Spinoff of a Spinoff - Gender equality in pay and other stuff unrelated to religion

Remove all ads!

Even if men were more likely to "overachieve" wouldn't that in itself point towards a pretty serious fundamental problem with our society? The main problem as I see it is the gender roles in themselves. How we are groomed and forced into certain roles and modes of being just by what kind of plumbing we happen to have. Now these things are also changing, but it is slow and the differences are pervasive and way beyond anything biology could account for.

 

Drew, promotion rates are generally thrown in with pay. Women get payed less and promoted less frequently, and it's seen as the same problem, with the same solution (and it probably is). As for examples, I've heard mainly of lawsuits from California, but I've heard of a few proposed laws (by the femenists, I don't know how seriously they were taken) in both California and Florida. Nothing passed, but that doesn't change the fact that attempts were made.

As for my statement on 'overachieving', note that I said "considering the standards and measurements used in business", which means things like willingness to work late, work on weekends, and travel for business.

Joacqin, yes, I think you've got it. The problem is a societal one, not a legal one. The solution has to be the same. If the Femenist movement mounted a year- or decade-long commercial and seminar campaign trying to convince women to be more assertive, more dedicated to their jobs, more willing to make sacrifices for work, etc. then I wouldn't fault them (though I would fault them if they belittled women that chose family over work, which they have in the past).

 

Get a link to a specific suit, please. I find it bloody hard to believe that anyone ever sued to remove performance review from the promotion process. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that affirmative action-type solutions have been proposed, though.

 

Oh, they weren't specifically to remove that practice, but rather claims of gender discrimination with no more evidence than "he gets payed more than me". And sorry, I can't find any good links to them in general. There are way too many links out there on feminism and law as a whole that get thrown into the search.

 

"He get paid more than me" is a reasonable complaint and quite adequate evidence to prove discrimination.

 

Why should two people who have worked the same amount of time, the same job, the same hours, performing equally, be paid different amounts?

Because one is a woman shouldn't be an acceptable answer.

If the argument is men are more assertive and ask for more and are more aggressive negotiating salaries, there should be limitations on negotiations and benchmarks. Same as if a person comes new to a company it is not fair they should be paid more than someone who has been doing that job for a longer time.

I know several companies that will refuse to take on a woman for one simple presmise: If she wants to start a family I still have to pay her. That is still discrimination, even with economic reasoning, they don't even LOOK at women - just in case.

Also arguing about maternity pay is daft, the pay is a proportional amount of the wages they would normally recieve - one of my teachers got a cheque for 2p as one of her maternity pay wages. Was barely worth getting it paid!

 

8, if they both work just as hard, and with similar results, they should both be payed the same. If, however, he regularly works late, often works on Saturday, and volunteers for every business trip, while she goes home promptly at 5, never works on a weekend, and does everything she can to get out of business trips, it makes sense. Likewise, if he is assertive in his work, takes the lead in teamwork, and proves to be effective at it, while she stays in the shadows, doing her assignments and getting along, but not shining, it makes sense that he'll be promoted over her. That's not gender discrimination, even if her gender, or socialization based on it, are why she acts that way.

On the other hand, refusing to hire women simply because they may, someday, leave to start a family, or even milk them for all the maternity leave she can get, is gender discrimination.

An interesting question, though. A pregnant woman is looking for a job. Durring the course of an interview, it is shown that she is wonderfully qualified, even better than the best male applicant, but also that she could, and intends to, start maternity leave just shortly after starting the job. How should the company respond? Should they hire her, even if she'll basically start out on a vacation? Should they hire the man, even though he's less qualified? What if she intends to stay with the company for years after? What if she doesn't?

 

I think the point you're missing here is that there are indeed cases where a man and woman, who both work identically hard and are identically qualified, did not receive equal consideration for promotion and special privileges in their line of work, and that this phenomenon is indeed common enough to form a documentable trend. A million hypotheticals can be conjured for why man A may deserve it more than woman B (note: this hypothetical can be easily reversed and still be equally plausible), but that doesn't explain the overall discrepancy unless you are extrapolating on your own that men are more likely to work hard and stay late than women are, and thus conclude that the discrepancy simply reflects reality. And if that is indeed your argument, I'm not saying it's not valid per se. But you'll really have to substantiate it with more than just "I heard about this case in California once, sorry I have no link for it."

 

NOG, the problem here is that nothing is that simple. Fine the woman goes home at 5, but is more proficient and has higher productivity. The man takes more business trips, but the woman is far more successful with visitors. The man is more assertive, but the woman provides a stable, positive and productive work environment. Who gets promoted?

The woman may well have a discrimination suit if the man is promoted to a management position. Whereas there would be no discrimination if the position were a sales position requiring extensive travel. Now we even get more complex -- a supervisory position which requires occasional travel. To bypass the woman completely would be discriminatory; she may pull herself out of the running if she cannot fulfill the requirements, but the company should not automatically assume she is unwilling to travel if a promotion is involved.

 

In the US, arguing about maternity pay isn't daft. It's pointless. US companies are not required to pay their full time employees for their maternity leave; but merely to allow a woman to take up to 12 weeks unpaid without fear of losing her job.

 

I believe NOG is correct that this is a sociological issue. However it's an issue where people like him in management position have the pre-existing assumption that women are less assertive and "not tough enough" for higher positions, which makes them prefer men instead with whom they also identify themselves better with. So it's not the women but the mostly old generation men who are used to work with mostly men and don't see women as qualified for higher position or equal wage because of their gender.

I would add though that this happens even in the opposite direction. In Finland male nurses have reported on feeling discriminated from time to time in their workplace and end up getting the worse workshifts and get passed when deciding promotions. So it happens also with female dominated workplaces where women have dominated for years and the amount of men around have only recently started to increase.

There is no easy solution for this and I don't think gender quotas are good idea since they tend to cause bad feelings on the workplace, however I feel it's important to recognize that these inequaliteis and problems exist and not simply ignore them or claim that they are too complex of an issue anyhow so nothing should be done. Whne the problem is recognized universally then it's more easily treated. The attitude of ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away is not really helpful.

 

Please don't make assumptions like this. Many of the women I know are quite assertive, and would make excellent managers (mind you, I haven't had 'normal' company of any kind during my life). I'm working off of research studies. I am perfectly willing to judge individuals by their individual actions, not by generalizations. Also, again, considering the rising numbers of women in such higher level positions, it seems to me that many managers are the same. They're perfectly willing to promote any women who actually show the same qualifications as men. The problem is that it just doesn't happen as frequently in women as in men.

The solution will have to be a sociological one. It could be modeled after previously successful campaigns to change social perceptions, such as politics, smoking and anti-smoking adds, etc. And yes, gender quotas will only increase the problem, because it will promote women who haven't and don't need to earn the position, increasing resentment among men (not just for being passed over, but for seeing unqualified women in higher positions), and promote the stereotypes of incompetent, unassuming women (by placing such women in higher positions). Quotas didn't really work for minorities, and they won't work for women either.

 

I would disagree with you NOG -- quotas did work for minorities. There just comes a time when the quota system needs to go away. You need to populate the highest levels to ensure fair treatment, once that is done the regulation needs to be relaxed.

 

So you are constantly saying without providing any sources. Yes I've heard the claim that women are less assertive but how is that measured? Is that measured by asking their superiors? Is that measured by the results, or even better measured by pay? I'll freely admit that I haven't read a single indepth study on the issue but any reports I've read all agree that there is still active discrimination. Also the very fact that the gap is decreasing is a proof that there is discrimination and that it's lessening, or are you perhaps arguing that women are merely getting more raises that they don't deserve?