Categories
antifeminism further reading

>Further Reading: The Gender Pay Gap

>

Men’s Rights Myth: The Pay Gap between men and women doesn’t exist, but if it does, it’s because women choose to take lesser paying jobs, or because they decide to have kids, or because men work more dangerous jobs, or something.

The Truth: It’s complicated. Some of those things do make a difference. But no matter how you crunch the numbers or spin the results, there is a persistent pay gap between men and women that can’t be explained away by life choices or any of the other factors that MRAs and others suggest may “really” account for the differences.

You want the gory details? Check out these articles, studies and blog posts.

AAUW (American Association of University Women): The Gender Pay Gap

Women have made remarkable strides in education during the past three decades, but these gains have yet to translate into full equity in pay — even for college-educated women who work full time. A typical college-educated woman 25 years and older working full time earns $50,000 a year compared to $70,000 for college-educated male workers 25 years and older — a difference of $20,000! …

For the entire full-time workforce, a typical woman earned $35,745 compared with $46,367 for a typical man, a pay difference of $10,622.

EXAMINING THE CRACKS IN THE CEILING: A SURVEY OF CORPORATE DIVERSITY PRACTICES OF THE S&P 100 (Calvert investments)

The “Glass Ceiling” is still a problem (emphasis added):

We remain disheartened by the glacial pace at which women and minorities are reaching the upper echelons of power. … Of the 100 CEOs represented [in the S&P 100], 92 are Caucasian males. While women make up approximately 18% of director positions within the S&P 100, they represent only 8.4% of the highest paid positions within the same group of companies, positions that provide the opportunities to develop the expertise and networks needed for future board-level appointments.

Why Do Women Still Earn Less Than Men? by Laura Fitzpatrick (Time magazine)

U.S. women still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar in 2008, according to the latest census statistics. (That number drops to 68% for African-American women and 58% for Latinas.) …

Once you control for factors like education and experience … women’s earnings rise to 81% of men’s. Factor in occupation, industry and whether they belong to a union, and they jump to 91%. That’s partly because women tend to cluster in lower-paying fields. …

But industry doesn’t tell the whole story. Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 …  Female secretaries … earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers … earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts.

Women’s Earnings: Work Patterns Partially Explain Difference between Men’s and Women’s Earnings (GAO report, 2003) (Emphasis added)

Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key. Specifically, women have fewer years of work experience, work fewer hours per year, are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men. Other factors that account for earnings differences include industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. When we account for differences between male and female work patterns as well as other key factors, women earned, on average, 80 percent of what men earned in 2000. While the difference fluctuated in each year we studied, there was a small but statistically significant decline in the earnings difference over the time period. Even after accounting for key factors that affect earnings, our model could not explain all of the difference in earnings between men and women. … we cannot determine whether this remaining difference is due to discrimination or other factors that may affect earnings.

Blaming Women’s Choices for the Gender Pay Gap, by Hilary M. Lips

The language attributing women’s lower pay to their own lifestyle choices is seductive—in an era when women are widely believed to have overcome the most serious forms of discrimination … Women work in lower-paid occupations; on average they work fewer paid hours per week and fewer paid weeks per year than men do; their employment is more likely than men’s to be discontinuous. …

However, a closer look reveals that the language of “choice” obscures larger social forces that maintain the wage gap and the very real constraints under which women labor. The impact of discrimination, far from being limited to the portion of the wage gap that cannot be accounted for by women’s choices, is actually deeply embedded in and constrains these choices.

See also:

The Gender Wage Gap: Debunking the Rationalizations, by Hilary M. Lips

Confronting the Gender Gap in Wages, by Deborah Kolb, Judith Williams, and Carol Frohlinger 

Barry Deutsch at Alas, a blog has written a series of excellent posts analyzing various antifeminist pay gap myths. Let’s take a look at some of the highlights:

Wage Gap Myth: The pay gap only exists because men work so many more hours than women.

