It would be nice if society and the workplace evolved to supporting families and work in a gender neutral way.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 9, 2016 12:33:20 GMT -5
This is it. And this might account for a portion of the wage gap. If you're not at work, you're not doing the work, getting promoted etc. If women in general are more likely to take time off from work to raise children, help take care of elderly family members or whatever....there is a definite3 consequence. Our society's beliefs continue to push that work onto women. It would be nice if society and the workplace evolved to supporting families and work in a gender neutral way. Society's beliefs? Bullshit. This is all about what happens at home. It speaks to the relationship between spouses and extended families. In some cases women aren't willing to relinquish the care of their children to their husband, a parent or a day care provider. Sometimes it's just preference. Society doesn't decide what goes on in my home and how my DH and I worked out the raising of our kids. That's a good old fashioned cop out.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2016 12:36:07 GMT -5
But, the men in your example haven't given up a family in the sense I'm talking about. They may not spend a lot of time with their wife and kids and beautiful house - but they still have a family to come home to. I would assume they don't have many responsibilities at home. I assume they have someone at home keeping "home" running smoothly... be it their wife, husband, or butler (as in the old TV show Family Affair)
You illustrated what I was saying with your last sentence: I can count the women I've known who have the reverse setup (she works at demanding job, he holds down the fort) on one hand.
A woman WOULD very likely have to give up having a family for a job opportunity - she can't work long hours AND take care of a house and the kids full time.
A guy can come and go (for work- not extramarital affairs!!!) from his family/home without it being an issue. Not so much with a woman. And that's where the discrimination comes in.
How is that discrimination? A woman could very easily tell her husband that no, she wasn't going to take care of everything at home while he works a lot of hours. A woman is CHOOSING to take care of the kids and the home. If she can't stand up to her husband that is certainly not her employer's fault. Or maybe she really wants to be home with the kids and is just pissed that decision comes with reduced compensation. Miss T I am fairly certain you've posted in the past how you'd see a woman who abandons the care of her children more harshly than a man doing the same thing. You can pretend its all logical and easy, but it really is still a huge gender divide.
Woman tells husband she's not going to take case of everything at home while he works lots of hours. Possibilities- 1) He turns down the promotion 2) Accepts it anyway A) She sucks it up and stays married B) Gets divorced and is stuck with all or most of the childcare anyway.
Man tells his wife he's not going to take care of everything at home if she increases her hours. 1) She turns down the hours. 2) She takes them anyway A) He stays B) He divorces her and she is stuck with all or most of the childcare
Bottom line, things happen the way they do because in the end the workplace, society expectations are such that the woman usually gets stuck with the bulk of the childcare no matter what, unless she is rich enough to afford help. Men choose work over time with family and they are considered good providers, good guys. Women who do the same are considered greedy, ambitious, and less female than woman workers who spend more time with their children.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 9, 2016 12:39:43 GMT -5
So women are just victims? They're just pawns in the great game of marriage, work and life. C'est dommage.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2016 12:46:33 GMT -5
Our society's beliefs continue to push that work onto women. It would be nice if society and the workplace evolved to supporting families and work in a gender neutral way. Society's beliefs? Bullshit. This is all about what happens at home. It speaks to the relationship between spouses and extended families. In some cases women aren't willing to relinquish the care of their children to their husband, a parent or a day care provider. Sometimes it's just preference. Society doesn't decide what goes on in my home and how my DH and I worked out the raising of our kids. That's a good old fashioned cop out. I'm not old fashioned, so try again.
True individuals do decide for themselves. But if things were truly gender neutral at home and in society, there would be as much support for dads staying home as moms. Grandpas doing primary childcare.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 12:58:25 GMT -5
How is that discrimination? A woman could very easily tell her husband that no, she wasn't going to take care of everything at home while he works a lot of hours. A woman is CHOOSING to take care of the kids and the home. If she can't stand up to her husband that is certainly not her employer's fault. Or maybe she really wants to be home with the kids and is just pissed that decision comes with reduced compensation. Miss T I am fairly certain you've posted in the past how you'd see a woman who abandons the care of her children more harshly than a man doing the same thing. You can pretend its all logical and easy, but it really is still a huge gender divide.
