Skip to main content

Man holding big piggybank, woman holding small piggybank
Congratulations, average woman of America! Today, April 9, 2013, it is Equal Pay Day: you have caught up to what your male counterpart earned in 2012. Bask in it for a while before you start thinking about when you'll catch up to what he's making in 2013.

Overall, women make 77 cents on the man's dollar, but it's not uniform: Asian women earn 87.6 cents to the white man's dollar, while black women earn just 64 cents compared with white men. And while people trying to claim discrimination isn't a reason for pay disparities often point to time off from paid work women take to raise children, consider this:

The typical never-married woman with no children working full time, year round is paid 72.9 percent of what a man working full time, year round is paid.
Or consider that the pay gap starts right at the beginning of people's work lives. Among college graduates aged 21-24, women make 12.2 percent less than men, according to one study, while according to another, the gap is five percent right out of college but grows to 12 percent after 10 years, even for women who have continued working as steadily as men. Bottom line?
More than 40 percent of the wage gap cannot be explained by occupation, work experience, race, or union membership. More than one-quarter of the wage gap is due to the different jobs that men and women hold, and about 10 percent is due to the fact that women are more likely to leave the workforce to provide unpaid care to family members. But even when controlling for gender and racial differences, 41 percent is “unexplainable by measureable factors.”
These statistics are just a few of the reasons we need stronger laws to close the gender pay gap. Tell Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act so women can take the next step toward pay parity.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:59 AM PDT.

Also republished by In Support of Labor and Unions and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And 40% of 23 cents is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk

    ...9.2 cents.

    Meaning that other things being equal, women earn 90.8 cents for every dollar a man earns.

    Which means that the real equal pay day happened some time ago.

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by expatjourno on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:05:01 PM PDT

  •  It's very sad we are still not there yet (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socindemsclothing, shaharazade

    The largest employer of all practices gender discrimination;

    Walmart lawsuit: 11 Florida women sue Walmart for gender discrimination

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:16:30 PM PDT

  •  So wait a minute, if a man makes the minimum wage (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jabney, ragged but right

    women earn less than the minimum wage? :P

    (HAD TO!)

  •  Guess Hispanics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Batya the Toon

    Didn't warrant attention. Odd considering the emphasis we've been placing on that group this year. But also because they make even less than African American women to the dollar.

    http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/ Jesus Loves You.

    by DAISHI on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:06:26 PM PDT

  •  Laura, with respect to College Grads, is there (0+ / 0-)

    any analysis as to major? My Chemistry and Engineering depts. we're almost all men (believe me) whereas my girlfriends' education major were mostly women. That was a long time ago though, so I don't know if it's still true.
    In the event, we started about the same, but I pulled ahead pretty fast

    Those who quote Santayana are condemned to repeat him. Me

    by Mark B on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:08:31 PM PDT

  •  Here's something I don't understand: (4+ / 0-)

    If female employees work the same amount of hours and produce the same quality of work as their male counterparts for just three quarters of the pay, then why have America's notoriously mercenary corporations not packed their payrolls with women? They could slice their labor costs by a quarter with absolutely no change in productivity.

    •  Institutionalized sexism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Batya the Toon

      If you flood the workplace with women, you will eventually have to promote them and they will, in turn, eventually run the place.  The elites would rather suffer the consequences than let women take over the boardroom.

      •  So... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ragged but right

        ...are the men who supposedly run these companies more greedy or more sexist?

        They are willing to give up free money because they are afraid their workplace will be taken over by women...? That's kind of a stretch.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 07:02:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would mean sacrificing male privilege (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Batya the Toon

          That's no trifling matter.  If your actions are instrumental in creating female-dominated workplaces, patriarchy is officially over.  Kaput.  Done with.  You've lost your number one spot in the gender hierarchy and all commensurate rewards and privileges.   Not to mention, the one thing all sexists have in common is their abject fear- the quaking in yer boots kind- that once women are in charge, they're going to do exactly to men what men have done to women for the past, oh, let's say, most of recorded history.  I wish I were making this up, but you only have to visit any MRA group to see scarewords like "matriarchy" being tossed around.  The worst of the worst think women are going to cut off their balls and keep them locked in the basement until a lightbulb needs changing.  

