Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 13:05:03 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! I disagree with your first statement. I had a Senior Manager title at my firm but I was on a flex schedule with limited travel. At the end of the day, when an emergency with my kdis happened I was the one who took care of it. If they got sick, 95% of the time I took care of them. If they had a school function, 100% of the time I went and the ex didn't. he put his career above his children and I put my children above my career. I'm not saying either is right but those putting their career first should be paid more than those like me who didn't.
Society judging you is not the same as your employer discriminating against you.
|
|
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 13:13:22 GMT -5
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. You are correct in that I am describing the worker outcomes. I believe, but can not prove, the dynamic of assuming childcare is a woman's responsibility leads to women being offered fewer opportunities than men. And as this thread is showing, if women do choose to scale down because of family issues they are considered less deserving. I think men get treated even harsher should they make the mistake of going against workplace and social mores and cut back for family reasons.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 13:17:58 GMT -5
But what you are describing has nothing to do with discrimination. You are correct in that I am describing the worker outcomes. I believe, but can not prove, the dynamic of assuming childcare is a woman's responsibility leads to women being offered fewer opportunities than men. And as this thread is showing, if women do choose to scale down because of family issues they are considered less deserving. I think men get treated even harsher should they make the mistake of going against workplace and social mores and cut back for family reasons. I am one of those that chose to scale back to take care of my children. Are you saying I should have been paid the same as someone who put their career above all else? That I should have been given the same promotions as those willing to work 80 hour weeks and travel?
|
|
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 13:20:56 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 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. I agree.
However, if you were willing to travel/work until 11/address that last minute emergency and you got passed over for a guy because it was assumed you wouldn't go, that wouldn't be right. And it does happen.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 9, 2016 13:33:40 GMT -5
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. I agree.
However, if you were willing to travel/work until 11/address that last minute emergency and you got passed over for a guy because it was assumed you wouldn't go, that wouldn't be right. And it does happen.
And often it doesn't. I've worked in software for over 35 years. In more than one of the places that I worked, any person who had the qualifications was given the additional responsibilities, promoted, did team lead....whatever. Actually, the managers that I observed were concerned not to make any assumptions about anyone's personal life. More often, those(men and women) who were the best technically, might not get promoted because their skills were best used as individual contributors. Often those with the strongest personalities were placed in leadership roles. JMHO. In my observation, many, not all, many, women are more concerned with being liked than getting ahead. The fear is that someone or "they" won't think I'm a good/nice person. Often, that way of thinking will hold you back.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 13, 2024 17:21:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2016 13:43:15 GMT -5
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! I've run into that, too. The same behavior is interpreted differently for women and for men. I used to work for a GE sub and they had a program in which very select candidates who were on the fast track rotated through 6 or so GE subs over a period of 2 years. I was talking with the wife of a guy in the program; she'd been on the fast track, too, but quit when they had a baby. I told her how great it was that I saw more men leaving early to coach a soccer game or pick up kids at daycare. "Yeah", she said, "but I'll know things have really changed when women who do that are seen in a positive light, too". She nailed it. Women who leave early for family-related reasons are considered Mommy-tracked, even if they do a crapton of work after they put the kids to bed at night.
That program, BTW, is a perfect example of old-style corporate America thinking which is hostile to two-career families. It pretty much prevents the other partner from having any kind of career unless it's something they can manage at home and/or on-line. I'm sure GE welcomed female applicants with children, but I suspect that the majority of candidates with children, who had a partner willing to give up their career for 2 years, were men.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,157
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 9, 2016 13:44:55 GMT -5
"So, how do I combine a career and marriage/kids?", thought/said no man ever.
Again, how many men have given up a family for a job opportunity? Well, now our family is an interesting case study. DH and BIL. Both boys, same genetic material, raise with the same parents. My husband (DH) gave up having a career to be with me. Now that the peanut is school aged, he's looking for jobs that still allow him to be flexible enough to take care of sick kids, days off of school,etc. We've got two more years of a super tight budget. If we can hold on to him working part time for two more years, part time he will stay permanently, so that he can be available to take care of his aging parents. It's coming. Now enter BIL. Had tenure at a very good public university before he hit 35. BIL got married at 36, to a 42 (maybe 43 year old) women. Realistically, their chance of bio kids is getting smaller and smaller. Usually IVF clinics don't do procedures on women past 45, even with donor eggs. So you had one that gave up a career for a family and one that may give up a family for a career. No path is perfect. The head of my department has two kids about my age. His son in 42. Never married. Not dating anyone. At one point he was VP of something at fortune 500 company. He left and is working for a smaller company now. Makes enough that he could buy a house in downtown Chicago and completely gut it and re-do it. Then there's some good college friends of mine. They were childless by choice. Because being in a band and performing on top of working full time doesn't leave much time for kids. So, no kids because of pursuing two careers.
|
|
giramomma
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 11:25:27 GMT -5
Posts: 22,157
|
Post by giramomma on Mar 9, 2016 13:50:05 GMT -5
DH was a full time SAHD for two years, and then got a part time job.
