New at Reason
Steve Chapman wonders whether a female columnist can only make 65 cents for every dollar he makes.
Comments to "New at Reason":
vp | April 30, 2007, 7:16am | #
In the call for equality, is it really possible to make everything equal? Split everything down the middle 50/50? Men and women are uniquely talented. Men will do better in some areas and women will do better in others. The key is to not take advantage of the other and can’t we just all get along!vp
http://www.puerhcha.com
Schutz | April 30, 2007, 7:37am | #
As one begins to arbitrarily divide a population there will always be inequality--it just happens to be fairly easy to divide us into men and women. The only way an entire population would ever be equal would for all of us to be identical (and low), with our benevolent judges/leaders looking down upon us to make sure we stay that way.Invoking equality of anything but liberty (freedom from) is a tool used to divide a population by those who benefit from doing so.
YoungLiberal | April 30, 2007, 8:28am | #
This is so unfair. What we need are laws punishing discrimination.YoungIlliterate | April 30, 2007, 8:31am | #
laws punishing discriminationYeah, punish dis here criminate
Dave W. | April 30, 2007, 8:42am | #
I wonder what the breakdown looks like on a percentile by percentile basis.In other words, of the top 1% of income earners, what proportion is men. How about the 75th percentile: More women or men?
I wouldn't be surprised if some "inequality" way, way, way up in the income stratosphere isn't skewing the the numbers, even more than the stuff Mr. Chapman identifies.
One of the local columnists points to several studies that show that the taller you are the more money you make. Therefore women, on average, make less money than men, on average, because women are shorter than men, on average. I think he was only half-joking in this observation.
Eric the .5b | April 30, 2007, 10:54am | #
Carrick: strikes me as glib to blame all gender disparity on height difference bias, but I'll bet there's some contribution there.Eryk Boston | April 30, 2007, 11:15am | #
What I find amusing is that the people who coplain about this gap are the same people who complain that corporations are soulless beasts who place profit above every other concern. If a corporation could really hire a woman to do the same work at 77 cents on the dollar, why would they ever consider hiring a man?thoreau | April 30, 2007, 11:23am | #
If a corporation could really hire a woman to do the same work at 77 cents on the dollar, why would they ever consider hiring a man?Now that's a most interesting question...
R C Dean | April 30, 2007, 11:24am | #
Women tend to prioritize family higher.That means, when the boss looks around the office at 7 pm, or looks to see who is on the road 3 days a week, he's more likely to see some guy. And that's who is more likely to get the bump come review or promotion time.
R C Dean | April 30, 2007, 11:25am | #
Now that's a most interesting question...The answer can only be that Our Corporate Masters derive so much joy from oppressing women that they are willing to lose money over-paying men, just so that get that tingly sensation, you know, down there, when they under-pay a woman.
I don't know that its fair to say women place a higher priority on family. It may rather be that the expectations of contribution to the family from men and women differ in ways that interrupt women's carreers more than men's
Lupito41 | April 30, 2007, 11:47am | #
"I don't know that its fair to say women place a higher priority on family. It may rather be that the expectations of contribution to the family from men and women differ in ways that interrupt women's carreers more than men's"Fine, then women place a higher priority on "expectations of contribution to the family" than men. Better?
Cartman | April 30, 2007, 11:58am | #
The point is that it may simply be while both regard family with equal priority, the effect on career differs because of the difference in the nature of contributions required or expected from each.Better?
Guy Montag | April 30, 2007, 11:59am | #
What I find amusing is that the people who coplain about this gap are the same people who complain that corporations are soulless beasts who place profit above every other concern. If a corporation could really hire a woman to do the same work at 77 cents on the dollar, why would they ever consider hiring a man?Actually, that was the endlessly repeated reason why the Bell System replaced young boys with women as operators. I read and heard that one for decades.
Someone finally wrote a book about it (heard him on an interview, Off the Hook on WBAI in the 1980s or 1990s) and he used a lot of Mr. Watson's writings in his research.
The reason boys were replaced by women? Women did not destroy equipment. The boys were referred to by Watson as "wild Indians" in their curiosity and destructiveness.
