May 1, 2012 -- 9:54AM, amcolph wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 9:36AM, Bodean wrote:

OK ... so one digs deeper .. and finds that this whole issue is nothing more than more B.S. propaganda by known feminists extremists.

 

Your proposition is,

"ALL women are less valuable as new hires than men."

Discrimination happens to individuals, not to averages.  I don't see that justified by your statistics about the wanker class.

Nobody gives a damn anyway about what the suits are paid, except that it's generally more than they're worth.

The premise of the thread is that women make less money because of Discrimination NOW!

It's a false premise.  The pay discrepancy is primarily due to the inclusion of older, less educated, less experienced women.  As those women are replaced in the survey's by younger, more educated women, the gap closes.  The discrepancy has closed from 64% to 87% in 40 years of data. 

"Some" of the discrepancy is because of choices women make .. they prefer jobs with more perks and less pay.  Men on the otherhand are discriminated agains with regards to perks, and thus demand more pay.

Still, there is evidence that Women make about 4-5% less than men comming out of college.

But that truth destroys the entire premise of activists feminists who want to continue the concerted effort to disparage Men, by making some false claim about pay inequality.

May 1, 2012 -- 10:24AM, amcolph wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:03AM, Bodean wrote:

 

But that truth destroys the entire premise of activists feminists who want to continue the concerted effort to disparage Men, by making some false claim about pay inequality.

I hate to admit it, Bodean, but I have some sympathy for your point of view.

Women who actually have to work for a living are frequently victims of real discrimination, real sexual harassment and real pay inequalities.

But that is not who the clean-handed "college graduate" feminists you complain of are whiining about.  Most of them haven't the least idea of what's going on with their sisters working in meat packing plants, textile mills, hotels, etc. and don't really give a damn.

Individuals of all make and model are discriminated against in some context.  It's no suprise that evil people would take advantage of the less fortunate and desperate .. be they women, or men, black or white. .. or .. anywhere in between.

I was reading one of the academic rags .. talking about the low retention rate of Men in College ... how one of the officials noted ... "we may have to implement favorable measures for men as we did women, when women were the ones falling though the cracks".

Begs the question .. is "promoting" one over another, any better or worse than discriminating against one over the other??  Promoting girls/women "over" boys/men has resulted in the Boys and Men becomming devalued, with the resulting fact that Men have now fallen below Women in Graduation Rates.

The massive reversal in College Graduation is the direct result of measures aimed towards increasing Women in College.  As always, there's a tit for tat. While they were pumping up women, changing curriculums to better favor women, they were making things harder for the boys in primary school.  Practices that favored Men in the past were replaced by teaching practices that favored women.  No suprise, Boys started turning in poorer performances.

For this reason, I believe in Gender Specific Primary Education.  Women should be taught in the fashion that gives them the best edge.  ... BUT .. Men should also be taught in a fashion that gives them the best edge.  Only then will you achieve equality.

As for lower socio-economic groups ... I agree, women get hit hard, because more women work in the lower socio-economic sectors.  But .. since you don't find a very balanced mix in these occupations ... it's kinda hard to claim "gender discrimination".

May 1, 2012 -- 11:13AM, Bodean wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:24AM, amcolph wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 10:03AM, Bodean wrote:

 

But that truth destroys the entire premise of activists feminists who want to continue the concerted effort to disparage Men, by making some false claim about pay inequality.

I hate to admit it, Bodean, but I have some sympathy for your point of view.

Women who actually have to work for a living are frequently victims of real discrimination, real sexual harassment and real pay inequalities.

But that is not who the clean-handed "college graduate" feminists you complain of are whiining about.  Most of them haven't the least idea of what's going on with their sisters working in meat packing plants, textile mills, hotels, etc. and don't really give a damn.

Individuals of all make and model are discriminated against in some context.  It's no suprise that evil people would take advantage of the less fortunate and desperate .. be they women, or men, black or white. .. or .. anywhere in between.

I was reading one of the academic rags .. talking about the low retention rate of Men in College ... how one of the officials noted ... "we may have to implement favorable measures for men as we did women, when women were the ones falling though the cracks".