He took a few interviews, in which people FELL all over him, saying what a great dad he was and how noble/honorable/wonderful/important it was for him to be a SAHD.
Still pisses me off. Because you know darn well people don't say that about women.
Except my son. Now, my son tells me I deserve a medal for figuring out a way to balance it all. He does not say the same thing about DH.
|
|
The Fonz
Initiate Member
Ayyyyy!!
Joined: Sept 25, 2011 2:46:09 GMT -5
Posts: 87
|
Post by The Fonz on Mar 9, 2016 13:53:11 GMT -5
There is discrimination in even getting the job in the first place. I sat in on a "core team" meeting at a different facility from where I work at and they were deciding between two applicants. One was a male and just graduated and the other was an experienced female. The female head of that facility stated "we should go with the male because he won't take time off due to pregnancy." Me, a social worker just stared at her dumbfounded.
There are still definite perceptions of what genders are "worth" in the workplace, by both male and female managers. I hope this changes over time, but dismissing its reality and instead engaging in conversations like these, and more importantly making HR and managers aware that this exists can go a long way towards closing the gap.
|
|
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 14:01:00 GMT -5
You are correct in that I am describing the worker outcomes. I believe, but can not prove, the dynamic of assuming childcare is a woman's responsibility leads to women being offered fewer opportunities than men. And as this thread is showing, if women do choose to scale down because of family issues they are considered less deserving. I think men get treated even harsher should they make the mistake of going against workplace and social mores and cut back for family reasons. I am one of those that chose to scale back to take care of my children. Are you saying I should have been paid the same as someone who put their career above all else? That I should have been given the same promotions as those willing to work 80 hour weeks and travel? I wasn't alluding to your questions at all. I think women overall get less opportunities simply because they are women and are assumed to do the bulk of the childcare. Things seem to have worked out for you, however some workplaces would have kept you on the lesser track after scaling down for kids even if you wanted to put more hours in again.
I think its dangerous to believe that one's work life is totally or mostly controlled by what you have done/chosen and ignore that society does influence how men/women/blacks etc. can contribute at work. I am likely less impressed than others with people who put in massive hours at work. I've noticed a lot more downtime and schmoozing in those 80 hours than in some hardworking 40 hour or even PT folks.
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Mar 9, 2016 14:13:33 GMT -5
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! I've run into that, too. The same behavior is interpreted differently for women and for men. I used to work for a GE sub and they had a program in which very select candidates who were on the fast track rotated through 6 or so GE subs over a period of 2 years. I was talking with the wife of a guy in the program; she'd been on the fast track, too, but quit when they had a baby. I told her how great it was that I saw more men leaving early to coach a soccer game or pick up kids at daycare. "Yeah", she said, "but I'll know things have really changed when women who do that are seen in a positive light, too". She nailed it. Women who leave early for family-related reasons are considered Mommy-tracked, even if they do a crapton of work after they put the kids to bed at night.
That program, BTW, is a perfect example of old-style corporate America thinking which is hostile to two-career families. It pretty much prevents the other partner from having any kind of career unless it's something they can manage at home and/or on-line. I'm sure GE welcomed female applicants with children, but I suspect that the majority of candidates with children, who had a partner willing to give up their career for 2 years, ere men.
