The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Political Science, Economics, Law, political theory, government, and other related topics.

Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby mtbturtle on May 25th, 2012, 8:48 am 

Wisconsin’s Repeal of Equal Pay Rights Adds to Battles for Women

In fact, despite Coulter’s well-known expertise in the field, this is incorrect. A 2007 study by the American Association of University Women found that college-educated women earn only 80 percent as much as similarly educated men a year after graduation. Part of that is attributable to differences in life choices and family circumstances, but not all. “After accounting for college major, occupation, industry, sector, hours worked, workplace flexibility, experience, educational attainment, enrollment status, GPA, institution selectivity, age, race/ethnicity, region, marital status, and number of children, a 5 percent difference in the earnings of male and female college graduates one year after graduation was still unexplained,” it said. After 10 years in the workforce, there’s an unexplained 12 percent gap.

“The idea that pay discrimination is a myth is a myth in and of itself,” says Fatima Goss Graves, vice president for education and employment at the National Women’s Law Center. “Study after study has shown the exact opposite.”
User avatar
mtbturtle
Philosophy Admin
 
Posts: 8475
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:22


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby kidjan on May 28th, 2012, 4:17 pm 

Ursa Minimus wrote:
kidjan wrote:
BTW, "natural gender roles"? Interesting to see such clear essentialist language brought into in a discussion of inequality.


I don't know what point you're trying to make here, but I suspect you've never had kids?

My wife and I struggle with this very thing--both of us feel strongly that we shouldn't have to fall into these roles, and I value her career probably more than she does--but nonetheless, here we are, falling into those roles. We were bemoaning that fact just last night.


I suspect you have never lived as a woman.


Whether or not you've had kids means a lot in this debate; seriously. It's not even a debate at this point--I'm telling you the experience my wife and I have had. So you can criticize us for this, but I think that's unfair.

So you are living contrary to your own values and desires?


I wouldn't say "contrary to"; more like just how things ended up. Again, difficult to explain if you don't have kids. But to me, it's abundantly clear that our family changed with the addition of our daughter, and both my wife and I had to make some pretty hard decisions about career and family that we really didn't consider. And I also think it's easy to hold these "values and desires" when you don't have children.

And once we did have children, we came to find that many of these decisions aren't ones we even get to make: depending on the sort of parent you're willing to be and your child's personality, we found a lot of these decisions got made for us. In retrospect, makes me feel foolish for even arguing over some of the things we did prior to having children.

Anyway, the point I'm making with all of this is I could poo-poo the notion of "natural gender roles" all day long, but it's not so easy with children. I dunno, maybe you're twice the man I am and I'm some weak-sauce noobish father who failed at balancing family life with career potential, but that's neither here nor there: this is our life, for better or worse.

I can certainly tell you stories about my experience with children that back up my points. So what? Such anecdotes are extremely limited and impossible to verify. It might be interesting conversation to spend some time on, it isn't much in the way of evidence for societal patterns or their causes.


"experience with children" is not the same thing as having responsibility for a family. I haven't slept normally in nearly two years. I have not had a "normal" dinner in two years where my wife and I talked without interruption. I've had norovirus three times, and been sick more times than I can count (it may surprise you that toddlers do not have good personal hygeine). I post here infrequently because I don't exactly have a ton of excess time on my hands to haggle over gender rolls with heavy-handed ivory tower types.

This is not me complaining; I wouldn't take back being a father for anything. This is me pointing out that "experience with children" is not equivalent to having one, and if I had a dime for every misconception I had before having children, I'd be wealthy at this point.

What I do think is sexist and wrong in our society is the complete lack of support for maternity leave. The United States is one of a handful of countries that doesn't offer paid maternity leave (basically you don't get fired for at least three months, assuming you work for a company with 50 or more employees....a ridiculous policy) for both mother and father. There's no real focus on day care or help with early child development besides tax deductions, but those don't even remotely cover the gap. There's a real conflict, in my opinion, between raising a family and still maintaining a career, and very little support by government or corporations to make this "lifestyle" tenable.