[T]he argument is generally that the pay gap … has nothing to do with discrimination. … Women are paid less because they work so many fewer hours …

According to a [Department of Labor] web page in 2001 … comparing only hourly wages, women were paid 83.2% of what men were paid in 2000. 83.2% is a noticible difference from the 76% figure for weekly full-time wages – but it still leaves the majority of the pay gap unaccounted for.

Myth: The pay gap only exists because women take time off from work to raise kids.

[T]he average female worker has 12.79 years of full-time experience, while the average male worker has 17.41. This difference accounted for between 26% and 30% of the total wage gap.

Myth: The pay gap only exists because women haven’t been in the workplace as long as men

In this view, the pay gap is only still around because women only recently entered the workforce; as such, women haven’t had as much time to work their way up the employment ladder to the well-paid positions. …

[E]xactly how long must we wait…? A woman who had been in the workforce five years when the Equal Pay Act was passed [in 1963] might well be retired by now, and the pay gap still hasn’t gone away.

Myth: The best way to measure the pay gap is to consider only the young and the childless

[T]he effects of discrimination add up over a lifetime. So, for example, losing a single job offer or promotion usually won’t make a big difference; but dozens of such small losses over the course of women’s careers eventually add up to a big wage gap.

Myth: If women really got paid less for similar work, then employers would replace all of the male workers with female workers

Some industries have, in effect, saved money by gradually replacing a male work force with a female work force. But there are many reasons employers might retain a male workforce, even though … men are paid more on average.

Evidence of Discrimination

[E]xamples that clearly demonstrate that economic discrimination against women, contrary to the claims of the anti-feminists, is a real problem.

Myth: The Wage Gap is Caused by Men’s Higher Pay for Dangerous Jobs

It’s true that men are much more likely to die or to be injured on the job than women. Surely no one would be willing to risk their life without getting paid a premium for it; and no reasonable person would argue that extra pay for extra danger is unjust. …

The problem is, there is no premium for dangerous jobs. And since the “danger premium” doesn’t really exist, it can’t explain the wage gap.

Myth: The CONSAD report clearly refutes the notion that there is pay discrimination

There are important kinds of direct employer discrimination which CONSAD’s methods cannot measure or disprove. For example, some employers are more likely to hire women to lower-paid positions and men to higher-paid positions. (Empirical testing – by sending male and female testers to apply for the same jobs — has proven that this sort of sexist occupational sorting sometimes happens.) … 

[P]robably the most important kind of sexism going into the wage gap is the sexism of unquestioned assumptions; unquestioned assumptions about who does the housework, unquestioned assumptions about who does the child-rearing, unquestioned assumptions about innate ability, and most of all, unquestioned assumptions about how jobs are designed for people with wives at home.

I call this last factor the “Father Knows Best” economy; most jobs implicitly assume that workers have wives at home who are taking care of the kids and house, so that these responsibilities never need to be accommodated by employers. Maybe that assumption made sense half a century ago, but it doesn’t make sense now; and by continuing to implicitly make this assumption, our economy is making it unfairly difficult for caretakers (who are usually women) to have careers.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

113 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J. Durden
10 years ago

>If companies could get away with paying a woman who has equal experience and education to a man less money for the same position, why would they ever hire men in the first place?

Sandy
10 years ago

>J. Durden, did you even read this post? Some industries have, in effect, saved money by gradually replacing a male work force with a female work force. But there are many reasons employers might retain a male workforce, even though … men are paid more on average.

ScareCrow
10 years ago

>You keep posting links to things like "aauw", "womens media" – clearly biased.aauw accepts donations to "combat the problem".If there were no problem – they would get no donations – would they.Also, it seems like many of the links you provide – explain why there is a wage-gap (and it has nothing to do with "sexism").What exactly is the purpose of this post?To back up MRA claims?That is what most of the links you provide do – except the ones that are accepting donations.Get a clue.But of course, you'll just brush me off and tell me to "read" your post eh…

Sandy
10 years ago

>Scarcrow: are cancer research facilities unreliable sources for the extent of the problem of cancer?If there is a problem in their methodology, point it out. You cannot just throw out an argument because of the source.

Sandy
10 years ago

>I also like how you put read in quotes. "Read", pshaw, whatever that means.