I worked for GE in the early 80's . That program was called the Edison program(resulted in a Masters in Engineering in our unit). You took in house courses directly related to the products being developed there. In our case it was sonar and radar technologies. You rotated through different assignments during the few years of the program and took some additional courses at the local university. There were a few women in the program that I worked with. The thing was, for the most part this was a program that people entered right after college. When applying to GE you did so directly to the program. So, for the most part, those that were in were for all purposes, were still in the middle of their education. If one decides to start a family while they are attempting to complete their training, it is understandable that one might have to drop out. Foolish choice to make(if it was planned) considering what she was risking and then giving up.
|
|
wanttofire
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 14, 2013 21:04:56 GMT -5
Posts: 55
|
Post by wanttofire on Mar 9, 2016 14:41:16 GMT -5
Marry the right partner! This would take care of the part where women are the main caretakers.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 14:55:27 GMT -5
I am one of those that chose to scale back to take care of my children. Are you saying I should have been paid the same as someone who put their career above all else? That I should have been given the same promotions as those willing to work 80 hour weeks and travel? I wasn't alluding to your questions at all. I think women overall get less opportunities simply because they are women and are assumed to do the bulk of the childcare. Things seem to have worked out for you, however some workplaces would have kept you on the lesser track after scaling down for kids even if you wanted to put more hours in again.
I think its dangerous to believe that one's work life is totally or mostly controlled by what you have done/chosen and ignore that society does influence how men/women/blacks etc. can contribute at work. I am likely less impressed than others with people who put in massive hours at work. I've noticed a lot more downtime and schmoozing in those 80 hours than in some hardworking 40 hour or even PT folks.
No, once you are mommy tracked you are pretty much mommy tracked at my old firm. I can't blame them. They knew that my kids came first and Im ok with that. Once I was ready to jump back in I found a new job. I can assure you that I am not paid less than my male counterparts...I know this because I know what everyone gets paid. As for the hours, that might be true in some professions but not in public accounting. Busy season was horrible. Before kids I would work 7 days a week for weeks at a clip. Trust me, I didn't want to be there and worked as efficiently as I could. At the end of the day, there is a lot of work to get done in a short period of time
|
|
wanttofire
Initiate Member
Joined: Dec 14, 2013 21:04:56 GMT -5
Posts: 55
|
Post by wanttofire on Mar 9, 2016 15:14:36 GMT -5
I would tell you, I've been guilty of assuming what someone wants. I was planning some audits that requires travel and had discarded a woman because she just had twins and thought she didnt want to travel. Well, when asking for volunteers she volunteered! That was my lesson. And I'm a woman
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 15:25:29 GMT -5
I agree.
However, if you were willing to travel/work until 11/address that last minute emergency and you got passed over for a guy because it was assumed you wouldn't go, that wouldn't be right. And it does happen.
And often it doesn't. I've worked in software for over 35 years. In more than one of the places that I worked, any person who had the qualifications was given the additional responsibilities, promoted, did team lead....whatever. Actually, the managers that I observed were concerned not to make any assumptions about anyone's personal life. More often, those(men and women) who were the best technically, might not get promoted because their skills were best used as individual contributors. Often those with the strongest personalities were placed in leadership roles. JMHO. In my observation, many, not all, many, women are more concerned with being liked than getting ahead. The fear is that someone or "they" won't think I'm a good/nice person. Often, that way of thinking will hold you back. I so agree with this statement. For my last promotion I was up against a VERY NICE guy who is probably one of the smartest guys I know. He knows this business inside and out. Truth be told, he is more qualified than me in every respect expect his leadership abilities. He is just a nice that nice of a guy. We both interviewed for the position all the way to our parent company...I got the position because of my personality. I came across as more of a leader than he did. And to be fair, it is true. He could never terminate someone and he sheltered an underperforming employee much longer than he should have. In our case, we are both smart but he was more qualified than me (I have no problem admitting that!) but I got the job because his personality is not that of senior management. So it isn't always cut and dry.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,148
|
Post by alabamagal on Mar 9, 2016 15:44:37 GMT -5
I don't feel like I have ever been treated unfairly due to gender. I know I make the same as my male coworkers.
At my previous job we hired male and female engineers at the same starting salary. Maybe I'm biased, but most of the female engineers did better in their job because a lot of the males had the personality of engineers, but the females were better at communication.
Even though I have 3 kids I was never on the mommy track. I never took more than 8 weeks off for childbirth. For 2 of my kids we hit the timing just right so that DH stayed home for summer when I went back to work (he was a school teacher). He quit his job just prior to 3rd child and plan was for him to stay home. That lasted 3 months, then he started a business where he could be flexible with kids schedule. I traveled for work , not a lot, but I had a few overseas trips that lasted up to 5 weeks.
