>
 |
| 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.
>@TECDO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?You still fail to give a clear answer to a clear question.
>Suddenly feminist's keyboards fail them.Random Brother.
>@ TEC:You gonna keep straddling that fence or are you going to answer the damn question?AgainDO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?Yes or No.Random Brother.
>"DO ANY PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD BELIEVE THAT BUSINESSES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER A WOMAN'S CARETAKING SITUATION WHEN FILLING A JOB POSITION?" I think businesses should do what they can to give male and female employees more flexible schedules, daycare, etc so that they can care for their kids. Plenty of businesses do this to some extent, as well as offering maternity/paternity leave, and this hasn't led to the collapse of the economy. (The current economic troubles have zilch to do with this.) I'm not sure what legislation is necessary, and what can be improved by changing attitudes and expectations, but it can be done. Businesses want good employees, and they can get good employees not only by paying well but by providing them with benefits (like flexibility, daycare, etc).
>@Yohan – I asked YOU a question several times which you willfully ignored. So tell you what, you answer MY question, and I will happily answer yours.
>@DavidI think there's also a lot of classism involved ie usually flextime and daycare are only available in positions that pay well and require a higher level of education. Intersectionality! "Plenty of businesses do this to some extent, as well as offering maternity/paternity leave, and this hasn't led to the collapse of the economy. (The current economic troubles have zilch to do with this.)"Before Bishop foams at the mouth again about how women are the cause of the economic collapse (as he has before), I would say that at least in the US, there were several factors leading to the economic issues such as a prolonged economic boom previously (and since economies cycle) and of course, very poor banking practices that largely haven't changed much since the last major depression in the 30s.But then this isn't the place to discuss Keynesian economics. 😉
>@David:"It's a question of widespread sexist assumptions that shunt women into lower-paying jobs. "Are you saying that women do not choose these jobs because they are closer to home, have shorter hours, are more flexible, are safer, etc? Please demonstrate how this is shunting because I see lots of men working shitty jobs too.Please show me the multitude of female engineers, miners, construction workers, electricians, plumbers, etc who cannot get jobs in their field because it is assumed they should be receptionists or some other lowly paid worker. Just as with male workers, if you don't have a caregiver at home, you sacrifice your career or you don't have kids!
>wdodman, a lot of this stuff is dealt with in the Alas, a blog post I wrote about in the first place — some of the relevant portions have already been quoted by tec several times in this discussion so far. See also some of the links in my "further reading" piece on the wage gap, also mentioned in the comments above.
>It seems that you fail to grasp the reality of how soundly that article was trounced in the comments by Ballgame and Robert.
>@ DavidThank you for answering the question.DAVID SAID: "I think businesses should do what they can to give male and female employees more flexible schedules, daycare, etc so that they can care for their kids. Plenty of businesses do this to some extent, as well as offering maternity/paternity leave, and this hasn't led to the collapse of the economy. (The current economic troubles have zilch to do with this.)"This may work for larger businesses but it could be the kiss of death for small to mid sized ones. Also the fact that 'maternity/paternity leave hasn't lead to the collapse of the economy' doesn't mean such policies are good ideas, good for businesses, sustainable over the long term, nor that their negative effect is minimal.DAVID SAID: "I'm not sure what legislation is necessary, and what can be improved by changing attitudes and expectations, but it can be done."How in the world can you say this? If you don't know what is necessary then how can you be so sure? DAVID SAID: "Businesses want good employees, and they can get good employees not only by paying well but by providing them with benefits (like flexibility, daycare, etc)."In an economy with 9.8% unemployent businesses don't have to do any of this to get a good employee. Also as long as they can outsource laws like this will not help large amounts of women as companies who don't want to deal with this will outsource or go overseas and smaller companies will, IMHO, look for reasons NOT to hire women or women with children unless at the same time you also pass legislation mandating a certain amount of women in certain positions. And how will men react knowing that women will be legislated into jobs they don't necessarily deserve? Will her male coworkers feel she is an equal or just a privilidged joke? Who's going to mentor someone like that? There's already a saying that goes: Hire a woman, hire a lawsuit.Can't you see the danger in these laws increases a businesses apprehension towards female hires?Also the idea of businesses opening daycares? While some do, what about the liabiity? There would need to be background checks for teachers, cooks, proper safety procedures and items, dozens of other issues to deal with. When litte Johnny punches little Suzie and Johnny and Suzies parents work together and are at each others throats? This is not a headache that a smart business would likely want.The bottom line for me is that if you go in this direction you turn business from an organization whose primary goal is to make money into basically a social organization for "equality" that may also make money. I don't think that our businesses will be able to stand up to foreign companies who are not so hamstrung by these laws in a ever increasingly competitive world economy.Random Brother
>TEC SAID: "Before Bishop foams at the mouth again about how women are the cause of the economic collapse (as he has before), "Kindly show me where I said that as I don't recall ever saying women were the cause of the economic collapse. Aren't you the one who is always hysterically whining about misrepresentation? Way to go team hypocrite.Random Brother
>Maybe TEC is mixing up my comment with your comment. I said, feminism is non-productive and costs a lot of money. I also said, many Western countries do not have money anymore, therefore they will have to cut public funds for feminist organizations.Feminism canot survive without money from 'somewhere'.
