Well paid women can't find good husbands

[Borgholio]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/1 ... 54150.html

Days after Senate Republicans unanimously blocked a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act, Phyllis Schlafly, founder of "pro-family" organization Eagle Forum, claimed that providing women with equal pay for equal work would deter their chances of finding a “suitable mate” in a Christian Post op-ed published Tuesday.

Since a woman prefers to marry a man who makes more money than she does, Schlafly argued, decreasing the gender pay gap would leave women unable to secure a husband.

Schlafly, a longtime opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment, wrote:

Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

The conservative activist also noted that women do not deserve equal pay because they "work fewer hours per day, per week, per year” and “place a much higher value on pleasant working conditions: a clean, comfortable, air-conditioned office with congenial co-workers.”

Schlafly concluded that the best way to empower women "is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap."

Earlier this month, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) defended Republicans’ opposition to equal pay legislation, insisting the GOP has long "led the fight for women's equality." Previously, she voted against the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

“I find this war on women rhetoric almost silly,” Blackburn said on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday. “It is Republicans that have led the fight for women’s equality. Go back through history -- and look at who was the first woman to vote, to get elected to office, to go to Congress, four out of five governors.”

If there is such a thing as being a traitor to one's own gender, these GOP women are it.

Phyllis Schlafly, founder of "pro-family" organization Eagle Forum, claimed that providing women with equal pay for equal work would deter their chances of finding a “suitable mate”

Earlier this month, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) defended Republicans’ opposition to equal pay legislation, insisting the GOP has long "led the fight for women's equality." Previously, she voted against the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

I just fail to understand how someone can be against ideas that actually improve their own quality of life. How can these women look in the mirror in the morning and say "Today I will fight for someone else to have control over my own reproductive organs. Today I will fight for lower wages and dependance on finding a husband. Today, I will do my best to be a model second-class citizen and force others to be the same."

I...

I mean...what the flipping fuck is wrong with these people?

[mr friendly guy]

I just fail to understand how someone can be against ideas that actually improve their own quality of life. How can these women look in the mirror in the morning and say "Today I will fight for someone else to have control over my own reproductive organs. Today I will fight for lower wages and dependance on finding a husband. Today, I will do my best to be a model second-class citizen and force others to be the same."

I...

I mean...what the flipping fuck is wrong with these people?

I imagine the same reasons some Blacks supported apartheid or why some women back in the door argued against giving women the right to vote. A combination of political expediency and indoctrination.

[Borgholio]

Must take a lot of indoctrination to force someone to see themselves as property. I mean in some cultures you beat it into them so they accept out of fear, but here they freely choose to believe it. That's even worse...

[Kitsune]

You know, virtually all of the women of the early US Suffrage movement were Republicans
What the hell happened?

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know, virtually all of the women of the early US Suffrage movement were Republicans
What the hell happened?

The schism of the democratic party, followed by absorption of the dixiecrats into the GOP, and the subsequent adoption of the "Southern Strategy"

[Kitsune]

You know, virtually all of the women of the early US Suffrage movement were Republicans
What the hell happened?

The schism of the democratic party, followed by absorption of the dixiecrats into the GOP, and the subsequent adoption of the "Southern Strategy"

I actually know all that. . . .Just my own exasperation
One of my favorite speakers was also a Republican.

[Lagmonster]

I wouldn't call them gender-traitors, inasmuch as they probably firmly believe they're acting in people's best interests. If your upbringing included strongly-defined gender roles *and* you had a happy, comfortable and successful childhood, I bet you very well could assume that the first leads directly to the other. Or if you were strongly religious, and thus had a firm conviction that your beliefs had supernatural support.

[Borgholio]

I wouldn't call them gender-traitors, inasmuch as they probably firmly believe they're acting in people's best interests. If your upbringing included strongly-defined gender roles *and* you had a happy, comfortable and successful childhood, I bet you very well could assume that the first leads directly to the other. Or if you were strongly religious, and thus had a firm conviction that your beliefs had supernatural support.

Good point. If they've been stuck in the rut their entire lives they'd never know how much freedom they'd have if they climbed out of it.

[Alferd Packer]

I wouldn't call them gender-traitors, inasmuch as they probably firmly believe they're acting in people's best interests. If your upbringing included strongly-defined gender roles *and* you had a happy, comfortable and successful childhood, I bet you very well could assume that the first leads directly to the other. Or if you were strongly religious, and thus had a firm conviction that your beliefs had supernatural support.

Good point. If they've been stuck in the rut their entire lives they'd never know how much freedom they'd have if they climbed out of it.