Cold
10 years ago

>As usual, not one specific employer who pays women less than men for doing the same job at the same proficiency with the same seniority is named, NOT ONE. Gee, could that be because the claim is bullshit and if any specific employer were named, a libel suit would result?

Sandy
10 years ago

>Cold, that is some very sloppy thinking. It does not matter what a specific employer. Statistically, a woman makes less than a man for the same work, and the difference is not accounted for in hours worked, experience, time off, or any other factor that has been examined. It is true whether you compare all jobs or like jobs. It would not prove or disprove anything if we cited examples of specific employers behaviors without a statistical analysis.

Cold
10 years ago

>It most certainly DOES matter, because you can't actually identify any discriminators, then it's VERY sloppy thinking to claim that discrimination has anything to do with the income gap.

Sandy
10 years ago

>No, it is not sloppy thinking, Cold. This is statistical evidence of discrimination because there is a real difference between the groups that cannot be fully explained by any other factor.Even if it is not due to discrimination, it is a real difference, not explained by factors such due to choice, which makes it a problem.

Cold
10 years ago

>Oh, and statistically, men are four times more likely to kill themselves and ten times more likely to wind up in prison, but you'll probably chalk that up to "life choices".

Sandy
10 years ago

>No, I would not. It is also a serious problem that men are more likely to kill themselves and be in prisoned, and a serious problem that black people are more likely to be in prison.I do not need affidavits from individual judges stating that they sentence black men to longer sentences because they are black men to know there is discrimination. I can see it because a singe factor: race, is a predictor of sentencing, while no other factors explain the difference.The same is true for the gender gap. A factor: gender, effects differences in wages, and other factors do not fully explain the difference.

Cold
10 years ago

>If it's not due to discrimination then I don't give a shit about it because we're talking about differences in outcome instead of differences in opportunity. An individual who is not facing any discrimination can take it upon him/herself to find the best-paying job that his/her skills and experience justify, or start his/her own business and run it to the best of his/her ability. Incidentally, female entrepreneurs enjoy "positive discrimination" in the form of government grants.

Sandy
10 years ago

>My point is we have not found any factor that is a personal choice that explains the difference, and that is a problem.

Cold
10 years ago

>"I can see it because a singe factor: race, is a predictor of sentencing, while no other factors explain the difference."Does this hold true when you remove EVERY other variable, i.e. nature of the crime, past criminal history, etc.?"A factor: gender, effects differences in wages, and other factors do not fully explain the difference."This is practically creationist logic. "Science doesn't explain this perfectly and fully, therefore God did it." Except in this case, other factors actually do explain it just fine, but David sites biased sources that look for ways to handwave away those explanations.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Yes, it holds true when you remove every variable. The same for the gender wage gap.It is not creationist logic. Gender, unlike god, is a testable factor. We can see that gender effects wage and other factors do not explain the difference. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that it is the gender that is causing the wage difference.

Cold
10 years ago

>Actually it's a faulty analogy to compare judges and employers for two important reasons:1. Judges don't have any of their own money riding on their decision; it costs them nothing to be prejudiced in their decision-making as long as nobody can ever prove it. Employers, on the other hand, are throwing their own money away if they don't hire the best-qualified person for a job.2. If you don't like the decisions your employer makes, you can quit and find another job. If you don't like the sentencing decisions a judge makes, you don't have the option of finding someone else to sentence you.

Sandy
10 years ago

>It is not a faulty analogy because we are not arguing over whether the Judge or employers behavior is a problem or one is bigger problem than the other, we are arguing over whether we can tell there is discrimination without asking the individual decision makers or examining the individual decision makers decisions.God, your thinking is sloppy.

Cold
10 years ago

>"Yes, it holds true when you remove every variable. The same for the gender wage gap."Prove it."Gender, unlike god, is a testable factor."You completely missed the point. I wasn't comparing God to gender, I was comparing God to the specific things causing a wage difference. To imply that your idea of what causes it is true as long as all alternative explanations fail to fully account for it is a logical fallacy, same as when creations claim that because science doesn't explain the origin of like PERFECTLY, the creationist claim that "God did it" must be correct.I still have yet to see a situation where women get paid less than men for doing the same job at the same proficiency with the same employer, but I just remembered that there is one field where MEN get paid less after accounting for all other variables, and that is in the porn business.