>@ YohanThe problem is the money from somewhere tends to come from men, and if you're taking money from men, while degrading and disenfranchising men at the same time, well, there's only so long that dog's gonna hunt.Random Brother
>The only law I see needed on this is perhaps making it illegal for an interviewer to ask if one has children. The assumption that a mother will be a bad employee. No assumption can be made if the information is not known. Something women can do is, if they are married demand equal home duties from husbands. Also, the employers that are giving the benefits are simply trying to keep vauled employees. It's not that it's their job to manage an employees private life or work-life balance. Losing a critical employee because another company is offering better pay and benefits effects a companies bottom line. A company I used to work for is suffering just that. Let's not forget that employee discontent causes the company problems too.
>@Bishop – no i was refering to you. I am not misrepresenting you. You have said it several times, incl my favourite quotation of women and the economy was a hang nail compared to an amputation for men. Stupid and ignorant comments about the economy: there you have it. I can probably go search for the actual (several) quotations, but since we both know you said it, do you really want me to show what an ignorant and now hypocritical moron you are? Up to you…Moreover, the issues you are discussing really belong to classism – which I already pointed out i.e. only high-paying and highly-educated-requiring positions will be able to provide benefits. Also, it's very classist to assume women work b/c they want a "career". Most women, like men, work because they have to. This is important because you're assuming a universe where the caregiver (usually the woman) could just quit and/or be "taken care of" – which is almost NEVER the case. From this different perspective, you can see that mat/parental leave is a human right, not a privilege. Or do you think only upper-middle class or richer families should exist? I'm sure you and Yohan and John Dias do but you're WRONG!The other issue to consider is government support e.g. Canadians with children can get subsidies in order to support them (e.g. for daycare) and further subsidies for disabled children. Even the parent with partial custody e.g. "weekend dad" are eligible. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/cctb/menu-eng.html <–That's called giving a shit about children and promoting growth, unlike in the US. You pick up one end of the stick, you pick up both ends of the stick. IOW, you can't have it both ways. At the end of the day, you have to ask, are children important? If so, then people, both men and women, need the means and support to have them. I will never understand why this is toted as a "woman's" issue -it's not, it's an issue for everyone. For instance, are you not grateful that your parents were able to have you? Also, your assumptions such as the only way to have women/mothers in certain positions is to legislate a quota and the onus completely on the employer only shows such a clear lack of imagination. Xtra points out, it just could be illegal to ask whether the woman is a mother (similar to being illegal to ask their sexual orientation and religion.) In fact, there are a number of solutions, including preventing sexist fascist assholes like you from making totalitarian decisions.@Xtra – great points. 🙂
>@ TECTEC SAID: "@Bishop – no i was refering to you. I am not misrepresenting you. You have said it several times, incl my favourite quotation of women and the economy was a hang nail compared to an amputation for men. Stupid and ignorant comments about the economy: there you have it. I can probably go search for the actual (several) quotations, but since we both know you said it, do you really want me to show what an ignorant and now hypocritical moron you are? Up to you…"I am not some whiny, weak, screeching feminists. If I'm wrong, I'll go ahead and say so. So do your search and PROVE IT ALREADY!TEC SAID: "Moreover, the issues you are discussing really belong to classism – which I already pointed out i.e. only high-paying and highly-educated-requiring positions will be able to provide benefits. Also, it's very classist to assume women work b/c they want a "career". Most women, like men, work because they have to. This is important because you're assuming a universe where the caregiver (usually the woman) could just quit and/or be "taken care of" – which is almost NEVER the case. From this different perspective, you can see that mat/parental leave is a human right, not a privilege."No. You don't magically become a caregiver. A woman by in large chooses to have children. In your fake narrative you skip over that crucial point. Since she made the choice to become a caregiver/parent it is wrong to make a business responible for her nights of humping. TEC SAID: "Or do you think only upper-middle class or richer families should exist? I'm sure you and Yohan and John Dias do but you're WRONG!"Well if you feminuts have your way you'll pass so many laws that we'll all be impoverished. CONT
