Did it? I would think more equality and accountability is a benefit, not a loss, for most people!
It sounds like the issue at your workplace was favouritism and policy abuse, which I also have personal experience with and agree can be a serious work environment killer.
As mentioned, there’s perfectly good reasons why this happens outside of plain discrimination. Men on average take more dangerous jobs, they prefer jobs with higher salaries, and work longer hours at those jobs. Paying women more may be great from a woman’s equality point of view, but it sure as hell isn’t from a man’s. If the average man is 10 times more likely to die on the job than a woman, you’d better believe that the average man should be payed more.
Agree on the paternity/maternity leave, though.
But I think what I and some other people are getting at is, why is it that
Also, I’m not an economist or a statistician, but are those jobs with the high risk really the high-paying ones? I’d personally assume that a good portion of the disparity has to do with senior management positions, which are both extremely highly-paid and significantly male-represented.
In the micro sense, I would expect that given equal physical and employment capacities, a man would be much more likely hired for a coal mining or security job, and so would have additional opportunities, and therefore might well have a higher average income than a similar woman, but I don’t imagine that this scenario would push up the average salaries by all that much.
If that’s the extent of the developed argument, I’ll keep my money.
But without meaning to sound harsh, I don’t regard you as an advocate for the proposition, so I’m not willing to conclude that your attempt to develop it is the best one to use.
These are questions that I expect we might answer as the argument is developed. For myself, I’d venture the observation that Habitat for Humanity, while a worthy goal, isn’t the same as procreation.
Coal mining is all machines these days. The social pressures to hire men in traditionally male jobs are heavily under pressure, from feminists and the decline of those industrial sectors traditionally dominated by men. On the other hand the pressure against female domination of sectors like teaching and nursing are nonexistent.
If, as those above have posted, never-married young women make more than men do, it seems pretty likely the differential is due solely to those things associated with parenthood, the greater pressure on men to keep earning, greater rights of women to maternal leave, both legal and social rights, and so on.
Marriage =/= having children, though. I would love some statistics backing up Stanislaus’s observation about married, childless women compared with married, childless men.
Are you under the impression that maternity leave is paid?
The reality is that most women end up working, too.
If you think that divorce benefits women, you are insane. Women experience an average 40% decline in standard of living after a divorce, where men experience a 10% rise.
I based this on reports of an analysis of 2008 US Census data performed by Reach Advisors, a market research firm. Reach don’t link to the actual report themselves, but reports like thishighlight that the pro-female pay discrepancy only applies to younger, childless and unmarried women living in big cities:
.
It would be really interesting to know why simply getting married appears to wipe out women’s competitive advantage in the workplace. My hypothesis is that employers think that married women will quit to have kids, and so don’t value them as highly. If true, this would become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
He’s not saying that women benefit from divorce. He’s saying that the current system, which leads to women “choosing” to take a career hit and men “choosing” to be breadwinners has implications for each parent’s relationship with their children, both pre-and post-divorce. Men gain financiallly, but lose out in other ways. And money isn’t everything.
The real question is, to what extent are men forced, right now, to be the breadwinner, and to what extent is this a choice that they make? And can we do anything to make the other choice - for women to maintain their career and men to be primary carer - more viable?
Isn’t it in most places?
Maybe, but not in the US, where jtgain lives. Under the Family & Medical Leave Act employees are guaranteed 12 weeks’ unpaid leave. That’s it.
Some states (and individual employers) might have paid leave provisions, but I don’t know of any.
Seriously?! Why? Does the government hate children or families? Is it aiming for population control by discouraging people to have children? I don’t understand this at all.
See, and I’m confused as to why any employer should be forced to pay for people who aren’t working for them, as well as requiring them to spend the time training a temp, the additional burdens on the fellow employees, etc., just because someone else wanted to have a baby.
People have to make hard choices sometimes.
One thing to notice in these debates is that a lot of women are arguing “I would like to be able to keep my career.” Not a lot of men are arguing the opposite.
And here is what nobody is saying. For most people, raising children is not immediately rewarding. It has its high points, of course, but those come at the price of lots of mindless drudge work that offers little intellectual stimulation, sense of challenge, or other reward. It sucks so much that even bored Victorian housewives paid someone else to do as much of it as possible whenever they got the chance. I know mothers are supposed to automatically love sacrificing everything for their kids- but for the most part, they don’t. They get through it, and try to focus on the positive, because there isn’t really any other option. Those who just love being with kids, of course, become pre-school teachers. Most people do not chose to do that.
People like working. Besides independence and security (which can’t be underestimated- a woman who puts all her faith in the idea that a man is going to take care of her and her children is setting herself up to get jackhammered by life), our work gives us the chance to interact with intelligent adults who share our interests, to make a greater impact on the world, to continue to learn, and to push our limits. Some of use work jobs with no redeeming factors, but I think by the time we are thinking seriously about kids, we do have careers that offer some rewards.
I am 30 years old and finishing a master’s degree that will hopefully lead to my dream job- lots of travel, the chance to help people, and lots of challenges. I’m also having to ask the question- am I giving up my chance to have a family? Is that a terrible mistake?
And that is the difference. Men don’t ask that question. They do not join the military, or become MDs, or take one loans for their MBAs and say “Well, this is nice, but what price am I paying?” Men CAN have it all, while women get constantly chided for having the balls to think they can, too.
And we can’t get win. If we devote ourselves to our kids and let our careers slide, if something goes wrong we get yelled at for “having kids we can’t afford.” If we choose not to get married and have kids, we are painted as bitter, broken things bound for a lifetime of regret. If we try to jam it all together in our early thirties, we are chided for being obsessed with our biological clock.
Read that article I posted about Sweden. It argues that the family leave policy in Sweden is, indeed, having an effect on gender roles.
It’s worth noting that the US is in a distinct minority among industrialized nations in this regard.
Well, okay, but why? I’m not trying to be difficult, but I don’t see it that way. It seems very unfair to me.
The most striking thing about those charts is that, of all the nations listed, the US is the only one with 0 weeks of paid maternity leave.
I’m not making a value judgment.
I suspect, however, that it’s a combination of two factors: one, the postwar consensus that developed in Europe that resulted in even relatively conservative governments agreeing that some basic economic rights should be guaranteed to people (including workers); and two, the populations of Europe are aging rapidly, and it’s in everyone’s interest to encourage procreation to keep economies vibrant (rather than for more abstract reasons like “kids are good!”).