          •  Elaboration (0+ / 0-)

            I knocked that off too quickly.  I'd like to add: If a group of oppressors surrenders economic control to the oppressed, they're no longer in control of anything because $ = power in the U.S.  Plus, they risk having the righteous anger and millenia of resentment turned back onto them.  Now, that's from the perspective of an inveterate sexist.  If you can't wrap your mind around the concept, that probably means you're one of the good guys.  There aren't many good guys in the boardrooms, though, are there.

            •  I don't know if I'm a "good guy" or not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ragged but right

              The concepts you discuss are completely alien to me in all respects.

              I am someone who occasionally is in a position to recommend to hire people and gender is completely beside the point. We hire mostly men, but our applicants are mostly men (engineering). We hire women too.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:01:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There's a reason why it's alien to you. (0+ / 0-)

                It's why I, as a white person, can never fully understand or appreciate the extent of racism in the U.S. and its effects on POC as they go about their daily lives.  I very rarely witness racism in action because of my white privilege, and I never even have to hear about it if I refrain from visiting those corners of the internet where it's openly discussed.  I am cloaked in white privilege.  It protects me from having to engage with social justice issues related to race.  

                The same holds true for men and sexism.  If you don't read about it, or discuss it, or visit sites where feminists gather, it would seem terribly foreign to you.  And that's not an indictment of your character, merely a marker of your innocence.  

                The real tragedy here is that when good guys remain ignorant of the extent to which sexism affects the lives of their colleagues, friends, family members, wives, girlfriends, everyone suffers for it.  Everyone.

                Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

                -7.88, -7.64

                by socindemsclothing on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:37:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah well (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  George Hier, ragged but right

                  I'm too busy working to bother with any of that.

                  I literally have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt to unravel this subtle privilege I supposedly enjoy. It's either something I can measure and/or do something about, or I am going to keep doing real work where I get paid for doing something productive.

                  I do, and have, addressed sexism and discrimination where necessary. I work with and hire women/minorities/etc when they are the best candidate for a job. I don't feel that I have any other obligation to anyone.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:13:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you're capable of 100% impartiality on the job (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Batya the Toon

                    And when considering a candidate, you're part of the solution.  That right there is a giant step forward and absolutely nothing to sneeze at.

                    Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

                    -7.88, -7.64

                    by socindemsclothing on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:28:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  If it's not too much trouble... (0+ / 0-)
            I wish I were making this up, but you only have to visit any MRA group to see scarewords like "matriarchy" being tossed around.
            ...Could I possibly ask you to provide some examples? I'm curious as to what the proverbial fuss is about, so to speak.
            •  You only have to pop over to the... (0+ / 0-)

              Southern Poverty Law Center to read their articles on MRA groups.  If you're interested.

              Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

              -7.88, -7.64

              by socindemsclothing on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:25:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You said you see this all the time (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                George Hier

                Is it too much to ask to post a link or two?

                (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                by Sparhawk on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:31:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'm not sure that the SPCC are a credible source. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ragged but right

                At least, not on this particular subject. I realize that the Southern Poverty Law Center have a long and lauded history for monitoring and legally opposing hate groups and similar organizations, but even a brief foray into their materials reveals a worrying degree of inaccuracy and potentially even intellectual dishonesty  on the subject of men's rights activists.

                To wit: Myths of the Manosphere, and the SPLC's very first point:

                THE CLAIM Men’s rights activists often insist that men are victimized by sex crimes and abuse just as much as women are, if not more.

                THE REALITY A major 2010 study by the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control thoroughly debunks such claims. Nearly one in five American women (18.3%), the study found, have been raped; the comparable number for men is one in 71 (1.4%).

                The actual CDC report does appear to support the SPLC's conclusions; however, on closer reading, it becomes clear that this support is superficial.

