How is this statement contraversial?

[Hal 9000]

Um, I agree. Not sure why you are quoting my post in your response.

Well, we were discussing a couple nights ago wether women in general wanted to make the required sacrifices in order to move up the ladder in whatever business. It is still my contention that many women are satisfied with the balance between their job situation and their personal situation. The pay discrepancy (if there really is one) generally comes down to trade-off - nothing more.

A nurse still makes $40+ per hour, the teaching profession has all but done away with men - as has banking and pretty much any social service career. Women are the professionals now and men are the labourers/tradesmen (plumbers, electricians etc).

I'd say women are doing just fine.

[cybercoma]

If gender identities are biologically based

You are still very confused about gender issues. I refuse to engage with you about this topic until you learn some more about it.

[WestCoastRunner]

. The pay discrepancy (if there really is one) generally comes down to trade-off - nothing more.

I'd say women are doing just fine.

There really is one. And you are not a woman.

[Mighty AC]

The pay discrepancy (if there really is one) generally comes down to trade-off - nothing more.

There really is one. And you are not a woman.

I think we'll make up some ground on this front as Boomers continue to move out to shady acres.

[WestCoastRunner]

I think we'll make up some ground on this front as Boomers continue to move out to shady acres.

Yes, that is absolutely true. I see it happening in my industry. I encourage my boss to hire more women in the IT industry. Funny enough, he is hiring older women.

[Hal 9000]

There really is one. And you are not a woman.

Where? Find me a job where women and men do the same job and women (as a rule) get paid less.

You wanna talk about 'ism's, ageism is way more prevalent than sexism.

[Mighty AC]

Where? Find me a job where women and men do the same job and women (as a rule) get paid less.

The Gender pay gap in median weekly earnings among full-time workers, selected occupations, 2011 (AAUW, 2012).

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/739/the-gender-wage-gap-in-the-united-states-current-policy-and-an-improved-approach-for-closing-the-gap

[TimG]

You are still very confused about gender issues. I refuse to engage with you about this topic until you learn some more about it.

A cop out designed to excuse the ridiculous hypocrisy you demonstrated with your bizarre rant about how the differences between men and women's preferences are entirely due to nurture.

[Hal 9000]

The Gender pay gap in median weekly earnings among full-time workers, selected occupations, 2011 (AAUW, 2012).

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/739/the-gender-wage-gap-in-the-united-states-current-policy-and-an-improved-approach-for-closing-the-gap

That's a US Chart. We are in Canada are we not? However, there are a lot of factors than can skew the numbers 4 or 5%, such as the amount of people in those occupations. In fact, there are many factors not taken into consideration in that article.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's a US Chart. We are in Canada are we not? ...

Indeed...apparently finding actual Canadian content is too hard.

[cybercoma]

A cop out designed to excuse the ridiculous hypocrisy you demonstrated with your bizarre rant about how the differences between men and women's preferences are entirely due to nurture.

I never once made that claim, which is why it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

[TimG]

I never once made that claim, which is why it's pointless to discuss anything with you.

In your attempt to reject the argument that nature is the explanation for differing job preferences you said:

Nevermind that we dress little girls in pink from the time they're born and give them toys, books, and cartoons that tell them they're princesses and their only role is to attract a man and serve him by cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. Nevermind that boys are put in blue and are taught to be rough and tumble and their toys, books, and cartoons are about how they're adventuring, labouring, hardworking, and industrious.

Which is a pretty clear claim that nurture determines gender career choices. I found that odd given your dogmatic insistence that nurture has nothing to do with people thinking they are transgender. Edited August 5, 2014 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

The Gender pay gap in median weekly earnings among full-time workers, selected occupations, 2011 (AAUW, 2012).

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/739/the-gender-wage-gap-in-the-united-states-current-policy-and-an-improved-approach-for-closing-the-gap

You are just total annual income here. How about taking into account total hours worked? Or job experience? Or education level?

[-1=e^ipi]

here's a simple question. What if everyone decided to quit having babys?

Then you would have societal collapse like in those distopian movies. Though, given time I'm sure that test-tube babies would become a thing. Why is this hypothetical relevant?