Begs the question .. is "promoting" one over another, any better or worse than discriminating against one over the other??  Promoting girls/women "over" boys/men has resulted in the Boys and Men becomming devalued, with the resulting fact that Men have now fallen below Women in Graduation Rates.

The massive reversal in College Graduation is the direct result of measures aimed towards increasing Women in College.  As always, there's a tit for tat. While they were pumping up women, changing curriculums to better favor women, they were making things harder for the boys in primary school.  Practices that favored Men in the past were replaced by teaching practices that favored women.  No suprise, Boys started turning in poorer performances.

For this reason, I believe in Gender Specific Primary Education.  Women should be taught in the fashion that gives them the best edge.  ... BUT .. Men should also be taught in a fashion that gives them the best edge.  Only then will you achieve equality.

As for lower socio-economic groups ... I agree, women get hit hard, because more women work in the lower socio-economic sectors.  But .. since you don't find a very balanced mix in these occupations ... it's kinda hard to claim "gender discrimination".

The problem with gender specific education is that gender is only one of multiple factors that affect a person's learning style.  We don't have enough teachers to provide such individualized education.

May 1, 2012 -- 1:59PM, mainecaptain wrote:

Face facts, a women with the same exact education, experience and skills are being denied equal pay. That is what this about. And the only reason is she does not have a penis.

And this is being done by men who do believe a women has less value.

Again for no other reason then lacking that body part.

You mean .... just take your word for it .. right?  LOL.

Well ... the "facts" as you call them are pretty shallow on this topic.  There are no studies that personally interview individuals regarding personal decision making pathways that lead to this or that choice.  In fact, this whole topic is nothing more than an exercise in "soft science" perferred by liberals, because they can make it say what they want it to say.

Back to my orginal claim ... women are higher risk ....

www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/artic...

"Another important reason for the gender gap is the difference in labor force attachment between men and women.  Women are likely to leave their careers temporarily for childbirth and raising children.  Such leaves may be associated with a decrease in human capital and with temporary delays in training and promotion, which consequently lead to lower wages.  In addition, women are more likely to work part time and less likely to work overtime than men because of family responsibilities.

One study found that, because women have weaker labor force attachment than men, women tend to be assigned to positions where turnover is less costly.2 As a result, women are employed in positions that have a shorter duration of on-the-job training and that use less capital.  The study concludes that these differences in on-the-job training and capital in positions filled by men and women, along with an implied lower value placed on women's prior labor market experience, account for a substantial part of the gap in wages between males and females."

The above link is a very good article, packed full of peer reviewed studies addressing all kinds of crazy variables that contribute.

Simply put ... women aren't men.  In the cases where women actually adopt a man's life, ie, young, college education, no children and not married, .. they actually make MORE than comparable male counterparts.  BUT .. alas, this is a small minority of women .. because as I said .. women aren't men.  They do want families .. they do want flex time ... they do take more time off, and they do work less hours .... they are more likely to drop out of the workforce, thus squandering the cost of training etc .... and the time off they take, puts them behind their male counterparts, who don't have that luxury.

As is mentioned in the "experience curves" .. when a woman temporarily drops out of the force, her past experience become less valuable, as old methods and perspectives become obsolete.

All of this is supported by the fact that the pay gap increases with age.  An older woman with the same credentials and experience as a same aged male counterpart is rare.  Those just be the facts Main .... live with it.

May 1, 2012 -- 6:50PM, amcolph wrote:

You did say,

"ALL women are less valuable as new hires than men."

Not just women with less training or less attachment to the labor force, but ALL women.

The article does not support that assertion.

You're right Amcoph .. I was wrong.

It's not "All" women, just all women who have a high potential of getting pregnant.  Thus, single, educated, young women, who are less likely to get pregnant and are more carreer oriented, ... make MORE than their male counterparts in many sectors.

When I said "all" it was with the assumption that "all" women are of a higher risk of dropping out due to child birth.  But as the studies show, women who are at lower risk for such, do pretty dang good on the Gender Wage Gap thingy.  Such a position is consistent with the fact that uneducated women, even while single, are much more likely to get pregnant.  Thus, that "may" be a clue as to why lower socio-economic, single women still don't make as much as their male counterparts.

Do I agree with it???  Of course I don't!  I am as much for equal pay as the next person.  But I do see the obstacles.