In fact, trying to change them is unnatural! Goes against the laws of nature, and is surely the path to DOOM!!! So just get back in the kitchen, woman, and get me dinner!


Non-sequiter, slippery slope, nothing to do with debate....unclear what point you're even trying to make here.

Do I think you are arguing for restricting women's rights and opportunities? No. Explicitly no. But your choice of language is the language of those who do.


Well, then you should probably discuss this with my wife, who feels similarly, so I guess she's attempting to repress women the world around. Seriously. If you have some brilliant idea how we can fairly share our professional careers without making any sacrifices for family, let me know. I offered outright to quit my job and let my wife work (not that this would even be feasible--kids tend to make decisions for you).
User avatar
kidjan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1930
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Location: Earth.


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby mtbturtle on May 28th, 2012, 4:42 pm 

what does making "sacrifices for family" or anything else for that matter have to do with either the wage gap or essential, natural gender roles?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Philosophy Admin
 
Posts: 8475
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:22


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Ursa Minimus on May 29th, 2012, 7:05 am 

kidjan wrote:
Ursa Minimus wrote:In fact, trying to change them is unnatural! Goes against the laws of nature, and is surely the path to DOOM!!! So just get back in the kitchen, woman, and get me dinner!


Non-sequiter, slippery slope, nothing to do with debate....unclear what point you're even trying to make here.



If you can't tell, or won't take the time to read carefully enough to tell the difference between ME making a claim versus me describing how claims have been, are, and will be made by OTHERS, that is just more evidence that you are not interested in debate, but interested in some other goal with your posts to me and about what I have written.

kidjan wrote:
Ursa Minimus wrote:I suspect you have never lived as a woman.


Whether or not you've had kids means a lot in this debate; seriously. It's not even a debate at this point--I'm telling you the experience my wife and I have had. So you can criticize us for this, but I think that's unfair.


Back to back sentences claiming a debate, and not a debate? Really? This debate... not even a debate? That's pretty sloppy writing, at best.

Your PERSONAL experience is as relevant to the discussion of gender as is the experience of someone with a cold winter is relevant to their claims that global warming is a hoax. It is as relevant as a woman saying she gets paid more than a man she works with is relevant to the claim that the gender gap in pay has nothing to do with gender. Personal experiences may or may not fit with the larger societal patterns. Personal experience does not prove or disprove the societal patterns, and certainly does not prove any causal link proposed to explain those patterns.

If you think your argument, your argument that claims my arguments are not valid because of your assumption of my lack of personal experience, is sound, then you should never be able to say anything about being a woman that contradicts what a woman says about being a woman. Anything an actual woman says will trump you, since she will have lived as a woman. The entire scientific endeavor disagrees with your epistemological position on this. I'll stick with putting science above personal experience myself, but you do what you like.

Plus, as I said, you can say anything you want about your personal experience, and no one can contradict you. Pretty safe ground for you to stand on, ground you claim others can't critique. This is exactly a tactic I would expect to see from someone who wants to shut down and deny debate, not someone who wants to engage in debate. As is the tactic of claiming your position is not a debate at this point. I guess you just get to declare your position as reality, and deny other claims by the fiat power granted to you by your "personal experience".

Have fun with that.
User avatar
Ursa Minimus
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:6


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Ursa Minimus on May 29th, 2012, 7:15 am 

mtbturtle wrote:what does making "sacrifices for family" or anything else for that matter have to do with either the wage gap or essential, natural gender roles?


Nothing that I can see. Especially not when "making sacrifices for family" is solidly within the parental role, not limited to the mother or father role.
User avatar
Ursa Minimus
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:6


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Ursa Minimus on July 20th, 2012, 9:32 am 

{off topic stuff removed - mtb} ... I post this for those who might care about the substance of this topic. Note how I still contribute to the topic. Which I thought was the point of these boards.

