Male discrimination?

[js207]

is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children.

No - it is fucked up that you think it is "punishment" to lose salary for not doing a job for several years. If I suddenly decide I want to become an airline pilot now, should I get paid the same as someone who has been doing it since leaving school, i.e. has well over a decade more experience than me? You think if someone takes several years off, they should step back in as if they'd been working and gaining experience in the job all that time, even though they haven't? Would you be happy to be operated on by a surgeon who hasn't actually held a scalpel in years, but wants to pretend otherwise?

Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.

Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.

You have a point there. Of course, most measures that promote child-bearing make that problem worse...

[thir]

No - it is fucked up that you think it is "punishment" to lose salary for not doing a job for several years. If I suddenly decide I want to become an airline pilot now, should I get paid the same as someone who has been doing it since leaving school, i.e. has well over a decade more experience than me?

Why several years? There are day care institutions, and a father, mostly.

You think if someone takes several years off, they should step back in as if they'd been working and gaining experience in the job all that time, even though they haven't? Would you be happy to be operated on by a surgeon who hasn't actually held a scalpel in years, but wants to pretend otherwise?

So, we should stop having children?

[js207]

Why several years? There are day care institutions, and a father, mostly.

Most mothers - and indeed fathers - seem to want to spend time with their kids. Even if it means taking a cut in pay to do so. For various reasons, it's more likely to be the mother than the father doing this, particularly in the early stages: men tend not to be very good at breast feeding.

In my own family, my mother switched to working part-time as a languages teacher after I was born, having previously been a full time export manager. As a new and part-time teacher, of course she'd have been paid less than one with more experience, male or female - and that will have pulled the average for female teachers her age down slightly. I see Lucy agrees this is not "punishment"; I'm hoping we can now agree this isn't wrong, either? (Ban that, she'd have had to choose between being away from young children much more than she wanted as well as paying a babysitter, or not working at all. Obviously neither of those appealed to her.)

So, we should stop having children?

No - though that would reduce the "problem" being complained of in the short term, and eliminate it (and humanity) long term. What we should do first is understand that there are factors besides the salary at work - that, as already confirmed in academic research years ago, a large part of the "gap" in salaries is the result of different choices. Just as German cars tend to be more expensive than Korean: not because of some anti-German import tariffs, but because the German manufacturers sell into a more luxurious market segment: Mercedes, Audi, BMW versus Hyundai and co.

Back on the employment area: I have known very capable supersonic pilots, some of them female. There certainly are women who are perfectly capable of doing that job - but do as many women as men want to? I bet if you sit near a military recruiting office, you'll see more men than women going in; go to a nursing school, you'll see the opposite. Now, if you see a job advertised as "men only" or "women only" (and there are far, far more of the latter) for a reason besides actual biology (for example, sperm donation, surrogacy etc) I will agree it's wrong - but point to an occupation being largely one or the other gender as "proof" of discrimination and you'd better think again.

[Thorne]

but point to an occupation being largely one or the other gender as "proof" of discrimination and you'd better think again.

It's a bigger problem than that, really. Some of it has it's basis in childhood, where girls are steered towards the pretty pink toys and the dolls, while the boys are led to the trucks and sports. I recall a story (comment on a forum somewhere) about a guy who took his daughter into a toy store and she was upset because they didn't have any of the "cool" toys in the girls' section.

Even in schools, girls are encouraged to participate in traditionally girl classes, or into cheer leading instead of playing sports. That's changing, now, but some of the old stereotypes still prevail. So naturally, when a woman goes searching for work, she's going to gravitate towards more familiar areas. It may not be discrimination by the employers, but by society at large which is holding them back.

But the primary issue in the work force is the fact that, on average, women who do the same job as men, who have the same qualifications and skills, are still frequently paid at a lower rate. THAT is discrimination.

[Punish_her]

It's a bigger problem than that, really. Some of it has it's basis in childhood, where girls are steered towards the pretty pink toys and the dolls, while the boys are led to the trucks and sports. I recall a story (comment on a forum somewhere) about a guy who took his daughter into a toy store and she was upset because they didn't have any of the "cool" toys in the girls' section.

Even in schools, girls are encouraged to participate in traditionally girl classes, or into cheer leading instead of playing sports. That's changing, now, but some of the old stereotypes still prevail. So naturally, when a woman goes searching for work, she's going to gravitate towards more familiar areas. It may not be discrimination by the employers, but by society at large which is holding them back.