I know of many successful women engineers.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 15:47:25 GMT -5
I don't feel like I have ever been treated unfairly due to gender. I know I make the same as my male coworkers. At my previous job we hired male and female engineers at the same starting salary. Maybe I'm biased, but most of the female engineers did better in their job because a lot of the males had the personality of engineers, but the females were better at communication. Even though I have 3 kids I was never on the mommy track. I never took more than 8 weeks off for childbirth. For 2 of my kids we hit the timing just right so that DH stayed home for summer when I went back to work (he was a school teacher). He quit his job just prior to 3rd child and plan was for him to stay home. That lasted 3 months, then he started a business where he could be flexible with kids schedule. I traveled for work , not a lot, but I had a few overseas trips that lasted up to 5 weeks. I know of many successful women engineers. I think what we are getting is that it is difficult for there to be two successful people in a marriage. Traditionally the woman took the backseat and let the man focus on work. That isn't discrimination but choice. But times are changing and perhaps my daughter's generation will have more women like you and less like me.
|
|
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 15:55:17 GMT -5
All this arguing is outrageous. You can discuss the validity of stereotypes all you want, but when it comes down to it, when those stereotypes translate into HIRING and PAYMENT of employees, that is gender discrimination.
It's been scientifically proven:
If you send a hiring manager two identical resumes, one with a woman's name on it, and one with a man's name, that hiring manager is more likely to hire the man and more likely to offer them more money than the woman.
The same thing occurs if the name is "traditionally" a minority name. Like Shanekwa or something. She is likely to be offered less money than a person named "Lisa".
This is true whether the hiring person is male or female.
The taller you are, the more money you make.
Blah blah blah. I get so tired of this stuff on message boards because I live it every day.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Mar 9, 2016 15:56:53 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that I get paid less than my male co-workers. There are a few that I'm sure do and should make more than I do. There are others that should make less than I do, but I suspect they do not. However, discussing salary is frowned upon where I work, so I probably won't know for sure.
I do know that if I want opportunities at work I have to fight harder than my male colleagues. There is a boys club (our leadership team only has one woman), and opportunities are often handed to the men I work with while the women have to fight for opportunities to take on new and/or big projects. But, it is what it is. All I can do is worth harder to make sure that more women make the leadership teams of organizations so that opportunities for advancement are provided equally to men and women.
|
|
techguy
Junior Member
Joined: May 1, 2013 15:59:05 GMT -5
Posts: 172
|
Post by techguy on Mar 9, 2016 15:57:07 GMT -5
...At my previous job we hired male and female engineers at the same starting salary... Yup! If women did get paid significantly less than men for the same job, why don't companies hire only women to save on payroll ?? I don't see this happening!
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 16:00:10 GMT -5
All this arguing is outrageous. You can discuss the validity of stereotypes all you want, but when it comes down to it, when those stereotypes translate into HIRING and PAYMENT of employees, that is gender discrimination. It's been scientifically proven: If you send a hiring manager two identical resumes, one with a woman's name on it, and one with a man's name, that hiring manager is more likely to hire the man and more likely to offer them more money than the woman. The same thing occurs if the name is "traditionally" a minority name. Like Shanekwa or something. She is likely to be offered less money than a person named "Lisa". This is true whether the hiring person is male or female. The taller you are, the more money you make. Blah blah blah. I get so tired of this stuff on message boards because I live it every day. I don't think discrimination against women has been scientifically proven. Women make less than men...what we don't agree on is why we make less than men.
When I hire I have a range that I can pay. I start at the low end. I can tell you that men are much more likely to negotiate me hire while a woman tends to accept what I offer. That isn't my issue. I'm still paying within the acceptable range. I have had a few guys ask for crazy salaries (none of them got it btw)...I can't remember one female shooting for the stars.
So while I agree that men make more, what is the reason behind it? Is it because of women having to deal with the children? Is it because women aren't aggressive in negotiations? Is it discrimination?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 16:01:06 GMT -5
...At my previous job we hired male and female engineers at the same starting salary... Yup! If women did get paid significantly less than men for the same job, why don't companies hire only women to save on payroll ?? I don't see this happening! That is an excellent point. I don't see it, either.
|
|
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 16:09:31 GMT -5
All this arguing is outrageous. You can discuss the validity of stereotypes all you want, but when it comes down to it, when those stereotypes translate into HIRING and PAYMENT of employees, that is gender discrimination. It's been scientifically proven: If you send a hiring manager two identical resumes, one with a woman's name on it, and one with a man's name, that hiring manager is more likely to hire the man and more likely to offer them more money than the woman. The same thing occurs if the name is "traditionally" a minority name. Like Shanekwa or something. She is likely to be offered less money than a person named "Lisa". This is true whether the hiring person is male or female. The taller you are, the more money you make. Blah blah blah. I get so tired of this stuff on message boards because I live it every day. I don't think discrimination against women has been scientifically proven. Women make less than men...what we don't agree on is why we make less than men.