Look into what happened in terms of gender in CS when IBM recruited in the 60s and 70s by giving tests to math majors, BEFORE there were CS majors. http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082-833090.html Then think about what the declining numbers of women in CS means in terms of "nature" versus "computer scientists being sexist jerks" since the time women peaked in CS. Which was in the 80s http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~women/resources/ ... s-Camp.pdf . A decade after those gender neutral recruitment efforts/aptitude tests by IBM. Funny how that works. Just like how when symphonies went to blind auditions women started getting more concert jobs.

Here is a link that shows how women WERE interested and involved in CS, with rates of interest rising in tandem with men. Until it didn't. Nature? I doubt it. As do people who study gender and the STEM fields. http://www.webcitation.org/67YOs9Pdz The graph shows women and men's interests in CS rose in tandem in the early 80s, but not in the 90-00 spike. Did women's NATURE change in that time? Doubt it. Did the way men in CS treat them change? If you listen to women, yes. If you look at the work of people who study this, yes.

{off topic removed ~mtb}
Last edited by mtbturtle on July 23rd, 2012, 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic removed
User avatar
Ursa Minimus
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:6


The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby kidjan on July 27th, 2012, 10:55 pm 

Ursa Minimus wrote:Then think about what the declining numbers of women in CS means in terms of "nature" versus "computer scientists being sexist jerks" since the time women peaked in CS.


So your hypothesis for why women are underrepresented in CS is that "computer scientists are sexist jerks," despite neither of your sources really saying anything of the sort?

This is exactly the sort of thing I disagree with: attempting to show the disparity in interest in CS must be due to sexism and/or discrimination despite a complete dearth of supporting evidence. Is there a disparity? Sure, obviously--I went to nearly a decade of CS courses, and it was probably the last place on earth I'd meet a woman. But was it because my professors and peers were "sexist jerks?" No, that's ridiculous.

This is my beef with your replies to me: you insist it must be sexism and/or discrimination (although you claim otherwise....despite your hypothesis here that "sexist jerks" is a serious consideration). You clearly dismiss the possibility it could be anything else. Even when I present counter arguments in citations presented by you, you dismiss that outright. And then you have the gall to claim you're "adding to the debate," despite being in the awkward (and absurd) position of presenting a citation to bolster your argument and then ignoring anything in it that doesn't jive with your world view.


Here is a link that shows how women WERE interested and involved in CS, with rates of interest rising in tandem with men. Until it didn't. Nature? I doubt it. As do people who study gender and the STEM fields. http://www.webcitation.org/67YOs9Pdz


Here's the original article--note that is is completely devoid of "sexist jerks" as being a causal factor. So no, "the way men in CS treat (women)" is not a hypothesis for explaining low female interest in CS programs that is supported by any real information you've presented. [del - moved to feedback mtb]
Last edited by mtbturtle on September 27th, 2012, 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic
User avatar
kidjan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1930
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Location: Earth.


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Ursa Minimus on July 29th, 2012, 9:13 am 

kidjan wrote:
Ursa Minimus wrote:Then think about what the declining numbers of women in CS means in terms of "nature" versus "computer scientists being sexist jerks" since the time women peaked in CS.


So your hypothesis for why women are underrepresented in CS is that "computer scientists are sexist jerks," despite neither of your sources really saying anything of the sort?

This is exactly the sort of thing I disagree with: attempting to show the disparity in interest in CS must be due to sexism and/or discrimination despite a complete dearth of supporting evidence. Is there a disparity? Sure, obviously--I went to nearly a decade of CS courses, and it was probably the last place on earth I'd meet a woman. But was it because my professors and peers were "sexist jerks?" No, that's ridiculous.

This is my beef with your replies to me: you insist it must be sexism and/or discrimination (although you claim otherwise....despite your hypothesis here that "sexist jerks" is a serious consideration). You clearly dismiss the possibility it could be anything else. Even when I present counter arguments in citations presented by you, you dismiss that outright. And then you have the gall to claim you're "adding to the debate," despite being in the awkward (and absurd) position of presenting a citation to bolster your argument and then ignoring anything in it that doesn't jive with your world view.