                Table 2.1, representing female sexual violence statistics, lists the twelve month prevalence of estimated female rape victims as 1,270,000. Table 2.2, representing male sexual violence statistics, does not list a similar entry for estimated male rape victims. However, the act of a male being made to penetrate - listed as "Other sexual violence" - is listed as 1,267,000.

                If one classifies the act of penetration and the act of being made to penetrate as rape and not rape respectively, then the SPLC's conclusions bear out. If one classifies both acts as rape, however - and quite frankly, I am at a complete loss as to why one would not do so - then the difference between the genders is a mere 0.24%... The very claim the SPLC seeks to debunk.

                I intend to delve further into the SPLC's materials on men's rights activists. I realize that you have already covered this point to some degree in your other posts, but if you could possibly point me in the direction of a more authoritative source on the subject of men's rights activists, I would be greatly appreciative.

                •  If you rewrite the rules, it still doesn't work (0+ / 0-)

                  You're saying, Here, I don't like the way the data is presented, so I'm going to recategorize and relabel it, effectively making it say what I want it to say.  The SPLC quote was debunking the myth that "sex crimes and abuse" affect men and women equally.  And then you proceeded to make this specifically about rape and excluded all other forms of sexual assault from your calculations.  

                  According to the CDC data- which must be taken with a huge chunk of salt since rape and sexual assault are vastly underreported in female and male populations- 18.3% of women are the victims of rape, 1.4% of men are rape victims.  44.6% of women are the victims of "other sexual violence", 22.2% of men are the victims of "other sexual violence" (including forced penetration).  If we combine those numbers, 62.9% of women are the victims of some sort of sexual violence and 23.6% of men are the victims of some sort of sexual violence.  That still makes women overwhelmingly more likely to be victimized.  

                  You can argue that forced penetration should be reclassified as rape, and that's a perfectly valid argument to make, but if we did it would only bring the total number of male rape victims to 6.2%, as opposed to 18.3% of women.  Using your new criteria, women are three times more likely to be raped.  

                  If you want to write to the CDC and argue your case for reclassifying rape, by all means, go for it.  The SPLC was merely quoting their data.  I have no idea where your claim of "intellectual dishonesty" comes from.  

                  The SPLC is not only a highly reputable source of hate group information, they are the foremost authority on hate groups in this country.  I'm not aware of any other major hate group monitoring organizations in the U.S.  If you know of any, please speak up.  I can't think of any other groups that perform comparable work.  

                  Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

                  -7.88, -7.64

                  by socindemsclothing on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 12:19:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is not my intention to "Make it work". (0+ / 0-)
                    You're saying, Here, I don't like the way the data is presented, so I'm going to recategorize and relabel it, effectively making it say what I want it to say.
                    I am stating that the raw statistics in the report indicate - please pardon the crudity of the following sentence - that the twelve month prevalence of women that were forcibly penetrated, and men that were forced to penetrate, are virtually equal in number. This would appear to support the position the SPLC assigns to men's rights activists.

                    If anything, I am of the opinion that the CDC and by extension the SPLC are engaging in the behavior you describe; that is to say, they have created a gendered definition of the term "Rape" that virtually excludes one gender from being classified as victims, and then point to the disparity between the two genders as evidence of an imbalance... but I digress.

                    44.6% of women are the victims of "other sexual violence", 22.2% of men are the victims of "other sexual violence" (including forced penetration).  If we combine those numbers, 62.9% of women are the victims of some sort of sexual violence and 23.6% of men are the victims of some sort of sexual violence.  That still makes women overwhelmingly more likely to be victimized.
                    The twelve month prevalence statistics indicate that in accounting for all forms of sexual violence, both genders are victimized at similar (albeit more pronounced) rates; 7,916,000 (6.6%) female victims versus 6,027,000 male victims (5.3%).

                    The lifetime statistics, as you point, show a vastly different story - 75,014,000 total female victims (62.9%) versus 26,711,000 male victims (23.6%). How can it be that the twelve month prevalence rates are almost equal; but the lifetime prevalence rates demonstrate a disparity of 39.3%?