When I hire I have a range that I can pay. I start at the low end. I can tell you that men are much more likely to negotiate me hire while a woman tends to accept what I offer. That isn't my issue. I'm still paying within the acceptable range. I have had a few guys ask for crazy salaries (none of them got it btw)...I can't remember one female shooting for the stars.
So while I agree that men make more, what is the reason behind it? Is it because of women having to deal with the children? Is it because women aren't aggressive in negotiations? Is it discrimination?
The studies and situations above are from a scientific experiment that has been published. I can try to find the link of you are interested. If merely having a WOMAN'S name gets you tossed in the reject pile, how can you possibly argue that is not gender discrimination? I refuse to get into this with you.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Mar 9, 2016 16:36:54 GMT -5
I don't think discrimination against women has been scientifically proven. Women make less than men...what we don't agree on is why we make less than men.
When I hire I have a range that I can pay. I start at the low end. I can tell you that men are much more likely to negotiate me hire while a woman tends to accept what I offer. That isn't my issue. I'm still paying within the acceptable range. I have had a few guys ask for crazy salaries (none of them got it btw)...I can't remember one female shooting for the stars.
So while I agree that men make more, what is the reason behind it? Is it because of women having to deal with the children? Is it because women aren't aggressive in negotiations? Is it discrimination?
The studies and situations above are from a scientific experiment that has been published. I can try to find the link of you are interested. If merely having a WOMAN'S name gets you tossed in the reject pile, how can you possibly argue that is not gender discrimination? I refuse to get into this with you. I would appreciate the link. I just did a quick Google search and I see a lot on black names getting tossed but I can't find one single article on female names getting tossed
|
|
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 17:01:11 GMT -5
www.pnas.org/content/111/12/4403.abstract
Does discrimination contribute to the low percentage of women in mathematics and science careers? We designed an experiment to isolate discrimination’s potential effect. Without provision of information about candidates other than their appearance, men are twice more likely to be hired for a mathematical task than women. If ability is self-reported, women still are discriminated against, because employers do not fully account for men’s tendency to boast about performance. Providing full information about candidates’ past performance reduces discrimination but does not eliminate it.
Here's one link. No information means physical appearance only. Employers can only pick between two candidates. Low performer number is the percentage of times they picked the lower performer, and male low performer is the percentage of times the male was the lower performer and picked as the employee. In this case past performance was about math tasks and how well the candidates did on adding 4 figure sums. Notice in Cheap talk, when the information is the candidate's self reporting on performance, if a low performer is picked, the odds are 92% they are male.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,494
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 9, 2016 17:18:51 GMT -5
...At my previous job we hired male and female engineers at the same starting salary... Yup! If women did get paid significantly less than men for the same job, why don't companies hire only women to save on payroll ?? I don't see this happening! Actually, there are some 'traditional' women's work type jobs that are still relatively low paid AND held by mostly by women - even though men could do the work. (dental assistants, hotel maids, grade school teachers, pre school teachers, librarians). Admin Assistants (ie secretaries), Legal assistants, nurses, and any sort of front office support are generally women.
But if you look at types of work and pay overall - the "mostly women workers" type jobs are generally lower paid jobs (sometimes dead end jobs). A woman may also get 'pidgeon holed' in a job and have trouble moving out of a lower paid position even though she may get more responsibility/authority than the job requires without getting an increase in pay.
Of course, this thread is more about white collar jobs - with potentially large employers who's HR departments are more likely to attempt to avoid discrimination... so I do agree that at that level any discrimination is bit more 'subtle' than the old fashion out and out asking or telling a female employee that since she's so 'reliable' she can take on some additional duties (without any extra pay - because the guy they'd mostly like hire with the skill set for the job would want the higher wage OR if they promoted a guy from within to do the extra duties - he'd expect a higher wage and when one wasn't offered he demand it.).
And by subtle I mean something along the lines of a woman manager being inadvertently excluded from the off the cuff discussions the male managers might have in the locker room (at the office gym) or if the male managers routinely have "drinks" after work which the woman can attend (because of family commitments).