It's a fear of responsibility, too. Or rather, a conscious decision to relinquish autonomy for security. There is, after all, a certain infantile appeal and comfort in the notion that you will be taken care of throughout your life, and all you have to do is consent to being cared for. Having to make one's way in the world is difficult, and it is the price you pay for autonomy of action. Some people just don't want that.

[Block]

To be fair, when you do an ANOVA (if I remember my stats classes right) analysis of wages, the gender gap almost disappears, according to the BLS. Basically, if you go by job title/responsibility, equal qualifications (academic and experience wise), same company, etc. the pay gap is about 4 cents that's unexplainable by anything other than discrimination. Still sucks, but nowhere near the same problem. The issue that should be talked about is equality of opportunity, which is the reason the 77 cents on the dollar disparity within the industry exists. That 77 cents is basically when you average all female accountants, bookkeepers, etc. and compare it to all the males in that field, ignoring the fact that your tossing in a lot of CEOs which are almost exclusively male.

[PainRack]

Also, a lot of the inequality in pay emerges from differences in pay for occupations.

If most females work in occupations like nursing, teachers and etc with lower pay than engineers, then that results.


The problem comes more in occupations like finance, when female bankers tend to have lower pay due to disruptions for pregnancies and etc....... And frankly, one CAN see the corporation point of view. Just not like it.

[General Zod]

Also, a lot of the inequality in pay emerges from differences in pay for occupations.

If most females work in occupations like nursing, teachers and etc with lower pay than engineers, then that results.


The problem comes more in occupations like finance, when female bankers tend to have lower pay due to disruptions for pregnancies and etc....... And frankly, one CAN see the corporation point of view. Just not like it.

Except that's not what people are talking about when they talk about the gender gap in pay equality. Women are frequently paid less within the same field and even within the same company for the same job men do.

[Jub]

Except that's not what people are talking about when they talk about the gender gap in pay equality. Women are frequently paid less within the same field and even within the same company for the same job men do.

Do you have stats for that Zod? It's oft repeated, but studies I see say that pay is close to equal for the same roles and I can see a wage reduction due to the issue of pregnancy and time off to care for a newborn.

[General Zod]

Except that's not what people are talking about when they talk about the gender gap in pay equality. Women are frequently paid less within the same field and even within the same company for the same job men do.

Do you have stats for that Zod? It's oft repeated, but studies I see say that pay is close to equal for the same roles and I can see a wage reduction due to the issue of pregnancy and time off to care for a newborn.

They're all over the internet, but here's one. http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 85,00.html

[Jub]

Except that's not what people are talking about when they talk about the gender gap in pay equality. Women are frequently paid less within the same field and even within the same company for the same job men do.

Do you have stats for that Zod? It's oft repeated, but studies I see say that pay is close to equal for the same roles and I can see a wage reduction due to the issue of pregnancy and time off to care for a newborn.

They're all over the internet, but here's one. http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 85,00.html

It's a 9% once you account for industry and union status. I see that as fair when the average woman will have two children and spend at least a year not working and likely a few more than that besides working reduced hours. Plus women are less likely to take risky but, relatively, high paying jobs like being a roughneck, logging, or mining. Plus, not that it matters, but women aren't as strong as men thus making them less likely to take certain jobs.

Plus, many male dominated fields aren't unfriendly to women at all, they just don't seem to gravitate to them. I have first hand experience that computer science treated female students equally to male ones and I never felt having a female partner hurt me when I was paired up with them for projects.

[Kitsune]

The article seems to indicate that best case is 9% and looks like they already factored in such things as maternity.

[Thanas]

In any case, women who decide to rear children should not be penalized for that by earning less pay. We need those children, they represent a significant investment in the future of society that is not taken into account enough by such things like taxes, retirement plans or the workplace.

[Bedlam]

In any case, women who decide to rear children should not be penalized for that by earning less pay. We need those children, they represent a significant investment in the future of society that is not taken into account enough by such things like taxes, retirement plans or the workplace.

Interesting point of view, but should it be the responsibility of the employer to pay for that? Society as a whole does need the future generations (and the company does as part of the society does benefit) but shouldn't the country pay for that in some way? If so how would it be organised.

From the companies point of view you have two employees one whose worked for 20 of the last 20 years, the other worked 18 of those years and raised children for the other 2. From the companies point of view it had to arrange cover for those two years, pay for training, etc. Should it have to pay the same to both employees on the grounds that society benefited from the child rearing?