                    One possibility is that the victimization rates for women are trending downward; over past decades the rates were much higher for women than men, but in recent years they have leveled out. This being the case, the SPLC's argument would still be flawed.

                    Another possibility is that men victimized outside of the twelve month window under-reported their experiences; even more so than estimated. This argument may have some merit given that both the CDC and the SPLC, two highly respected organizations, do not consider the act of being forced to penetrate as constituting rape. Is it any surprise that men might not correctly report their experiences when this sort of line of thinking is prevalent?

                    If you want to write to the CDC and argue your case for reclassifying rape, by all means, go for it.  The SPLC was merely quoting their data.  I have no idea where your claim of "intellectual dishonesty" comes from.
                    Evidently, the SPLC set out to write a rebuttal of sorts to the arguments of men's rights activists. In doing so, they cited a report whose very statistics agree with the position the SPLC was attempting to rebut. That the author of the SPLC's rebuttal made no note of this, or preemptive argument in favor of the CDC's definition of rape, is extremely indicative of cherry-picking.

                    As an aside, I hope you understand that my position is not one in favor of men's rights activists; rather, I am merely enjoying the exercise of researching and learning.

                    Having said this, I will be writing both to the CDC and SPLC regarding the aforementioned gendered definition of rape. On a personal note, I find it absolutely outrageous that almost half of the victims of rape in this country are having their experiences minimized by such thoughtlessness.

                    •  I don't believe for one second (0+ / 0-)

                      that you aren't harboring some nefarious ulterior motive with your deliberate obfuscation of meticulously culled data and hypotheses that subvert the data in favor of MRA propaganda.  The further this dialogue progresses, the more suspect your contributions become.  

                      Furthermore, the innocent never say things like "my position is not one in favor of Men's Rights Activists".  The tone and content of your posts have spoken for you.  Loudly.

                      I'm going to quickly address a couple of your misconceptions:

                      Lifetime vs. 12 mth. statistical data is for the exact same group of respondents.  People were asked, "How many times have you experienced __ in the 12 mths. prior to this survey?", and "How many times have you experienced __ in your lifetime?"  Yep, it's true, women are far more likely to be repeat victims of sexual violence. Apparently you aren't fond of that fact or you wouldn't have misinterpreted the research in favor of MRA propaganda.  You would've actually read the damn thing instead of projecting wishful thinking onto it.

                      By the way, men and women were asked very specific questions about the types of sexual violence they had experienced.  Were you forcibly penetrated?  Did you forcibly penetrate someone?  There is absolutely no reason to downplay experiences when the word "rape" isn't even being used.

                      And how do you know they didn't accidentally survey a bunch of misogynists hellbent on corrupting the data?  Maybe a bunch of male respondents lied about being forced to penetrate someone, or lied about experiencing sexual violence in general.  Maybe they wanted to inflate the numbers so it would seem like men are victimized more often than they really are.  Hey, it's just as valid as any of your hypotheses.  

                      I feel it's necessary to point out that "forced penetration" "also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen."  That's a direct quote from the CDC report.  I have no idea why they lumped the data together like that.  It does create a conundrum, however, because we don't know how many of those cases involved a woman trying to get a guy to do something to her and how many were, pardon the crudeness, successful forced penetration incidents.  We know what the "attempted" and "completed" rape numbers are for women, but we don't know what they are for men.  That makes any direct comparisons impossible.  

                      In conclusion, you may not like that certain acts of violence are placed in the "wrong" category, you might not appreciate the presentation, but that still doesn't mean you've got a leg to stand on here.  The CDC and SPLC haven't tried to deceive anyone, they're simply working with the criteria that apply to all current sexual violence research.  I would be extremely interested in hearing what their responses to your critiques are.  Feel free to pass along those responses to me via the messaging system.

