>
 |
| Before computers, workers just stared at their desks. |
In their attempts to downplay or simply deny the Wage Gap between men and women, MRAs often turn to a study by the CONSAD research company that was commissioned by the Bush administration. According to CONSAD, their analysis
demonstrates that it is not possible now, and doubtless will never be possible, to determine reliably whether any portion of the observed gender wage gap is not attributable to factors that compensate women and men differently on socially acceptable bases, and hence can confidently be attributed to overt discrimination against women.
In plain English: we can’t prove that any of the wage gap is the result of sexism.
But that may be because CONSAD didn’t look in the right places, as Barry Deutsch, aka Ampersand, explains in a post on Alas, a blog that critiques the methology and the findings of the CONSAD study. Notably, he points out, CONSAD’s analysis ignores the issue of occupational segregation, which is at the root of much of the wage gap, as properly measured. And it ignores many other, more subtle kinds of discrimination:
When discussing direct employer discrimination, it’s more realistic to discuss elements like selective hiring, training, promotion ladders, and other things that are a good deal more complex than CONSAD’s vision of the labor market allows for. Given two equally able applicants for a $40,000 job, one male, one female – which one will employers tend to prefer? Once hired, who is more likely to get mentored? Who is more likely to be given the assignments that lead to promotion? Who is more likely to be perceived as doing good work, all else held equal? And if these factors mean that women are rewarded less than men for identical labor market participation, to what degree does that reduce women’s incentive to participate equally in the labor market? All of these are ways that sex discrimination actually happens in the marketplace — and none of them are detectable by by CONSAD’s methods.
There’s much more to his argument than this; I’d suggest reading the whole thing.
For more on the issue — including excerpts from and links to other useful posts on the wage gap by Barry — see my own Further Reading post on the subject.
>David, most people in Continental Europe do not use English for their daily conversation and English is not the national language of their countries. Men Rights movements, which you hate so much are however not only active in USA and UK.It's an international issue in all Western countries. Feminists want to control everything and this is not acceptable.
>I find it absolutely laughably ridiculous how people can claim that most employers are evil misogynists who secretly want to pay women less.Wow what a MASSIVE COINCIDENCE!!!!!!!!!! You hear that? Most employers are anti-women. ROFL. If anyone ever made such a massive claim like that towards victimisation on men, it would be laughed at by the general PC populace.
>Yohan, I am well aware that there are people in the world who do not speak English. Most of them, as a matter of fact. However, I do speak English, and live in the US, and so this blog is in English and focuses mainly on the US. So posting links to articles/websites in German is not terribly helpful. Again, as I've said many times before, this doesn't mean that I think the US is the center of the universe, or that the MRM doesn't exist elsewhere, or that English speakers are the best, merely that I prefer to focus on the country I know best and to a lesser extent on countries in which most people speak the same language I do. Because that way I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. I'm not quite sure why this is difficult for you to grasp.
>@ TEC or any other feministTEC: "how men work longer hours they conveniently neglect that women work longer hours overall when we include housework"1. Why is this an employer's problem?2. Why should employer's pay women more because of this?3. Does this mean single women w/out kids should be payed less than married women and or women with kids?4. Don't you think a labryinth of laws of this kind would increase outsourcing?Random Brother
>I don't see at all where TEC stated that employers should pay women to do housework. @yohan, have you noticed that this is not even a blog FOR the MRM movement? All your incessant whining and demands that David change his views, his language, and his blog to suit you do not seem to be working. Perhaps you should stop trying to control David's blog and start your own blog.
>@ChristineI understand the posting from TEC in this way, housework done by women is one of the reason that men are earning more…—–I did never 'demand' that David is changing his native language, that's nonsense talk from you.I also cannot control his blog.And I have my own blog, and my friends have a forum.It is not wrong to expect from a person who is acting so aggressively against the MRAs, that at least he is honest in collecting information worldwide about men's rights and not only from the USA.If David does not want to see any comments from abroad (except feminist-only strict following the party-line of course), he should clearly mention it in his replies to me.It seems Bishopsinister is also understanding TEC's posting in this sense as I do, asking 'why is this an employer's problem?'