Here is a link that shows how women WERE interested and involved in CS, with rates of interest rising in tandem with men. Until it didn't. Nature? I doubt it. As do people who study gender and the STEM fields. http://www.webcitation.org/67YOs9Pdz


Here's the original article--note that is is completely devoid of "sexist jerks" as being a causal factor. So no, "the way men in CS treat (women)" is not a hypothesis for explaining low female interest in CS programs that is supported by any real information you've presented. The only hand-waving I see in this thread is by you and mtb; I object to both of your behavior here, I think it is both sad and reprehensible.



If I ask you to think about something, that does not mean it is my hypothesis. Once again you decide to argue against what you want me to say, not what I say. Pretty boring when you do it time after time.

I really see little profit in discussing this issue with someone who does not seem to grasp the difference between 'rates' and 'changes in rates over time' in what I posted. The falling interest and participation over time CANNOT be due to the nature of women, and you are the one who brought essentialist ideology to the table with your language use.

As for the role of sexism, if you look at programs where women's rates of participation has increased, and look at how they produced those increases, I think you will find that the people who do research in this area are focused on it quite directly. They see sexism (in many forms from subtle to direct) as stopping women from participating. Why don't you start here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ge ... index.html "In part as a result of our efforts, the entering enrollment of women in the undergraduate Computer Science program at Carnegie Mellon has risen from 8% in 1995 to 42% in 2000". How did they manage that? Did they ignore sexism to achieve those gains, or did they directly deal with it? Why don't you find out? How about by starting with this paper from that site http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/ge ... yWSQ99.pdf :

In this paper we focus on the process by which women students who enter with high enthusiasm and interest in computing quickly lose faith in their ability and their interest in the subject. We believe it is critically important to gather carefully rendered accounts of how these women students lose interest in computer science, particularly in light of the commonly-held belief that girls and women are not as “intrinsically interested” as males in technology. We look at the ways that interest in a subject area is influenced by factors beyond an individual’s intellectual preference for an abstract body of knowledge. We have found women’s departing statements that they are “just not interested” to be a misleading endpoint to a complex process we’ve seen over time, involving the interplay of gender-biased norms of interest and eroded confidence. We look at the mechanisms that promote a male focus of interest as the standard for success, while casting doubt upon women’s interest and ability in computing.


There are no advanced methods in that paper that should trip up an informed amateur.

If nothing else, reading up on this stuff might help you in your job when you have to deal with women.

[del - moved to feedback ~mtb]
Last edited by mtbturtle on September 27th, 2012, 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: off topic removed
User avatar
Ursa Minimus
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:6


kidjan re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby kidjan on September 27th, 2012, 3:12 pm 

If I ask you to think about something, that does not mean it is my hypothesis. Once again you decide to argue against what you want me to say, not what I say. Pretty boring when you do it time after time.


Okay, then would you mind sharing your "hypothesis" so I no longer have to guess and you can cease punting entirely on addressing any counterpoints I do make? If you think it's "...boring when (I) do it time and time again," has it occurred to you that maybe your position in this debate is slippery and indiscernible?

I seriously doubt you can even paraphrase the argument I'm attempting to make.

you are the one who brought essentialist ideology to the table with your language use.


I do not even know what you're talking about. Show me where.

[del -moved to feedback ~mtb]
Last edited by mtbturtle on September 27th, 2012, 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: moved to feedback
User avatar
kidjan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1930
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Location: Earth.


Re: kidjan re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Ursa Minimus on September 28th, 2012, 9:15 am 

kidjan wrote:Okay, then would you mind sharing your "hypothesis" so I no longer have to guess and you can cease punting entirely on addressing any counterpoints I do make? If you think it's "...boring when (I) do it time and time again," has it occurred to you that maybe your position in this debate is slippery and indiscernible?

I seriously doubt you can even paraphrase the argument I'm attempting to make.



You ask me to lay out my hypothesis (after not even touching the Ridgeway material I posted), and then go on to say you doubt I can understand the argument you are trying to make even at the level of parroting back it in different words? And you think I am going to respond to that kind of tactic... why exactly?