                      Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

                      -7.88, -7.64

                      by socindemsclothing on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 06:45:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You're misreading that (0+ / 0-)
                        "forced penetration" "also includes female perpetrators attempting to force male victims to penetrate them, though it did not happen."
                        You're misreading that. The definition of "Made to Penetrate" includes:
                        1) Women who were successful in forcing men to penetrate them (it did happen)
                        2) Attempted "made to penetrate" where the woman was unsuccessful (it did not happen).
                        That does not men women did not force men to have sex with them, only that the study includes attempted "made to penetrate" in its figures, just like it includes attempted rape. According to the report, 79.2% of the made to penetrate victims reported only female perpetrators.
                      •  I will be quite honest with you. (0+ / 0-)

                        I have an interest in the issues facing men. I make no secret of this; it should be quite apparent from my comment history.

                        My interest arose primarily as a result of a long-term abusive relationship in which I was emotionally, physically and sexually abused by my female partner. The dominant narrative in my country of origin is one in which such offenses are perpetrated solely by men, and solely against women; and it was some years before I was even able to acknowledge the nature of my situation, let alone seek help.

                        Following this, I was the victim of a homophobically motivated assault. I feel compelled to inform you that there were two assailants; not because this is factually relevant, but because I have become so accustomed to being derided for my failure, as a man, to protect myself.

                        I have since acquired a brother-in-law who has been cruelly deprived of access to his daughter for almost two years; and I have witnessed firsthand the extreme disinterest of the county authorities in rectifying this situation.

                        So yes; I have an interest in the issues facing men. I am not a men's rights activist; however, it sounds as if the interests of such a movement might align with my own. I was therefore very interested in what a trusted source - such as a follow DKos member - might have to say about them.

                        You have made your opinion on the movement quite clear; describing them as scaremongers, and incorrectly attributing to me a position of propagandist. What you have not done is bring evidence to support these suppositions, other than to suggest that those with further questions research the matter for themselves, beginning with the SPLC. In much the same way, you cite extensive sociological research supporting your position on the pay gap; yet refuse to provide references.

                        When you make claims, you also assume the burden of proof. You may not like this; but I suggest, given the evidence-based nature of this community, that it would be in your interest to assume this mindset.

                        Regarding the difference between the twelve month prevalence and lifetime prevalence statistics; your explanation that female victims are victimized multiple times still does not explain the gross disparity between these two sets of numbers. The explanation I suggested earlier, however - that the victimization rates for women have steadily declined over the years, eventually reaching approximate parity with the rates for men - would. I think you will find this explanation supported by the FBI's crime rate statistics.

                        And then there is this:

                        In conclusion, you may not like that certain acts of violence are placed in the "wrong" category, you might not appreciate the presentation, but that still doesn't mean you've got a leg to stand on here.  The CDC and SPLC haven't tried to deceive anyone, they're simply working with the criteria that apply to all current sexual violence research.
                        I am not sure how to respond to the fact that the CDC, the SPLC, and yourself all hold that the acts perpetrated against me did not constitute rape. I am not angry; I merely ask you to reflect on the fact that your preconceived notions have caused you to insult and insinuate about the character of a rape victim.

                        And with that, I'm done.

      •  Institutionalized sexism? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        George Hier, ragged but right

        This site is packed with diaries chronicling the activities of businesses that derail the economy, flout the law, destroy the environment, disregard the well-being of their workers and buy and sell democracy.

        I'm not sure if I can accept the idea that such organizations - especially with their notoriously shortsighted focus - would view an increase in female hiring as the one line they refuse to cross on principle.

        Again; if female employees work the same amount of hours and produce the same quality of work as their male counterparts for just three quarters of the pay, then switching to a predominantly female workforce is a positive treasure-trove of savings just waiting to be taken advantage of. Are we really to believe that not one "Elite" would readily jump at the chance to cut a quarter of their payroll costs?

        •  And gradually...the women rise to the top (0+ / 0-)

          And it becomes the sole puview of the female employees, who become the managers and CEOs, to reap those rewards and subsequently exercise their political muscle.

          You have to think long-range.  I've only explored one theory here, too.  Please see the blog I've linked to near the bottom of the page.

          You're welcome to disagree, of course, but we're coming at this from two entirely different places.

          Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

          -7.88, -7.64

          by socindemsclothing on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:48:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for the link. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm reading through it right now; and would recommend others take a look if they haven't already.

            I suppose my biggest problem in this discussion is how we go about reconciling the incongruity of the notoriously exploitative behavior of America's big businesses, and what appears to be an extraordinary opportunity - one they continue to fail to seize - to slash what is generally one of if not the biggest cost for most organizations (i.e. people).

            Ho hum.

            •  Riddle me this, factman (0+ / 0-)

              Racial minorities, male and female, are paid less than Caucasians for the same work, so why aren't the workplaces flooded with AA and Hispanic workers?  Why are we not suffering a White Person Unemployment Crisis in this country if it's more economical to hire POC?  

              You're crazy if you think the White Boys Club at the top of the social pyramid is going to do anything to jeopardize their position of power.  

              Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

              -7.88, -7.64

              by socindemsclothing on Wed Apr 10, 2013 at 12:33:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Factman". I like it. That's good. :) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Batya the Toon
                Why are we not suffering a White Person Unemployment Crisis in this country if it's more economical to hire POC?
                That's precisely my point, though - that there might be other factors at work that we have not accounted for. The alternative is that America's infamously mercenary businesses are willing to engage in all manner of unethical behavior in the pursuit of short-term profit gain; but apparently all draw the line at hiring women and minorities.

                Additionally, it occurred to me that our inability to explain the existence of a pay gap is not in fact evidence of sexism or racism. This would represent an example of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

                having said this, I am aware of at least one study in which it was demonstrated that both male and female bosses tend to view the aggressive pursuit of raises differently based on whether the employee in question is male or female. This represents an excellent example pay-related consequences derived from gender expectations, and is precisely the sort of issue that we should look at tackling in the interest of equality.

                •  You don't get irony, do you? (0+ / 0-)

                  I should've called you Outlandish and Paranoid Theory Man, instead.

                  Additionally, it occurred to me that our inability to explain the existence of a pay gap is not in fact evidence of sexism or racism.

                  It is when bolstered by extensive sociological research into cultural trends and attitudes.  Significant correlations are significant for a reason.

                  This is all getting very silly.  You're grasping at straws, trying desperately to disprove that sexism/racism exist, and it's getting painful to watch.  Some of that pain is due to your callous disregard for the disenfranchisement of minorities. But then...we wouldn't have sexism and racism if white men didn't expend tremendous reserves of time, energy and money attempting to prove they don't exist.  

                  So sad.

                  I'm guessing you consider yourself a "beta male".  We all know "alpha males" are too busy enjoying the biggest, juiciest fruits of male privilege to wallow in self-pity and devote precious time to the morally reprehensible goal of proving they're the biggest victims in the universe.

                  Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

                  -7.88, -7.64

                  by socindemsclothing on Thu Apr 11, 2013 at 07:14:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  One reason women aren't paid as much (0+ / 0-)

      is that employers don't value their work as much.  They generally do not acknowledge that they are paying less money for equal work; they don't believe (consciously or otherwise) that the work is equal.

      It wouldn't make sense to pack the payroll with people who you believe will do a substandard job.

  •  I love people. (0+ / 0-)

    Its plain. This is injustice.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:18:49 PM PDT

  •  Nothing Changes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socindemsclothing

    I vividly recall interviewing for a Software testing position in 1997. The department was all male. A friend of mine had worked as a manager in the department and had recently left the company. He advised me what to say when asked about my salary requirements, based on my level of experience and what they were paying which was in-line with my research on the going rates. The interview went well and at the end when I was asked about salary requirements, I stated what I knew to be a reasonable amount for the position. The hiring Manager actually burst out laughing. He then proceeded to berate for daring to think I could aspire to such a lofty salary. A few weeks later I interview at another company with a female hiring manager and secured a job for about the same amount.