>CONTTEC SAID: "The other issue to consider is government support e.g. Canadians with children can get subsidies in order to support them (e.g. for daycare) and further subsidies for disabled children. Even the parent with partial custody e.g. "weekend dad" are eligible. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/cctb/menu-eng.html <–That's called giving a shit about children and promoting growth, unlike in the US. You pick up one end of the stick, you pick up both ends of the stick. IOW, you can't have it both ways. At the end of the day, you have to ask, are children important?"Oh, no! The dreaded what about the childen defense. Tell me something TEC, if business is responsible for aiding the mother with these children, do business then have any rights towards the mother and the children? Nonetheless, caring about children is swell and all but it should be up to the individual business. By forcing more and more business to provide crap like daycare you make companies less competitive to the overseas market and stop make people from starting businesses to begin with.TEC SAID: "If so, then people, both men and women, need the means and support to have them. I will never understand why this is toted as a "woman's" issue -it's not, it's an issue for everyone. For instance, are you not grateful that your parents were able to have you?"What? So now you're anti abortion? Let me try to simplify this for you. The laws that you are for only work with sufficient money behind them. We (meaning the U.S.) are broke. So as you agree with or root for and push for more of these laws the more likely it is that the economy will collapse and then there will be no jobs for anyone. TEC SAID: "Also, your assumptions such as the only way to have women/mothers in certain positions is to legislate a quota and the onus completely on the employer only shows such a clear lack of imagination. Xtra points out, it just could be illegal to ask whether the woman is a mother (similar to being illegal to ask their sexual orientation and religion.) In fact, there are a number of solutions, including preventing sexist fascist assholes like you from making totalitarian decisions."The bottom line is that business are not democracies nor charities. All these left wing ideas you think are so wonderful and special are death. You don't pull these sort of stupid pro woman's whims laws when a country is 13 trillion dollars in debt.Random Brother
>@ TECThe first half of my post got lost.Basically show me where I said that, if I'm wrong I'll apologize.Also, women don't become caretakers by magic. Mostly they choose to be caretakers. Since businesses have no hand in that decision, there should be no forced daycares and the like on the businesses nor taxpayers dime. If feminists are so for these things why don't they pay for them?Random Brother
Hey it’s Eogan and Yohan! 😀 *aims sniper rifle*
no wait…if I shoot them,I’ll wipe myself out of existence!
DUN DUN DUNNNNNN….
TO BE CONTINUED!!!
WHAT DOES AMI MEAN BY THIS!? IS SHE TRULY EOGHAN AND YOHAN’S ILLEGITIMATE LOVE CHILD!? OR PERHAPS THERE IS A DEEPER, MORE SINISTER MEANING TO HER WORDS…
I wonder if I can both resurrect Eoghan (in his original form, not his various 90s incarnations) AND resurrect this thread! 😀
The credible independent research is not being carried out by an international secret cabal of undercover mra’s. Thats like a creationist saying that satan is using minions to falsify evolution research, thats just paranoic nonsense. The independent research does not have the same characteristics as feminist research, in the same way that scientific research does not have the same characteristics as creationist research.One is genuine and the other seeks to conform to a belief system and specific agenda.Mra’s quote the genuine research. Feminists quote advocacy research.And tell me what mra sites have you visited Christine or are you basing your opinion on what David Furtelle publishes here?
It’s hilarious that he can say this w/o his head exploding b/c of irony. xD
*peers*
*gets back in the TARDIS*
So are we playing a text adventure, or what?
We can’t leave yet, Ami, The Doctor is…
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd151/zhinxy/tumblr_lshycl2QjV1qj1q3po4_250.gif
…Distracted.
O_O
Darn… we have to be stuck back in 2010 with the weird fashions and big hair…