>@ Christine WEYohan has it correct with my pov about TEC's post. I don't think it should be any employer's problem about what goes on in an employee's home. If a woman works less hours than a man because her husband is "lazy" and he won't help out why should that be the employer's problem? Random Brother
>Young women in large urban areas are now outearning their male counterparts because of the education gap. When the New York Times reported this story a few of years ago, did it celebrate this achievement as an indication that "the times, they are a changin'"? Of course not. It bemoaned the problem the new wage gap is creating for young professional women who have difficulty getting dates with their intellectual peers.Men have been taught from the time they are boys that their mission in life is to be "the breadwinner." Why? Women choose mates in large part based on men's earning capacities, as sexist and as "Leave it to Beaver" as that might strike enlightened people like you. The fact is, a woman who tells her fiance that she wants to take time off from work when they have children is called "a normal woman"; a man who tells his fiance he wants to take time off from work when they have children is called "an ex-fiance." Not in every case, thankfully, and this, too, seems to be changing. But very slowly.Here's another dirty little secret we're not supposed to talk about, but that every reasonably intelligent person knows: testosterone generally enhances competitive drive. That's true on the football field, behind the wheel of a car (sadly), and in the workplace. In your zeal to uncover some nefarious good old boys' club that is keeping women in their place, where presumably back-slapping misogynists drink brandy and tell sexist jokes, you and Barry blink at the elephant in the room: men and women are different, biologically and by cultural training. They have been taught from the earliest ages that their roles in life are different. The wage gap isn't some male plot to "take care of their own." (In case you haven't noticed, most men have little regard for other men and have no problem sending your son off to fight a war that won't benefit him.) If we really want to change the way things are done, more legislation won't do it — we need to work on the women: the day women start picking mates based on their parenting skills is the day you will start to see a sea change in the the work-domestic dynamic. And my guess is, men will start concentrating more on fathering than getting ahead at work, because if there's one thing men like more than money and power and prestige, it's mating. Yeah. It's true, David: mating.Are there still some of those good old boys' clubs in companies throughout America? Of course. But not as many as you'd think. Times are rapidly changing, and the wage gap is more the result of a very complex mindset stemming from the different roles men and women have assigned themselves, a mindset that can scarcely be called "oppressive" or the result of discrimination — except by people who find misogyny oozing from every crevice. (Nothing personal.)In any event, as an employer, I would be insane to hire a man over a woman with similar qualifications (education, experience, etc.) intending to pay him more. Even the most misogynistic board of directors wouldn't put up with that. Anyone in the business world understands exactly what I'm talking about.
>@bishopminister,It shouldn't, but I don't believe that was exactly what she was saying in her post.
>nicko81m said… I find it absolutely laughably ridiculous how people can claim that most employers are evil misogynists who secretly want to pay women less…Archivist: In any event, as an employer, I would be insane to hire a man over a woman with similar qualifications (education, experience, etc.) intending to pay him more. Even the most misogynistic board of directors wouldn't put up with that. Anyone in the business world understands exactly what I'm talking about. I noticed, that all feminist blogs avoid any discussion about a 'female employer'. The employer is seen to be a rich male, a misogynist, a male cheating females for their work by paying less.But there are female employers. They are often highly active in fashion + design, art, in healthy food and vitamin drinks, in cosmetica and beauty saloons, shoes and bags, travels and sport activity for ladies …1 -How do female employers treat their female and male employees? What are the differences between female and male employers, if any?2 -Do female employers pay more to female employees than male employers?3 -Do female employers prefer female employees to male employees when they are looking for new staff?4 -Do female employees prefer female or male employers? How do female employees see that situation?—Does anybody know about any research regarding 'female employers'?
>@Yohan, Bishop, EoghanNo, maybe re-read what the quotation that I highlighted??? Try re-reading my comment afterwards??? I never said that the employer should pay for housework. How did you get that? Oh right, from distorting and delibrately obfusicating what I said…The point was instead, about how jobs are designed for people with wives/mothers at home and this an insidious form of sexism that affects the typical woman's earning power.Again, try reading. (Obvy you didn't read Alas, a blog as cited in the OP or you would have realized I was commenting on the quotation from there…) Quoted again for the apparently illiterate MPAs here:"For me, probably 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." Eoghan, cite your sources or STFU. You distort everything to match your fucked up lens without looking at actual research, so I have no intention of arguing with you unless you cite specific research since you have been shown that you continuously lie.
>I'm not going to comment on Yohan's stupidity about female employers, but seriously, you gotta laugh at the examples he cites of female employers:"But there are female employers. They are often highly active in fashion + design, art, in healthy food and vitamin drinks, in cosmetica and beauty saloons, shoes and bags, travels and sport activity for ladies …"Buhahahaha Yup, all wominz luv fashion, makeup and being fit for ther menz! *Puke* At least art is in there but I can't help but think this is another slur in that women are supposed to be more emotional and illogical, hence "art"…Also, ironically, wage gap critics usually cite the segregation of sexes into male/female jobs as a contributer…
>Tec, absolutely right. Also, for various other commenters: It's not a question of evil misogynists conspiring to pay women less. It's a more subtle sort of sexism that infects the thinking of men and women both, and tends to shunt women into jobs and careers that pay less because they're associated with women. As for Eoghan, he can't post here any more. He was constantly posting bullshit, and was repeatedly warned not to misprepresent what other people had said. He kept on doing it, so now I delete anything of his as soon as I see it.