  •  Thanks! Link for 2nd quote, please? (0+ / 0-)

    This one:

    More than 40 percent of the wage gap cannot be explained by occupation, work experience, race, or union membership. More than one-quarter of the wage gap is due to the different jobs that men and women hold, and about 10 percent is due to the fact that women are more likely to leave the workforce to provide unpaid care to family members. But even when controlling for gender and racial differences, 41 percent is “unexplainable by measureable factors.”
    Every time I discuss this with a conservative, it's always this factor, that factor, what about this other thing? I'd like to know who teased apart the factors. Thanks!

    “Americans are fighters. We're tough, resourceful and creative, and if we have the chance to fight on a level playing field, where everyone pays a fair share and everyone has a real shot, then no one - no one - can stop us. ”-- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 05:25:03 PM PDT

  •  is it controlled for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ragged but right

    skill seniority and responsibility of positions? Or just in general equal experience? I've had employees of equal experience but greatly unequal skill sets, both men and women, earning different amounts in similar positions.

    •  Who knows? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cryonaut

      Seattle is one of the most progressive cities and it is cited as the second worst offender.

      The high wage jobs in Seattle are concentrated in maie dominated professions. Tech, Machinists (Boeing), and so on. So it is no surprise that the number come out this way.

      Also, when I was a hiring manager in tech, female candidates would ask for substantially less money than the men would. (Not sure if that is the case anymore). I couldn't even get female friends to ask their prospective employers for the going rate.

      And, my male employees were always more aggressive about demanding raises.

      •  There was a study recently (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon

        that found that women who were more assertive in asking for raises, etc., were actually less likely to get them.  Sort of an I'm-going-to-punish-you-for-acting-like-a-man gesture.

        Damned if you do...

        Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out. -George Carlin

        -7.88, -7.64

        by socindemsclothing on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:05:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wage Inequality Is an Unwritten Rule (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socindemsclothing

    My  bosses (men, usually, but?) explained it this way:  

    "Men have more financial 'responsibities' than women and therefore they 'need' more money."

    Male dominated professions have historically considered  females in the workforce as mere trifles.  I witnessed this through my entire carreer.  Not much another pawn could do about it.  

    Dinosaurs in the old boy's club die hard and oh too slowly.   The fact women have put up with this as long as they have is a testiment to their tenacity.

    As for the co-opted female boss,  I still ponder that one!    

  •  Furthermore income inequality for women totally (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socindemsclothing

    spills over into Social Security benefits.  So we need to raise the benefit floor for Social Security also.

  •  Thanks for this, Laura! (0+ / 0-)

    If anyone is looking for further statistical data and explanations for the wage gap, authored by an economist, no less, I highly recommend Echidne's Gender Gap series: http://www.echidne-of-the-snakes.com/

  •  Hmmm. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ragged but right

    These studies would carry more weight if they reported disparities in terms of particular industries, jobs, careers, etc.

    Do female software engineers at Amazon make less than male software engineers? If so did the female engineers demand the same salary as the men? Do they quit if they don't get the raises they ask for?

    Should managers offer professionals more pay than they ask for? I don't think so.

    In lock-step pay industries, paying women less, or failing to promote them is unlawful discrimination. But it doesn't pass the smell test when Seattle is cited as the worst violator of male-female pay equality.

    Geekwire

  •  when is equal work day? (0+ / 0-)

    you know, when the women you work with have done the same amount of work as the guys? i have only had jobs that involve laboring. and when there is a heavy box to move or a dirty stinky job to do the guys do it while the girls are told to stand around and look pretty. equal pay =equal work. get your hands dirty. earn your pay. i've had plenty of good woman bosses. they never claimed to be too delicate or sensitive to share the load as a peer. hr away, truth is bad if it doesn't follow the group mind. but ask any guy who works construction if the women he works with do as much work as him. or any at all.

    •  I've never worked in construction (0+ / 0-)

      but I have observed women in manual-labor jobs (in subway maintenance, for instance) doing heavy lifting and dirty work right alongside their male coworkers.  I can't speak as to whether this is standard.

      With regard to corporate and other office jobs, I can assure you that your complaint is completely irrelevant -- and I believe that's where the highest pay disparity tends to be.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site