Unfortunatly, the "women's movement" can't be bothered by this triumph in the nature of women vs. boys as a reason they were preferred in the workplace. They have to blame EvilCorp (tm) for hiring them because they were "cheaper". I really do not remember if the pay rates were less, but the reduction in repair and maintenance would count as "cheaper" too.
Bob Smith | April 30, 2007, 12:35pm | #
I'm sure he was joking, since I don't think that applies to women. Height is a huge determinant of a man's attractiveness, but not a woman's attractiveness.
One of the local columnists points to several studies that show that the taller you are the more money you make. Therefore women, on average, make less money than men, on average, because women are shorter than men, on average. I think he was only half-joking in this observation.
On the dating front, women say men are afraid of tall women and won't dater them, but if so it's entirely rational: if you know women won't date men shorter, or not enough taller, than they are, it's rational decision making, not fear, that leads men to conclude that dating tall women is a losing game.
John C Jaxson 3rd | April 30, 2007, 12:40pm | #
I think women ( generally, of course) definitely place more importance on family.And 2- Are less aggressive seeking higher paying positions, raises,etc.
Sorry, but it's the truth. Part of it comes down to gender characteristics, sex drive differences, etc.
grumpy realist | April 30, 2007, 1:12pm | #
If women are really being penalized for the years they stay at home and take care of the kids, should something be done about it? Is raising the next generation a "common good" that society should be willing to pay for?I don't see the present set-up, where women are under the pressure to do both sets of work, to be all that fantastic. Why aren't the fathers taking up some of the load? Why is it all on the mother?
This is why a perfectly Libertarian society/economy wouldn't last for that long (or would collapse into agricultural subsistence farming.) There would be NO incentive whatsoever to have kids, only the vague hope that maybe down the road they would be around to support you in your old age. It would be much better, from the individual point of view, to devote one's self to work full time, earn as much money as possible, and then pay for one's own retirement/caretaker.
MayorOmalley Suxs | April 30, 2007, 1:25pm | #
“Why is it all on the mother?”It is not. That mother’s carry the load and make all the sacrifices is a sexist myth. The same thing is the case with the idea that women do the majority of the housework; a self-serving sexist myth.
Lupito41 | April 30, 2007, 1:30pm | #
"I don't know that its fair to say women place a higher priority on family. It may rather be that the expectations of contribution to the family from men and women differ in ways that interrupt women's carreers more than men's...The point is that it may simply be while both regard family with equal priority, the effect on career differs because of the difference in the nature of contributions required or expected from each. Better?"
You just keep re-wording the same thing. Whether it is a product of desire, expectations, pressure, or magical juju, women as a group spend more time dedicated to family and less to work. This translates into a lower income, just like the column said. If you are trying to say something different, it isn't coming across.
biologist | April 30, 2007, 2:05pm | #
I wonder if the "average" pay referred to in the report is the arithmetic mean, or the median. The arithmetic mean is easily skewed by extreme values, which would mean that the more valid comparison is between medians. (This is probably what Dave W. is alluding to.)Guy Montag | April 30, 2007, 2:08pm | #
I wonder if the "average" pay referred to in the report is the arithmetic mean, or the median.My guess is they looked at three averages and picked the one that fit their bias without knowing the differences between mean, median and mode.
MayorOmalley Suxs | April 30, 2007, 3:01pm | #
"women as a group spend more time dedicated to family and less to work."In the opinion of this single dad, what sexist claptrap.
Even if one was to believe the sexist stereotypes, why is taking care of the house more family orientated than paying for the house?
Lupito41, without realising it, you are now on board. I agreed women might spend more time at home. I disagreed that could be conclusively attributed to prioritisation. I.e. I was saying there could be other reasons for that. Just like your "Whether it is a product of..."
Jennifer | April 30, 2007, 3:55pm | #
This is why a perfectly Libertarian society/economy wouldn't last for that long (or would collapse into agricultural subsistence farming.) There would be NO incentive whatsoever to have kids, only the vague hope that maybe down the road they would be around to support you in your old age.So the only thing that makes people decides to become mommies and daddies is financial incentives?
Lupito41 | April 30, 2007, 4:26pm | #
"Lupito41, without realising it, you are now on board."Sweet. I love accidentally agreeing.
megs | April 30, 2007, 4:34pm | #
Grumpy Realist -People want to have kids, they don't have them as a financial incentive. Except for snide welfare remarks.