But the primary issue in the work force is the fact that, on average, women who do the same job as men, who have the same qualifications and skills, are still frequently paid at a lower rate. THAT is discrimination.

a few more points,
1) when you account for differences within the same field, ie a woman who takes no time off and has the commute roughly equal to a man and both work nearly identical hours, there is almost no variation in wage. think about it logically, if a business can hire a man for 10 $ an hour OR hire a woman for 7.50 $ an hour, nobody would ever hire a man. it does not make sense unless there'smore factors at work
2) I saw the video of the girl complaining about the toys, in my opinion, it's scripted. the father prompts her when she gets off topic.
3) Look up the Brenda/Brian case. I'll give a quick synopsis- a mother gave birth to twin boys. during circumcision, one of the boys had his penis essentially destroyed beyond all hopes of repair. the solution was to construct an artifical vagina, give the now her hormones, and raise her as a girl. in short, it was a train wreck, despite societal conditioning towards "girly" things, brenda (formerly brian) resisted tremendously- she (formerly he) insisted on peeing standing up, refused to wear dresses, and, in middle school, wanted to be a heavily tattooed, well muscled mechanic. society could not force this natural born boy to act like a girl

[Thorne]

1) it does not make sense unless there'smore factors at work

Except that I've actually seen it happen, a couple of times. Primarily, the persons who hired the men did so because he disliked having women in the work place, but when forced to (by law) he always paid them less.

3) Look up the Brenda/Brian case.

For clarity, it was Brenda/Bruce (Brian was the undamaged twin).

Yes, forcing a genetically male person to live as a girl would be a problem. But the question is not about what a girl is, but her preferences. If raised as a girl, given girls toys to play with, encouraged to like girly colors and things, would Brenda/Bruce reject those things in favor of more boyish toys? There's still a lot of work being done in this area, but some studies show that HOW a child is raised has a marked influence on her choices later in life.

As for standing while peeing, this is a societal preference, not a genetic predisposition. Brenda did not have a standard urethra, but urinated through a hole in her abdomen, probably through a tube. It would likely have been much easier standing!

[thir]

a few more points,
1) when you account for differences within the same field, ie a woman who takes no time off and has the commute roughly equal to a man and both work nearly identical hours, there is almost no variation in wage. think about it logically, if a business can hire a man for 10 $ an hour OR hire a woman for 7.50 $ an hour, nobody would ever hire a man. it does not make sense unless there'smore factors at work

there are other factors at work. In DK in 2010 the difference in pay was 17.7%, which seemed about the average for Europe, and the equal work-equal pay campaign went on.

US:
• " ‘The wage gap hasn't moved significantly in nearly a decade’

For ever dollar a man makes in California, a woman holding the same job is paid 84 cents, according to a new report from the American Association of University Women.

California ties with Vermont for the 84 percent earnings ratio, the report says. In Washington, D.C., where equal pay laws and regulations have been formulated, the gap is the least – 91 cents for every dollar a man makes in the same job, the report says.

The state with the worst earnings ratio is Wyoming, where women make 64 percent of men's earnings.

The national average puts women at just 77 percent."
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstime.../001/?ID=20814

2) I saw the video of the girl complaining about the toys, in my opinion, it's scripted. the father prompts her when she gets off topic.

How convincing, one example. What is that supposed to show?

3) Look up the Brenda/Brian case. I'll give a quick synopsis- a mother gave birth to twin boys. during circumcision, one of the boys had his penis essentially destroyed beyond all hopes of repair. the solution was to construct an artifical vagina, give the now her hormones, and raise her as a girl. in short, it was a train wreck, despite societal conditioning towards "girly" things, brenda (formerly brian) resisted tremendously- she (formerly he) insisted on peeing standing up, refused to wear dresses, and, in middle school, wanted to be a heavily tattooed, well muscled mechanic. society could not force this natural born boy to act like a girl

What is your point?

[Punish_her]

and i didnt mean that there'smore spending on women because they are already in college: there are more subsidies and grants available for women than men

[thir]

Most mothers - and indeed fathers - seem to want to spend time with their kids. Even if it means taking a cut in pay to do so. For various reasons, it's more likely to be the mother than the father doing this, particularly in the early stages: men tend not to be very good at breast feeding.

In my own family, my mother switched to working part-time as a languages teacher after I was born, having previously been a full time export manager. <snip>(Ban that, she'd have had to choose between being away from young children much more than she wanted as well as paying a babysitter, or not working at all. Obviously neither of those appealed to her.)

Back on the employment area: I have known very capable supersonic pilots, some of them female. There certainly are women who are perfectly capable of doing that job - but do as many women as men want to? I bet if you sit near a military recruiting office, you'll see more men than women going in; go to a nursing school, you'll see the opposite. Now, if you see a job advertised as "men only" or "women only" (and there are far, far more of the latter) for a reason besides actual biology (for example, sperm donation, surrogacy etc) I will agree it's wrong - but point to an occupation being largely one or the other gender as "proof" of discrimination and you'd better think again.

I wonder what women would choose if they really had a choice? No daycare, no chance of going part-time with the father so the children could have maximum benefit of both? It is children, or career, end of story.

As long as these things do not exist, the women do not have choices, nor do the children, IMO, have the full benefit of a father.