>Note to Eoghan: If you want to convince me to let you post here again, continuing to post after I've told you not to is not a way to do it.
>TEC said:@Yohan, Bishop, Eoghan"The point was instead, about how jobs are designed for people with wives/mothers at home and this an insidious form of sexism that affects the typical woman's earning power."1. This is NOT and should NOT in any way, shape, or form be an employer's problem. 2. When someone starts a business he or she is generally thinking about one thing, and that is how to make a lot of money. BUSINESSES ARE NOT FLIPPING CHARITIES! THEY ARE NOT ESTABLISHMENTS TO MAKE FEMINISTS HAPPY AND PROVIDE GIGGLY JOY JOY EQUALITY! Businesses have no responsibilty to set up scheduling so that a woman can more easily work as much as a man because she married a lazy bum.IT'S NOT SEXISM. IT'S NOT MISOGYNY. IT'S CALLED YOUR PERSONAL LIFE IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!!! IT'S NOT THE BUSINESSES PROBLEM!!!!!!! Work more get paid more. Husband not doing enought to give you time to earn more money? Dump him and get a better husband. Jesus Haploid Christ!And if you make it the businesses problem even more American businesses will go overseas further crippling our economy, can you not understand that?What good is it to establish super feminist flex time when no companies will hire you?Why would a business put up with this shit from feminists, which basically claim they are being subtly sexist and risk lawsuits when they can just hire sane foreign workers?TEC FOLLOWED: "For me, probably 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."1. Employers have no responsibilty to "design" a job with your rug rats in mind. 2. So now not asking questions = sexism? You are kidding me right? If women married stay at home men, like men used to marry stay at home women there'd be no problem now would there? But, no, being half insane feminsts you want businesses to turn themselves on their heads, WITH NO REGARD TO HOW IT AFFECTS THE BUSINESS OR THE ECONOMY!!!!Again all this crap that was posted is personal and should not be handled at all by the business. They set hours and rules. It's up to YOU to set up your life in such a way that you can abide by the hours and rules, either that or take a different job that works for you. Or hell start your own business and cater to every ridiculous demand that some feminut screeches at you.God help any business run by people with this sort of feminist thinking.TEC SAID: "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."Then don't be caretakers, or hire a caretaker, or have a husband who wants to be a caretaker. A business has one main responsibility and that is to make money. It's not to give a crap about your personal life specifically your caretaking issues.Random Brother
>Does anybody know about any research regarding 'female employers'? This was my question and it seems feminists are unable to answer it.Thanks to Bishopsinister for the comment, and yes, correct, a business is not a charity, regardless if the employer is male or female.And of course in case of large businesses, production will move overseas…TEC: Buhahahaha Yup, all wominz luv fashion, makeup and being fit for ther menz! *Puke* …The lucrative market for products serving females is large, and of course there are female owners of such businesses.Not all women are poor, and not all women are employed as part-timer.Do female owners of companies pay more to female employees? This is a good question.
>"Do female owners of companies pay more to female employees?"I don't believe that they do. I think there was even one recent study — I have no idea how scientific it was — that suggested female bosses treated female employees worse than male bosses in many ways.But your question shows that you've really missed the point here. It's not a question of a cabal of evil male employers conspiring to pay women less, as Tec and I (and the post I linked to) have explained several times already. It's a question of widespread sexist assumptions that shunt women into lower-paying jobs. AS I stated quite plainly in my last comment, these are sexist notions held BY BOTH WOMEN AND MEN. If you (and Pierce aka Archivist) think that feminism is all about blaming evil cabals of men for everything, quite literally, you really have a distorted notion of what feminism is.