A lot of career building stuff happens outside the office environment once you hit management. It might not effect "worker bees" so much but it definitely effects those climbing the corporate ladder (or any job that requires "salesmanship").
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Mar 9, 2016 17:51:10 GMT -5
Yup! If women did get paid significantly less than men for the same job, why don't companies hire only women to save on payroll ?? I don't see this happening! Actually, there are some 'traditional' women's work type jobs that are still relatively low paid AND held by mostly by women - even though men could do the work. (dental assistants, hotel maids, grade school teachers, pre school teachers, librarians). Admin Assistants (ie secretaries), Legal assistants, nurses, and any sort of front office support are generally women.
But if you look at types of work and pay overall - the "mostly women workers" type jobs are generally lower paid jobs (sometimes dead end jobs). A woman may also get 'pidgeon holed' in a job and have trouble moving out of a lower paid position even though she may get more responsibility/authority than the job requires without getting an increase in pay.
Of course, this thread is more about white collar jobs - with potentially large employers who's HR departments are more likely to attempt to avoid discrimination... so I do agree that at that level any discrimination is bit more 'subtle' than the old fashion out and out asking or telling a female employee that since she's so 'reliable' she can take on some additional duties (without any extra pay - because the guy they'd mostly like hire with the skill set for the job would want the higher wage OR if they promoted a guy from within to do the extra duties - he'd expect a higher wage and when one wasn't offered he demand it.).
And by subtle I mean something along the lines of a woman manager being inadvertently excluded from the off the cuff discussions the male managers might have in the locker room (at the office gym) or if the male managers routinely have "drinks" after work which the woman can attend (because of family commitments).
A lot of career building stuff happens outside the office environment once you hit management. It might not effect "worker bees" so much but it definitely effects those climbing the corporate ladder (or any job that requires "salesmanship").
This happens to some extent where I work. Our senior management team, is almost all men (there is one woman on the team), and it isn't unusual for them to socialize without the female member of the leadership team. And, at times there are more junior male staffers who are invited to socialize (well go drinking) with the CEO and a few other members of the team. While most of it is just socializing they do talk shop, and I know that the female member of the leadership team gets left out of some key conversations. It also provides some of the more junior male staffers the opportunity to be privy to discussions and conversations that the rest of us are not. And it can on occasion result in additional opportunities for those staffers. It's a tricky situation. Because it's not done intentionally, and staff members who aren't specifically invited can't invite themselves to go out to drink with the CEO without looking ridiculous.
|
|
violagirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 17, 2011 11:04:54 GMT -5
Posts: 703
|
Post by violagirl on Mar 9, 2016 18:09:01 GMT -5
Are women more likely to be the ones who stay home with children etc because the man shirks his responsibility or is it because women can sometimes take it all on themselves and don't let their husbands do things?
I don't have kids but I have caught myself refolding towels and reloading dishwashers that weren't done "right", when really the towels were folded and the dishwasher was loaded. I could have saved myself the extra work.
I generally do most of the cooking at home so when my husband decides to cook, I have to basically not be in the kitchen or I will take over. I know that cooking grilled cheese sandwiches on high heat will not result in them cooking faster but I keep my mouth shut and eat the burned food.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Mar 9, 2016 18:16:12 GMT -5
The studies and situations above are from a scientific experiment that has been published. I can try to find the link of you are interested. If merely having a WOMAN'S name gets you tossed in the reject pile, how can you possibly argue that is not gender discrimination? I refuse to get into this with you. I would appreciate the link. I just did a quick Google search and I see a lot on black names getting tossed but I can't find one single article on female names getting tossed During my work career I hired directly, or participated in hiring hundreds of white and blue collar employees. During a time when staffing of a new manufacturing plant had us screening thousands of potential employees, I developed a pre-interview screening process to expedite things. The first step was to not even read the name of the candidate. I focused only on relevant information. Experience and work history. During my nearly 35 years as a hiring manager, two candidates are particularly memorable. The person that I refused to hire even though they came highly recommended by other managers. A young man who I believed was completely self serving. I hired a young woman who I felt would be more of a team player. The second memorable hire was a spectacularly outstanding young woman that I ended up recommending for a fully company paid MBA. I wish I was as smart and capable as that young lady.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Mar 9, 2016 18:16:23 GMT -5
The often quoted 78 cents figure is misleading. It only compares full time working men and women.
|
|