Cold
10 years ago

>"God, my thinking is sloppy."Fixed it for you.

Sandy
10 years ago

>The specific thing that causes the wage difference is gender.

Cold
10 years ago

>Prove it.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Read the post above, women get paid less for doing the same jobs, and this is not explained by experience, time off, hours worked, or job danger. If you want to see it for yourself, you have only to read the studies cited above.

Sandy
10 years ago

>But it is explained by: gender. Gender is the factor that explains the difference.

Cold
10 years ago

>The studies do not prove that women get pain less for doing the same jobs with the same hours, proficiency, and experience with the same employers. If you think they do, then YOU either did not read them or failed to apply any critical analysis.

Cold
10 years ago

>"But it is explained by: gender. Gender is the factor that explains the difference."If you're talking about the porn industry pay gap, it's actually explained by differences in supply and demand for female "talent" vs. male "talent". So, while it's technically true that "gender explains the difference" in an indirect way, it's sloppy thinking to say that without actually looking carefully at WHY this is the case.

Sandy
10 years ago

>It is wrong that female talent is more desired than male. We want equality between the genders, that means equal opportunity. That means opportunity should not be excluded based on the factor "gender."It would be equally wrong and worthy of examination if female or male newscasters were paid more because people preferred watching female or male newscasters.

Sandy
10 years ago

>Note, however, that if the difference is due to actual difference between the genders (men are statistically stronger than women for example) then this is acceptable difference based on gender. However, such actual difference between the genders does not explain the pay gap.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>Going by american figuresSingle women are paid more than single men.Female CEOs are women at the top of business are paid more the their male peers.Married women that either don't work or work part time create the gap, but they spend x5 more of the families buget on themselves then their partners do.If you really want to see who has the wealth, look at the shoes, women of every class wear better shoes than the men of their class.There is no conspiracy to pay women less than men, what nonsense.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>EDIT – Female ceos and women….

Fujii System
10 years ago

>A note, I am not an MRM or a feminist, or what have you, but I read Roissy and The Spearhead from time to time as some of the articles strike me as being out there on the lunatic fringe.That being said, your research here either betrays either sheer ignorance or a severe feminist bias. If it's the latter, that will turn off any neutral readers that you have.The US Department of Labor conducted a huge internal study recently on the wage gap, to ascertain at a high statistical confidence level what the causes of the wage gap are and how to correct them. However, their conclusions turned out to be quite the opposite of what is normally portrayed in the media: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdfThe UK Deparment of Statistics also has a word on people who try to use the wage gap to advance their agendas:http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/reports—correspondence/correspondence/letter-from-sir-michael-scholar-to-harriet-harman-qc-mp-11-june-2009-and-m-a-note.pdfNote that part-time women workers apparently outearn their male counterparts in the UK. Simpson's Paradox can create some amusing results.Hopefully, you aren't the type of person that the US Department of Labor and the UK Department of Statistics are warning about in their papers, or else I will also have to demote you to the lunatic fringe.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>"If you really want to see who has the wealth, look at the shoes, women of every class wear better shoes than the men of their class."This is my favorite argument so far.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>"Female CEOs are women at the top of business are paid more the their male peers."Actually, this one is pretty good too. There are 16 women CEOs out of 500 in the S&P 500. That's it. That's 3%. Clear proof of a glass ceiling, unless you think women are genetically inferior at CEO-ing. These 16 women (out of 500 total CEOs) make more than the typical male CEO. Therefore this counts as evil anti-male discrimination!Oh no, the 3% of top CEOS who are female typically earn more than typical male CEO! It would be interesting to add up all the money earned by all the male CEOs in the S&P 500 and compare it to all the money earned by the 16 females CEOs. source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-13/women-ceos-earn-more-than-men-get-pay-raise-in-2009-video.html