Woman tells husband she's not going to take case of everything at home while he works lots of hours. Possibilities- 1) He turns down the promotion 2) Accepts it anyway A) She sucks it up and stays married B) Gets divorced and is stuck with all or most of the childcare anyway.
Man tells his wife he's not going to take care of everything at home if she increases her hours. 1) She turns down the hours. 2) She takes them anyway A) He stays B) He divorces her and she is stuck with all or most of the childcare
Bottom line, things happen the way they do because in the end the workplace, society expectations are such that the woman usually gets stuck with the bulk of the childcare no matter what, unless she is rich enough to afford help. Men choose work over time with family and they are considered good providers, good guys. Women who do the same are considered greedy, ambitious, and less female than woman workers who spend more time with their children.
But what you are describing has nothing to do with discrimination.
|
|
sbcalimom
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 21:27:25 GMT -5
Posts: 890
|
Post by sbcalimom on Mar 9, 2016 12:59:35 GMT -5
There's a big difference between limiting your career based on the choices you make that work for your family AND having your career limited because of ASSUMPTIONS that are made about you simply because you are a woman. Many people assume that a woman will have kids or need the mommy track so let's pay them less. But until I ask for accommodations for my family, let's not assume I'll need them.
On top of that, it has been proven time and time again that women get paid less for the exact same position as a man holds. If two people perform the same job they should have the same salary. Obviously there will be some differences based on experience, skills etc but that shouldn't mean that there's a huge statistical difference between a man and a woman holding the same position in an industry.
I make considerably more than my husband and I probably will continue to for quite some time. I also work a lot more hours than he does. However, it never fails that our family and society at large assume that I will make the sacrifices having children require. If I travel for work, everyone worries how my husband will handle it. When he travels for work, it's something that needs to be done for his career. Drives me batty!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,246
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Mar 9, 2016 13:00:38 GMT -5
So women are just victims? They're just pawns in the great game of marriage, work and life. C'est dommage. Nice, the victim argument. Because apparently there is nothing in between some discrimination and total equality.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 13:01:57 GMT -5
Exactly. I spent 17 years in a large, regional account firm (top 15). I knew many women who went on flex time, reduced hours, limited travel, etc. I hobeslt can't think of any men that did the same. Those women had their careers limited because of their choices and I think that is fair. If you can't travel because of family obligations that means someone else has to pick up your slack. If you can't work as much as your counterparts then someone else has to pick up your slack. It only seems right that you are paid less. This is it. And this might account for a portion of the wage gap. If you're not at work, you're not doing the work, getting promoted etc. If women in general are more likely to take time off from work to raise children, help take care of elderly family members or whatever.... there is a definite consequence. And there should be. When my kids were little I worked a very flexible schedule. I also rarely traveled. That means that if there was a last minute emergency that required someone hopping on a plane, that person wasn't going to be me. My firm wanted me to stay as I did bring some good things to the table. But guess what, the other people that worked at my firm also brought some very good things to the table in addition to being willing to travel, work until 11 pm, etc. It would be totally unfair if I got promotions and similar pay when my priority was my family and theirs was their career.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 9, 2016 13:02:36 GMT -5
Gender neutrality? That's a great catch phrase. It hasn't anything to do with that.
You're placing the responsibility on society instead of the individual. How do you explain those women who have succeeded and have husbands and children? What about gay couples where one partner stays home with the children and again, experiences a stalling of a career, job opportunities....etc. There is NO free lunch. If you willfully decide to relinquish paid work in an established career to do something else......there'll be a consequence. And for some, not always negative.
The most compelling thing is the support that each spouse/partner/whatever... gives the other. And in the end, it takes someone who has certainty in the choices they are making.
Generalizing it to some new paradigm that society needs to implement is pointless.
|
|