You're never going to explain it in a way that he will understand when he has already determined that inequality doesn't exist. Nevermind that we dress little girls in pink from the time they're born and give them toys, books, and cartoons that tell them they're princesses and their only role is to attract a man and serve him by cooking, cleaning, and childrearing. Nevermind that boys are put in blue and are taught to be rough and tumble and their toys, books, and cartoons are about how they're adventuring, labouring, hardworking, and industrious. None of those things matter if someone believes the sexes are "equal but different." They can't tie the outcomes of more physical, sexual, mental violence against women from their spouses and boyfriends to that early childhood indoctrination. They can't tie the outcomes of women having more precarious work and often leaving the workforce to raise children because they're taught to rely on a spouse to provide for them to that early childhood indoctrination. Those differences don't matter when someone thinks that they're equal differences, even though they are quite obviously not.

This is a problem, sure. But how is it the employer's fault? What is the justification to make the employer pay for this?

[Hal 9000]

The Gender pay gap in median weekly earnings among full-time workers, selected occupations, 2011 (AAUW, 2012).

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/739/the-gender-wage-gap-in-the-united-states-current-policy-and-an-improved-approach-for-closing-the-gap

My favourite part of that article is where it suggests that men are oppressing women by keeping them in women roles such as teaching, nursing and social work.

A nurse will work 4 days per week and make 100k

A teacher will work 9months a year, get prime holidays and full pension for 75-80K

A social worker (depending on their specialty) will make 70-100k. Foster parents (don't apply if your a man) can make 2-4k per month per child - no taxes. My sister had 6 foster kids for years and she's loaded. Foster work is all non taxable money BTW.

Oh, the humanity!

P.S - Nurses and Teachers are doing their best to keep men away from those jobs, and the social work world doesn't want men either - we're all pervs y'know.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Hal 9000

[Black Dog]

Yet at the same time you can argue with a straight face that a young boy who wants to dress up in girls clothing and play with dolls is that way because of his biological nature and should be taught that self mutilation is the way to happiness?

If gender identities are biologically based then you must accept that there are differences between men and women which are innate and are not taught. If gender identities are entirely a function of environment then you must accept that gender disphoria in children with normal biological sex expression is something that is taught.

My guess is you will come up with some convoluted BS on why choice of clothing is biological but choice of career is not.

A cop out designed to excuse the ridiculous hypocrisy you demonstrated with your bizarre rant about how the differences between men and women's preferences are entirely due to nurture.

FTR: pointing out the sociocultural influence on gender identity does not negate any biological difference between the sexes. I'm surprised anyone with the mental capacity to turn on their computer would make such an elementary error in logic.

[Black Dog]

Inequality of outcome does not imply inequality of opportunity. Differences in choice of occupation could be due to a number of factors such as sexual dimorphism in humans or cultural pressures. The fact that women decide to get pregnant and take time off work (thus less experience for the rest of their careers) is a big factor to explain wage differences.

Astonishing that you can suggest there are a range of factors that dictate career choices, yet categorically deny that sexual discrimination could be one of them. Shockingly basic stuff.

Sigh, just use google. It's not hard. Here is a link (this one isn't even restricted to just urban areas). If you want more, they aren't difficult for me to obtain.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/

You don’t seem to understand how this works: you make a claim, you provide the citation.

Anyway. From your link:

Girls should be encouraged at a young age to achieve excellence in math and be encouraged to consider pursuing degrees that will allow them into high-paying sectors of the economy like engineering, finance and computer science.

This will matter later.

Females are overrepresented overall. As for what fields... there is no discrimination against women to enter STEM careers, there is just a lower tenancy to choose not to go in the STEM areas.

Which was my point. Attitudes the discourage girls from participating in math and science and similar fields represent a form of discrimination. There doesn't have to be a sign on the door of the lecture hall stating "no girls allowed".

Also, I don't hear anyone decrying the under-representation of male nurses. How does under-representation of females in one field negate over-representation of females in nearly all other low paying, menial, “nurturing” fields?

Fixed that for you.

With respect to the claims regarding female earnings decrease relative to male earnings after children, that isn't due to discrimination.

But apparently women are oppressed because they choose to get pregnant and take time off work, where as men are advantaged because they have societal pressures to work themselves to an early grave to support the family. You have made me see the light! *sarcasm*

If you can’t understand how those are two sides of the same coin, there’s no hope for you at all.

No, I understand. Only violence towards women matters. Violence towards men does not matter because they are the expendable gender. Apparently the fact that males are more likely to be murdered has nothing to do with gender. *sarcasm*

Again, we’re talking about violence against women in a particular context, which doesn’t nullify the importance of other types of violence. But I’m interested to hear how, for example, a man killed in a drug deal god wrong is a victim based on his gender.

It is discrimination. Anything other than 0% is discrimination. There should be no gender specific scholarships.