Cold
10 years ago

>"It is wrong that female talent is more desired than male."Spare us your moral absolutism. There is no way to prove that any particular desire or lack thereof is right or wrong, and that is completely irrelevant to the topic."We want equality between the genders, that means equal opportunity."We all have an equal opportunity to be desired, what you seem to want is equal outcome. The pay gap in the porn industry, which favors women, exists because of millenia of biological programming, and you seem to think that you have the authority to claim that this is morally "wrong"? Why is it wrong? Apparently, it's because you say so.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>David, becoming a CEO takes decades of uninterrupted work, if most women chose a humanities type degree, and over half semi or retire from the work force completely 5 – 15 years into their career…. how is there not going to be a glass ceiling?But when women do decide to work to become top execs…"Women at the top of business outearn men – Saturday, December 13, 2008By Torsten Ove, Pittsburgh Post-GazetteA Carnegie Mellon University study has concluded that women executives out-earn their male counterparts.The study, which examined 16,000 executives over 14 years, found that women at the top of the business world bring in a bit more than men and are promoted at the same rate, countering the popular notion that women earn less than men for the same work."That common perception is not borne out by this study," said Robert A. Miller, professor of economics and strategy and one of the authors. "If you're looking for evidence of gender discrimination in executive promotion and compensation, it's not happening there."The study, "Are There Glass Ceilings for Female Executives?," was released last month by Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business but hasn't been published yet.The largest empirical analysis of the top echelons of publicly traded companies determined that women earned about $100,000 more per year than men of the same age, educational background and experience".

Cold
10 years ago

>"Clear proof of a glass ceiling, unless you think women are genetically inferior at CEO-ing."Try looking down for a change, through the glass floor, at all the men working dirty, dangerous jobs and often getting low pay in spite of that dirt and danger. Over 90% of workplace fatalities are male, and by your logic that's clear proof of a glass floor unless you think that men are genetically inferior at staying alive.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>"Once you control for the position that they're in, that is, their rank, and you control for experience and control for their education, background and turnover, once you do that you find that they earn a little more," said Dr. Miller.[…]Female executives on the whole still earn less than male executives, but that's because more women quit before they reach the top, the study says."At any given level of the career hierarchy, women are paid slightly more than men with the same background, have slightly less income uncertainty and are promoted as quickly," it concludes. "We concluded that the gender pay gap and differences in job rank in this most lucrative occupation is explained by females leaving the market at higher rates than males."Why they quit is harder to explain. Younger women opt out of the work force to have babies, but the average age for executives in the study was 53, beyond the child-bearing years.Yet female executives still retire earlier than men and are more likely to switch careers. The CMU paper offers some possible reasons, including "more unpleasantries, indignities and tougher, unrewarding assignments" at work. The authors also suggest that women over time acquire "more nonmarket human capital" than men — meaning connections outside the workplace — that make retirement more attractive.[…]Some studies had indicated female executives were paid the same as men, but those didn't address the rate of promotion as this one does, he said.More recent studies reached similar conclusions. A report released last month by The Corporate Library, a research firm in Maine, said women corporate directors earn 15 percent more than male counterparts, although they are still outnumbered 8-1 by men on boards.The CMU study compiled data representing 60 different job titles at more than 1,800 companies between 1992 and 2006. In addition to examining promotion rates, the researchers also analyzed total compensation, including benefits, bonuses, retirement packages and stock options in addition to salary. Overall, the study concluded that job turnover and tenure are better indicators of compensation than gender.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>Facts about the "Purse Power" of women:Women are the dominant spending force in almost every retail/business category and are the most affluent and influential consumers of today. * Of all consumer purchases, women are responsible for 83% * Homes: Directly purchase or influence the purchase of 91% of all new homes * Home fix-up purchases: More than 55% * Retail: Account for 88% of customers in the US & Canada * Auto: Make more than 50% of all auto purchases and influence 85%. * Home furnishings: 94% * Vacation choices: 92% * House purchases: 91% * Consumer electronics purchases: 51% (women are involved in 89% of all consumer electronic purchase decisions) * Home Computers: Account for 66% of all purchases * Bank Accounts: Hold 89% of all accounts * Credit Cards: Women carry 76 million credit cards, 8 million more then men—(Fast Company, 2004) * Healthcare: Make 80% of Healthcare decisions and account for 67% of spending * Health: Purchase 65% of herbal remedies, vitamins and minerals and purchase 80% of all healthcare * Beauty and hygiene: Purchase more than 90% * Clothes, accessories: Wear more than 90% of items such as jewelry and perfume * Meetings: Plan the meetings and comprise the majority of certified meeting planners * Office Supplies: Purchase $44.5 billion * Lawn movers: Purchase approximately 81% of riding lawn mowersAll facts noted above are from the 2005 Wow! Quick Facts book and the U.S. Census Bureau, 2004