>Missed the point? I don't think so, this topic is about gender salary gap and it is necessary to search how this 'gender salary gap' is created. And why not to investigate if there is a difference between male and female employers regarding their staff? What is wrong with that?There are female employers and therefore it makes sense to check if there are differences in their management regarding male and female employees. About lower-paying jobs: Higher qualification does not guarantee automatically higher paid jobs. Do we agree with that?The question is about what is your job and if are there vacancies for your job. Often there are NO vacancies for academics and this might be the main reason for what you consider as 'gender salary gap'.An electrician is not an academic, but he can find a good-paid job quickly everywhere.A biologist or historian is an academic, but if there are vacancies for such jobs is another matter. For sure in Western countries there are academics (males and females) who are jobless or are doing any low-paid job which has nothing to do with their studies. They cannot find a job which fits their educational background. Nowadays there are too many academics and not enough vacancies.Might be the majority of these jobless academics are women, as men are generally lower educated.When we offered a vacancy for a receptionist/telephon operator (not a very special job at all, but MUST speak 3 languages) over 400 women (and some men too) applied, almost all of them with academic background, young and jobless.But we had only ONE vacancy.So I hope you understand now, what I want to say…
>@BishopOkay, you do realize that most of what you quoted as what I was saying wasn't my words??? It was Alas, a Blog's post. Which you would know if you bothered to read the OP. And my original comment, and the comment after that, pointing out a second time it was Alas'.Unfortunately, since you miss the point completely, there's no point to continue with you on good faith that e.g. you're even bothered to try to understand my points or want a constructive debate. Instead, you're delibrately misconstruing what I say and literally putting words in my mouth which as best case scenario, is due to poor reading comprehension. Read the OP (since you haven't already), incl Alas,a Blog's critique as CITED then make an informed comment. Again, try, really this time, to read…
>@David"It's a more subtle sort of sexism that infects the thinking of men and women both, and tends to shunt women into jobs and careers that pay less because they're associated with women."How can it be sexism when it's not the fault of the male gender?Women choose to be in careers that pay less. No one is stopping these women to do better. (especially men) It's not the fault of men or patriarchy, which simply means it’s not sexism.I think its time for women to hold some accountability for once! And stop blaming men or some other BS for their own failures! Yes that’s right, the failures that they are accountable for as they did it by their choice. No one is holding a gun to their head telling them to be in a less paying career.Face up to it and stop running behind the same old "poor oppressed women are victims for this or that reason" Act like adults for once and not like whiny children that believe they shouldn’t have any accountability.For christ sake, feminism makes women look like fools
>@ TEC:Don't be disingenuos. Is this your new plan? To claim that everyone is misrepresenting what you said and then calling on David to ban them?Sickening.Fine then. I'll simply and try to pin down what your actual point of view is.1. If a business does not take into account a female employee's child care or child raising situation is it sexism in any way?2. What should be done to equalize the alleged wage gap, if it is due to women working less?A simple yes or no will suffice to start.
>"Is this your new plan? To claim that everyone is misrepresenting what you said and then calling on David to ban them?"There are a couple of things to point out here:1) You were misrepresenting her, confusing what she wrote with what she quoted from the Alas, a blog article. Which would have been clear if you'd actually had read what she wrote.2) You're misrepresenting her now. Where did she call for you to be banned? She just said it was pointless to argue with you since you're not actually reading what she's writing (or the article being discussed).
>@ David1. See that this thing here ?It's called a question mark. I WAS ASKING IF THAT WAS HER PLAN NOT STATING THAT IT WAS HER PLANGOT IT? So I'm not misrepresenting her, I'm asking if she is going to do action x, not claiming that she is going to do action x, can you see where those things are different?2. There is no indication in anything she wrote that she disagrees with you, nor Alas a blog, which holds the the ridiculous notion that not catering to a woman's personal life = sexism. If I'm wrong she can just go ahead and say so. 3. I said upstream that I will NOT go to Alas a Blog or whatever it's called because it sets off my McAffe virus alert. I will not jack up my computer for feminist bullshit.4. But since this is so fricking difficult, I will simply it even further -DO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?A simple yes or no will suffice.Random Brother
>Tec said… @BishopOkay, you do realize that most of what you quoted as what I was saying wasn't my words??? It was Alas, a Blog's post.I see no difference between TEC and Ampersands, both are following a certain feminist party-line, almost like identical twins.DO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?Good question…I would say NO, why should they? Nowadays there are plenty of people looking for a job, and only a few vacancies. Therefore as employer I would accept the applicant who will bring me the best profit – troublefree. Only in case there are very few applicants and plenty of vacancies, employers might decide differently.
>@Yohan – so then, I can assume that everything Henry Makov says you also agree with??? Or Christopher who wants to punch random strangers simply b/c they are women??? Well, okay, if you say so. As usual, you miss the point entirely: it's not whether I agree or disagree with Alas, a Blog, it's that, after pointing out TWICE that it wasn't my words, Bishop and yourself continued quoting as if it were my words. As I said, at best case, this is poor reading comprehension. You can't argue with someone like Bishop who doesn't comprehend what you're saying… it's pointless, and it's no longer a debate because debating implies rational discussion between two opposing, yet intelligent parties. Bishop is irrational and acting, ahem, hysterical…