I won't engage with people who throw insults at me AS they ask me to engage. If you find that works with some people, well, have fun with that.

If you can be civil in the future, in other threads, I may engage. But not in this thread. Not after what I have seen to date, not to mention what was sent bye bye... including out of your most recent reply.



kidjan wrote:
Ursa Minimus wrote:You are the one who brought essentialist ideology to the table with your language use.


I do not even know what you're talking about. Show me where.



To clarify: Find your use of "natural gender roles". Essentialist. The natural part, specifically. You may want to brush up on the concept of essentialism, it is both a basic concept and a big deal in discussions of gender politics.



As for the main topic I am still willing to discuss with others.... I wonder why there was no reply to this post in Anything Science (as of now), asking what people actually do in hiring given yet ANOTHER study showing unequal evaluations of men and women with IDENTICAL qualifications: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=23015 Scientists being sexist? Sure seems like it is hard to come up with another reason for the results on that one.

Perhaps people other than me are not involved in hiring decisions, but I would assume at least some are. And yet no mentions to date of how they avoid sexism.



( I'll throw the link to the study and the quote I included in the other thread here, for convenience sake.)

Ursa Minimus wrote:A study of scientists in biology, chemistry, and physics has found...

But a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers evidence of bias among scientists -- male and female scientists alike -- against female students. The study was based on evaluations by scientists of hypothetical student applications for a lab manager position, with the application materials identical in every way, except that half of the pool received applications with a male name and the other half received applications with a female name. The faculty members surveyed -- 127 professors in biology, chemistry or physics -- were told that their analyses of the applications would be used to help the students. And they were asked to evaluate the students' competence and "hireability" and to consider how large a salary they would recommend and how much mentoring they would offer the student if hired.

The scientists evaluating these applications (which were identical in every way except the gender of the "submitter") rated the male student more competent, more likely to be hired, deserving of a better salary, and worth spending more time mentoring. The gaps were significant.

Female scientists were as likely as male scientists to evaluate the students this way.


http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012 ... inst-women



A few findings, from the actual paper (firewalled most likely, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ ... l.pdf+html ):

Student Gender Differences. The competence, hireability, salary conferral,
and mentoring scales were each submitted to a two (student
gender; male, female) × two (faculty gender; male, female) between-
subjects ANOVA. In each case, the effect of student gender
was significant (all P < 0.01), whereas the effect of faculty participant
gender and their interaction was not (all P > 0.19). Tests of
simple effects (all d > 0.60) indicated that faculty participants
viewed the female student as less competent [t(125) = 3.89, P <
0.001] and less hireable [t(125) = 4.22, P < 0.001] than the identical
male student (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Faculty participants also offered
less career mentoring to the female student than to the male student
[t(125) = 3.77, P < 0.001]. The mean starting salary offered the
female student, $26,507.94, was significantly lower than that of
$30,238.10 to the male student [t(124) = 3.42, P < 0.01] (Fig. 2).
These results support hypothesis A.

In support of hypothesis B, faculty gender did not affect bias
(Table 1).



User avatar
Ursa Minimus
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:6


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby hanna0828 on October 5th, 2012, 2:56 am 

The gender gap, or more accurately the gender wage gap, is a riddle, wrapped inside a mystery contained in an enigma. It’s becoming an issue in the upcoming election and so forth. Ever wonder which careers have the smallest gender income gap?
User avatar
hanna0828
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 05 Oct 2012


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby mtbturtle on October 5th, 2012, 7:39 am 

Hi hanna and welcome to the forum

What career has the smallest gap?
User avatar
mtbturtle
Philosophy Admin
 
Posts: 8475
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:22


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby hanna0828 on October 12th, 2012, 12:33 am 

I have read from an article that the most high-paying jobs had the largest gender wage gaps. These includes the lawyers, financial managers, HR managers, loan counselors, physicians, surgeons, and securities and commodities sales agents. According to BLS data, the worst field for women was financial services, which paid women 70.5 percent of what they paid men.