Eoghan
10 years ago

>and dont forget, the wage gap counts a married man's wage as his when in reality at least half of it belongs to his wife.As well as that, the time use survey shows that all in women have more leisure time than men.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>* It is expected that by 2010, women will control 60% of wealth in the United States. – from the new Allianz Women, Money, and Power Study. 2006And dont forget the shoes… whoever heard of an oppressed group that wear better shoes than their oppressors?

Eoghan
10 years ago

>Each year, on balance, men hand trillions of dollars they’ve earned over to women to spend. Some of these vast transfers are through the tax system, and some through inheritance by widows. (She-conomy.com claims, for whatever it’s worth, “Senior women age 50 and older control net worth of $19 trillion and own more than three-fourths of the nation’s financial wealth.”) Nonetheless, most male-to-female handovers are from husbands who are specialists at making money in a particular career to their more generalist wives, who take on for the family the bulk of the onerous task of trying to spend it wisely. Still, women tend not only to be more interested shoppers, but also more enthusiastic shoppers. For example, a 1995 survey found that women are more likely than men to admit that they shop to celebrate, buy without need, buy unplanned items, and can’t resist a sale.http://takimag.com/article/the_estrogen_recession

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Cold, on the dangerous jobs issue. There are certain professions that have traditionally been male, and others that have traditionally been female. Some of these male fields are dangerous.Thing is, feminists have always pushed for equal access in all jobs. Including the dangerous ones. Feminists want men and women to be able to do the same work, for the same pay, in every profession.All that said, the fact that people, mostly men, are dying or getting badly injured in the workplace is a very bad thing. I don't think anyone, male or female, should have to take the risks that some workers, mostly male, have to take to earn a living at their particular job. Interestingly, I haven't ever seen the MRM actually campaign to increase awareness of job safety. This topic always comes up in the MRM as a way to bash feminists and/or women.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Eoghan, all this stuff about women "controlling" most wealth in the US is just because women do most of the family shopping, or take care of family finances. It's not like they're spending all this money on themselves. They're going to the grocery store more often them their male partners, that sort of thing. It's not all going to shoes and bon-bons.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>David, women spend more on themselves than men. Quite a bit more.Women are not an oppressed class. Single women get paid more than men, women at the top get paid more their peers, the married women that dont work or work part time that make up the wage gap spend more on themselves and own at least half of their husbands wages.Everything has moved on since the 1970s, except feminist rhetoric it seems.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>and as someone else brought up, women dont really dig in when it comes to the lower order, dirty and dangerous jobs…