Also, just because the scholarship is in STEM fields, doesn't mean it is somehow justified. Why should a female physics student have an advantage over a male physics student because of their gender?

A male student already has a built in advantage by virtue of being male. The idea, which is reflected in your link above on gender pay gaps, is to encourage women to enter fields where they have not otherwise participated.

Wait, I think I got it! Patriarchy! Everything is the fault of the patriarchy!

Do I have radical feminism figured out yet?

Sonny, I doubt you have the faintest idea what radical feminism is or the differences between various feminisms.

I did not give any examples of patriarchy above. You are just associating blame for various social phenomena to a patriarchy that does not exist in the context where these social phenomena occur.

Patriarchy exists in isolated locations, such as the households of Mormons, in Churches, in the Quran, etc. Similarly, matriarchy exists in many isolated locations across North America. However, North America is not homogeneous, there is not continent-wide Patriarchy nor Matriarchy.

Ah: so you don’t understand the concept of patriarchy in an academic feminist context. You should have just said so in the first place.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Black Dog

[guyser]

Do you have even the slightest idea of what men do for their families?

Sure do !

Do you know how many of us risk our lives every day so that our wives and kids can have a roof over their head, a decent place to live, a safe vehicle to drive.

Not very many if one considers the overall numbers. Very few in fact.

Many of us leave our families and head of to work - sometimes that means one week away, sometimes its months on end.

Thats nice.

Many men work and live for one simple reason - to take care of our families.

Yup, lots do !...and?

Real work where real men can die.

Oh...so fake work where fake men can die is something different? Now where is my roll eye emoticon?

How about rat infested sewers - don't see women down there.

Haven't looked huh? They are down there.

I've known guy's who have been attacked by everything from bears to sharks, not including the dangers of simply travelling to the work site.

Me too....but they finally quit working at the Zoo. The commute on the 401 was killing them.

Ever been in a 25foot boat and 20 foot seas? Have you ever been stalked by a bear or cougar, ever work 12-14 hours in -30, ever been in a mine collapse, You ever been in a sea plane that was too heavy...in bad weather, ever been 100 feet below the surface when your air ran out - just to feed you family? Bet you haven't!

Does a 36ft boat qualify? So in order....yes, yes, yes, No,yes and almost but it was more like 20ft.

Your ignorance is pissing me off!

Thats ok, you'll more than make up for it with patriarchy and other random BS thoughts.

[guyser]

You are just total annual income here. How about taking into account total hours worked? Or job experience? Or education level?

Yeah !

Mighty proves the point and voila....goalposts get moved.

Well done !

[Hal 9000]

Yeah !

Mighty proves the point and voila....goalposts get moved.

Well done !

He didn't prove anything, in fact it's an embarrassing article from some student who is trying to compare apples to oranges and clearly cherry picking careers.

Mighty really shoulda read that article before posting something so shamelessly bias.

[-1=e^ipi]

Astonishing that you can suggest there are a range of factors that dictate career choices, yet categorically deny that sexual discrimination could be one of them. Shockingly basic stuff.

Where did I make such a claim? Nowhere. Nice strawman argument attempt.

What I do object to are the absurd claims people make such as 'women are discriminated against because they make 77% the wages of men'. And then people use that to support institutionalized discrimination that favours females over males. And to top it off, many people reject discrimination occurs against males, that discrimination is not homogenous across society and refuse to acknowledge the complexity of the situation.

If people want to argue that the 4% 'wage gap' that remains after accounting for occupation, experience, education, hours worked, and various other factors is due to discrimination, that is one thing. But trying to claim a 23%+ gap is a result of discrimination is absurd. Furthermore, the 4% 'wage gap' isn't necessarily due to discrimination. The 4% is what remains unexplained by the regression model. In particular, if the regression model has difficulty taking into account different factors used in the model ('how hard people work' is difficult to take into account) then this imperfect information will result in some of the wage gap.

In addition, biological factors could also explain some of the wage gap since humans are a sexually dimorphic species; in particular, hormones influence behaviour, and this behaviour can impact job performance. For example, high levels of testosterone could cause an individual to act more aggressively (increase chances of committing crime) but also cause the individual to have a higher desire to protect (increasing the chances that the individual will join military services).

And in addition to that, you also have the social influences that occur since birth and will alter people's decisions due to social and psychological pressures. So if there is an attitude that 'girls can't do math' then this can discourage females from entering fields that involve math. But this is distinct from workplace discrimination. And if you want to tackle this problem, you should tackle the source (cultural and traditional gender roles) rather than try to 'correct' this problem by trying to impose institutionalized discrimination in the workplace, in universities, etc.