[Thanas]

In my opinion, yes. The companies need future customers, so obviously they profit as well. Obviously,when it comes to promotions this would not apply, but when it comes to pay for the same positions? Definitely.

[madd0ct0r]

hah, you assume the company expects to be around that long. Taking the long view works, but only if you don't get eaten tommorrow.

[Jub]

In my opinion, yes. The companies need future customers, so obviously they profit as well. Obviously,when it comes to promotions this would not apply, but when it comes to pay for the same positions? Definitely.

I see it as the states responsibility to keep these women even with men. Companies should be free only to look at how useful a person is to their company; if they deem pregnancy, or the possibility there of, as detrimental they have every right to pay. The government can step in to bridge the gap.

[Vehrec]

You know I find it fascinating how things like cooking, fashion, and nursing are all considereed 'feminine' and 'lesser' when compared to masculine occupations.

But at the same time, these industries are utterly dominated by men. I mean, the restaurant industry's chefs are what, 90% or more male? Dunno what the proportion of designers and CEOs in the Paris fashion houses is, but I bet it skews male. Even in the fields that are supposed to be theirs, women play second fiddle.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's a 9% once you account for industry and union status. I see that as fair when the average woman will have two children and spend at least a year not working and likely a few more than that besides working reduced hours.

You are a real shitstain aren't you, Jub?

The whole point of maternity leave is to not penalize women for having children, and even given that, why the fuck are women disproportionately responsible for child care such that they are the ones taking parental leave, and working shorter hours every time they spawn?

Plus women are less likely to take risky but, relatively, high paying jobs like being a roughneck, logging, or mining. Plus, not that it matters, but women aren't as strong as men thus making them less likely to take certain jobs.

Taken into account. Women even make less in female dominated professions, such as secretarial work(83.4%, controlling for qualification and experience).

Then there is when sex changes happen. This is the most damning. FTM transexuals earn statistically the same as cismen. MTF transexuals see their wages in the same jobs drop by 30% to be less than those of ciswomen. It is the perfect control. The next best thing to a manipulative experiment, and you dont get to bring motherhood in.

Plus, many male dominated fields aren't unfriendly to women at all, they just don't seem to gravitate to them. I have first hand experience that computer science treated female students equally to male ones and I never felt having a female partner hurt me when I was paired up with them for projects.]/quote]

Yet, they make less.

[Jub]

It's a 9% once you account for industry and union status. I see that as fair when the average woman will have two children and spend at least a year not working and likely a few more than that besides working reduced hours.

You are a real shitstain aren't you, Jub?

The whole point of maternity leave is to not penalize women for having children, and even given that, why the fuck are women disproportionately responsible for child care such that they are the ones taking parental leave, and working shorter hours every time they spawn?

How is that a factor a company should care about? That's something I feel that governments should step in to cover when it happens. Companies should be free to hire the best fit for their needs.

Plus women are less likely to take risky but, relatively, high paying jobs like being a roughneck, logging, or mining. Plus, not that it matters, but women aren't as strong as men thus making them less likely to take certain jobs.

Taken into account. Women even make less in female dominated professions, such as secretarial work(83.4%, controlling for qualification and experience)

Again, there's the maternity issue. There is also the issue that, rightly or wrongly, some companies also expect less of women at the height of their cycle.

Then there is when sex changes happen. This is the most damning. FTM transexuals earn statistically the same as cismen. MTF transexuals see their wages in the same jobs drop by 30% to be less than those of ciswomen. It is the perfect control. The next best thing to a manipulative experiment, and you dont get to bring motherhood in.

FtM transitions tend to be harder to spot outside of the genitals. Facial hair, muscle mass, and a deeper voice are all part of hormone treatment for them. Thus they aren't as likely to be stuck with the 'eww transsexuals are icky' baggage that many MtF people are stuck with. The fact of the matter is, that I've and am in current contact with several MtF transsexuals and none of them could fool me into thinking they were born as women. That's not a knock on them either, it's just a hard transition.

Plus, many male dominated fields aren't unfriendly to women at all, they just don't seem to gravitate to them. I have first hand experience that computer science treated female students equally to male ones and I never felt having a female partner hurt me when I was paired up with them for projects.]/quote]

Yet, they make less.

Maternity, periods, and the fact that I bet women don't press as hard for raises are all factors.

[General Zod]

Do companies care about attracting and keeping talented women? Then they need to offer incentives that make them want to work for them and not the competition. It's simple math here. A company that offers benefits to women like not penalizing them for getting pregnant will attract more talented female employees than their competitors that don't, and more women will want to spend money with them in return.