Cold
10 years ago

>"Thing is, feminists have always pushed for equal access in all jobs. Including the dangerous ones."Do you have any examples of feminists pushing for women's access to dangerous jobs, particularly dirty and LOW-PAYING dangerous jobs like working in sanitation?"Interestingly, I haven't ever seen the MRM actually campaign to increase awareness of job safety."I can tell that this is a world from which you have been far-removed for your entire life. We ALREADY HAVE thorough safety regulations for workplaces, which exist because MEN successfully advocated for them decades ago, and injuries and fatalities for these dangerous jobs are fraction of what they would be without these regulations.However, as anyone who has actually worked a dangerous job can tell you, you can't just legislate away all the danger. Even when every precaution is taken, things can go wrong. I'll even admit that a large number of these workplace fatalities are due to men not correctly following procedure, although when any particular worker fails to follow procedure he are just as likely to end up causing the death of his co-worker, who DID follow all the rules, as he is to cause his own death. Only someone with ZERO life experience with what goes on beneath the glass floor would think that you could erase the danger with some kind of legislation or awareness campaign. You can mitigate the danger and reduce the number of fatalities, which is absolutely worth doing, but it has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>I dont think Ive ever seen a woman doing a lower order job like collecting the rubbish nor have I ever heard of a feminist campaign to end male domination of these fields.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Eoghan, huh? Women do plenty of low-paying dirty jobs — domestic work, for example. Sanitation workers actually earn surprisingly good wages, much better than domestic workers who also spend their time cleaning up other people's garbage. Indeed, if you look at labor history, when labor organizers tried to organize domestic workers (almost all female) they aspired to the status and pay of sanitation workers. See here: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~cobble/Cobble_Spontaneous_Loss.pdf"Dorothy Bolden, a veteran community and civil-rights activist who hadstarted cleaning houses in 1935 at the age of twelve, founded a domestic-workersorganization in Atlanta in 1968 . Its aim was to improve working conditionsand build "respect for the women in this low-income field of labor ." … Similar groups organized in some two dozen other cities across thecountry. As one participant explained, "The garbage men have been upgradedto sanitation workers, with all the benefits, and that's just what we have to do,""And here: http://www.basicincome.org/bien/pdf/dublin08/4diizellekeftbi.pdfAn this: "Gender neutrality maymandate that the occupations of sanitation worker and day care worker both be open tomen and women without bias, for example, but does nothing to rectify the largeimbalance in pay and benefits between the largely male occupation of sanitation workerand the largely female occupation of day care worker, despite the similar educational andtraining levels requirements for both positions, and the similarly low-skilled, somewhatphysical and dirty nature of the jobs performed by both.14"

bishopsinister
10 years ago

>Egohan, Do you hve a blog? Cause if not you really need to have one. You always have sound logic.Random Brother

Yohan
10 years ago

>David's research is very much biased claiming all women are poor and hardworking, while men are rich and doing nothing.He fails to identify even one company, which pays less to women than to men.He fails also to see the situation in other countries, where feminists are showing up persistently with similar arguments but fail to prove such claims.In Germany women are working up to 12 hours less than men per week, which should result in lower pay of course. But David does not write anything about working hours and overtime pay.In Austria women work up to 60 years of age, and men work up to 65 years of age, 5 years difference, which should result in lower pay, if you calculate the income for life-time. (average 40 years : 45 years) – But David does not write anything about how many years women are working compared to men.Retirement allowances are also unfair against men in Europe, they work longer and die earlier.David does not consider retirement allowances and for how many years they are paid and to whom they are paid – often to a widow, as the man died earlier.About hard and dangerous labour we got the best example recently from Chile. Mining and trapped – and not even one person trapped in the mine was a female, and not even one person working to drill day and night to rescue them was a female.David ignores the fact, that men are also on the other side of the life – not all of them are CEO – and are the clear majority of people in prison, of homeless people, of people out of job, handicapped men … worldwide.In USA, it is often up to the individual to earn your money yourself – for what do you need an employer?Start your own business, but again, the huge majority of people starting their own business are men – David of course is writing nothing about this… as usual.Interesting to mention the fact that there are female employers too, but they are not known to pay more to women than to men. I wonder why? Maybe David can explain and answer all my questions to him … but I don't think so.

Eoghan
10 years ago

>DavidSo you point is that even though women women are paid more than men, over all spend less time working than men, and spend more on themselves than men, dont die in the work place in anywhere near the numbers that men do and so on…. oh and of course, wear better shoes than men, they are somehow an oppressed class..and domestic work is light work, it wont kill you or damage your health, I do it, we all do it, there are machines and sprays, it is not comparable to working in a sewer, collecting other peoples rubbish or any of the glass cellar jobs, it it was women would have no problem moving into sewage work.The world is moving on from believing in sinister plots against women and gendered abuse, its just not real. This propaganda makes a lot of money and has been an effective political platform, but these things are just not real David. You should go back and think about what one of the guys above said…. he pointed out that your source presented a problem that doesn't exist and then asked you for money and to fix it, think about that.TKS RB

1 2 3