Furthermore, it is relevant to point out that 'gender discrimination' varies greatly depending on the age of a population and the location of a population. Gender discrimination is very different if you live in San Francisco compared to Alabama, or if you live in Toronto compared to rural-Northern-Ontario. There older generations have a large effect of this gender discrimination than younger generations. And as I pointed out, in some cases (such as young people in urban areas in North America) women are out-earning men. So you have to recognize that North America is not-homogenous enough to the point where people can focus only on women's issues, claim that men have a 'privileged position' and claim the existence of this societal-wide 'patriarchy'.

Also, if you try to 'correct' for past gender discrimination through institutionalized discrimination, you won't create equality, rather you will create alternating waves of discrimination. I'll give you an example, let's say the majority of the company's baby-boomer generation is male. The company, in an effort to be 'more diverse' favors women in hiring for younger generations. Now when these baby-boomers retire, there will be over-representation of women, so the company then makes an effort to favour men. Now when the next generation retires, you will have over-representation of men again, and so on. And this applies on a larger scale to the so called wage gap. If you try to fix the issue of baby-boomer males earning more than baby-boomer females by institutionalized discrimination, then when the baby-boomers retire, the males of younger generations will have been discriminated against and be earning less.

Which was my point. Attitudes the discourage girls from participating in math and science and similar fields represent a form of discrimination. There doesn't have to be a sign on the door of the lecture hall stating "no girls allowed".

Look, I recognize that is an issue, but it is not the only explanation for differences in occupational choices between males and females. The are also biological influences for example.

And for when people decide to choose an occupation, go to university, etc. there is no significant discrimination against women (if anything there is discrimination against men due to all of the female-only scholarships, various campaigns to encourage specifically women to go into these fields, the influences of primary and secondary school systems in Canada, etc.). Rather, the cultural perception of gender roles influencing people's behaviour from childhood is a lot more relevant in affecting occupation choice than 'discrimination' of hiring practices or university applications.

Fixed that for you.

So you dismiss discrimination against hiring men in certain fields because you consider these fields 'nurturing'?

If you can’t understand how those are two sides of the same coin, there’s no hope for you at all.

How does this stupid cliche counter what I wrote?

Again, we’re talking about violence against women in a particular context, which doesn’t nullify the importance of other types of violence. But I’m interested to hear how, for example, a man killed in a drug deal god wrong is a victim based on his gender.

Society perceives that violence against men isn't as morally bad as violence against women. It is ingrained in our media and in our culture. Therefore, people are more willing to commit violence against men because it is more socially acceptable.

A male student already has a built in advantage by virtue of being male.

What an absurd claim. Please tell me all about these 'advantages' I have for being male. I would like to know them.

Sonny, I doubt you have the faintest idea what radical feminism is or the differences between various feminisms.

Your doubt is unfounded. I acknowledge that feminism can mean anything from gender-equatism to misandric-hate-ideology.

Ah: so you don’t understand the concept of patriarchy in an academic feminist context. You should have just said so in the first place.

Academic feminism is bullshit and there is no societal-wide patriarchy. Furthermore, in most cases, what 'feminists' identify as 'patriarchy' isn't 'patriarchy', it is 'traditionalism'.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yeah !

Mighty proves the point and voila....goalposts get moved.

Well done !

Sorry typo, I intended to write:

You are just dividing total annual income here. How about taking into account total hours worked? Or job experience? Or education level?

[TimG]

pointing out the sociocultural influence on gender identity does not negate any biological difference between the sexes.

Such an argument is irrelevant given the fact that I was castigated for suggesting that some people claiming to be transgender were only that way because of their nurture. That is why I claimed cyber was a shameless hypocrite for bringing up nurture as a argument in this case when he so vehemently rejected it when talking about people claiming to be transgender.

[cybercoma]

This is a problem, sure. But how is it the employer's fault? What is the justification to make the employer pay for this?

I never said it was. It's a social problem that's worth contemplating and raising awareness about. More men should stay at home with the kids, so women have better opportunities for employment. It shouldn't be the expectation that the mother stays home and rears the children. Both men and women should do it, such that the norm becomes people saying, "so which one of you is staying home this year?" without any assumptions at all.

[cybercoma]

FTR: pointing out the sociocultural influence on gender identity does not negate any biological difference between the sexes. I'm surprised anyone with the mental capacity to turn on their computer would make such an elementary error in logic.

I'm surprised you even bother pointing it out anymore.