Same reason why you won't find some guys in the office at 7. Because people make choices and some of those include partying every night. Many people would prefer to dedicate more time to quality of life than mere financial rewards, which I see plenty of people do even if they are childless.
There is a good deal of marketing quality of life to women. How much of that is evil marketers trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant and how much is simply responding to the existing market, well, I have an idea (read: the latter.) There is some social pressure for women to be less assertive in asking for raises or demanding to be paid what they're worth. And there are certainly some bosses who shortchange female employees because they have biases that override their business sense.
But I really don't think any sort of intervention, especially government, is going to change that. It's already changing and skewing more towards equality on its own, because it simply makes sense to treat workers as workers, regardless of gender (while gender may play a part in how well you do your heavy lifting job, blah blah blah) and because more people are "equalists" or whatever you want to call your rational feminism these days.
Bob Smith | April 30, 2007, 5:39pm | #
What women do is an important contribution to the household, what men do isn't. Ensuring food is on the table in the first place is not as important as the physical act of feeding your children. Choose the right definitions thus proving women are virtuous and men aren't. You see similar things when women's groups crow about how women are so much more virtuous because they do a lot more charitable and volunteer work than men do. They forget that for most women they have that time because a man is subsidizing them. Volunteerism is a lot easier when you don't have to hold a full time job.
Even if one was to believe the sexist stereotypes, why is taking care of the house more family orientated than paying for the house?
grumpy realist | April 30, 2007, 6:54pm | #
I'm drawing on my experience of a country which has been rapidly losing in the birth-replacement population: Japan.A lot of Japanese women are voting with their feet, not getting married, and not having kids. Partly because it's still "expected" at your average Japanese company that if you're female, married, and have a kid, you're going to quit to take care of it.
A lot of Japanese women don't like getting cooped up in small apartments all day with nothing to do except take care of a baby. So a lot of them aren't doing it.
Add to that the incredible cost of raising a child within Japanese society all the way through the education gamut. So families are often cutting back on having more than one child--they can't afford it.
And if Japanese women feel that they're going to be the ones doing double-duty--having to work as well as take care of the house, it's not surprising they're walking away from marriage, as well. (Japanese men still remain very traditional.)
Plus there's very little day care available, so other ways around it don't really exist.
BTW, the commentator above has the phrase "the man is subsidizing [the woman]." This is exactly the mindset that is causing the problem. Her efforts (whether taking care of the house, the child, or whatever) are not seen to have any economic value. Subsidizing, indeed! You might as well say the woman is subsidizing through her hard work a support system for the workers of the corporation and they should be paying her for that.
Maybe all companies should split the paychecks to their employees between the employees and those who provide support system to those employees.
megs | April 30, 2007, 10:24pm | #
Grumpy realist- I can guarantee you that what's going on in Japan right now won't stay that way. Call it a Lysistrata effect. Men won't be so "traditional" if it doesn't get them married and women will find a way to have husbands and careers and babies. They're smart that way.Before he met me, my husband's money didn't go as far, because he didn't have time to prepare many meals and his quality of life wasn't as good. Should his employer really pay me money for fixing his meals and making sure he's got clean shirts, when he would have had them anyway, just more frantically with more hassal? If I'm his cleaning lady and I provide value the same as a service, should his employer pay for a service to unmarried workers? This is crazy, not realistic. Honestly.
Oh, and we subsidize each other. Every night. I'd matter of factly say he cleans the house and does handy work for his share, but I just know how this crowd would take that.
Bob Smith | April 30, 2007, 10:58pm | #
You miss my point entirely. If she wasn't married, she'd need a full time job to support herself. If she held a full time job, she wouldn't have time for all the charitable and volunteer work she engages in. It is indeed appropriate to say her husband subsidizes her charitable impulses.
BTW, the commentator above has the phrase "the man is subsidizing [the woman]." This is exactly the mindset that is causing the problem. Her efforts (whether taking care of the house, the child, or whatever) are not seen to have any economic value. Subsidizing, indeed!
That has nothing to do with whether what she does has economic value. It in fact has no economic value, which is not to say it has no value. Why? Because no sane person will pay you to take care of your own kid and clean your own house.