Source: Professions with the smallest gender wage gap
User avatar
hanna0828
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 05 Oct 2012


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Ursa Minimus on October 12th, 2012, 8:50 am 

mtbturtle wrote:What career has the smallest gap?


Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks are pretty much 1:1.

www.iwpr.org/publications/pubs/the-gend ... nload/file
User avatar
Ursa Minimus
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:6


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby mtbturtle on October 17th, 2012, 8:26 pm 

Why Are Women Paid Less? | By Jordan Weissmann | The Atlantic | Oct 17 2012, 5:15 PM ET


At last night's presidential debate, audience member Katherine Fenton got up and asked how the candidates planned to fix the fact that women make "only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn." It's a familiar stat that, as some conservatives argued today, is also a bit misleading. When you compare men and women who work similar hours in similar jobs, the gap shrinks significantly.

But it doesn't disappear. To get a sense of why women today are still paid less than men, and how much of the difference we can actually blame on discrimination, I spoke with Francine Blau, an award winning labor economist at Cornell who has published widely on gender and the workplace. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Tell me the story of how the male-female pay gap has changed over the past few decades.

Way back in the 1950s, women earned around 60 percent on average of what men earned when working year-round full time. And it stayed right around at that level until about 1980. Then, particularly in the decade of the 80s, there was really considerable progress in narrowing the gender pay gap. Since then, there's been further progress, but it's been a little bit more fitful, a little less consistent. So in 1980, that figure was 60 percent. In 1990 it was 72 percent. In 10 years, that was quite a change. In 2000, it was 73 percent. And now it's about 77 percent. It bounces around year to year.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/why-are-women-paid-less/263776/
User avatar
mtbturtle
Philosophy Admin
 
Posts: 8475
Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:22


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby CanadysPeak on October 18th, 2012, 6:11 pm 

I listened to the candidates attempt to not answer the question during the debate the other night, albeit with greatly different levels of dodging the question.

What neither man addressed was the basic question of fairness. As a society, we want a healthy economy and productive workers. We want very skilled people to be paid more. We want people to choose efficiency. We also want great diversity, whether in how people live, how they work, where they live, or what their values are. None of this is possible without an underpinning of equality and fairness.

Two people who work under similar conditions, and who produce similar outcomes, should have similar compensation. Anything less creates the perspective that it's all a game where the outcome is fixed. That gives us in small measure the conditions seen in the Soviet economy in the 50s and 60s - nobody gave a damn, nobody worked hard if they didn't have to, nobody felt part of the system. We can be better than that.

If this were as much a non-issue as some hold it to be, we would not find any data to question, no anecdotes to rebuff, no women to be blamed for not sacrificing their lives for the company. The truth is that there remains enough inequality that many of us think there to be a wage gap, no matter the possible rationalizations. If the perseption is there, it damages our society and economy.

My calendar here in Pittsburgh says 2012. It's long past time to get over our silly notions about gender sterotypes justifying compensation differences. My belief is that if someone says they love our country, then they are obliged to speak up for fair treatment of all our people, and that means no wage gap - even one justified by BS statistics.
CanadysPeak
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 5417
Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Likes received:48


Re: kidjan re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby kidjan on December 5th, 2012, 10:13 pm 

Ursa Minimus wrote:You ask me to lay out my hypothesis (after not even touching the Ridgeway material I posted), and then go on to say you doubt I can understand the argument you are trying to make even at the level of parroting back it in different words? And you think I am going to respond to that kind of tactic... why exactly?


Can we step back for a moment? Because I think we're both being pretty unfair to each other in this thread. (your wife may say otherwise, but I'm going to disregard her opinion since it's not unbiased. that's the honest truth.)

I agree I did not touch your Ridgeway material; but in all fairness, you have not seriously addressed more of my counterarguments than I care to enumerate. I feel insulted in this thread, and I concede I insulted you as well. But it's pretty obvious both of us are not appealing to any honest arguments anymore in this debate and just falling back on some patently bad debating techniques. I'd rather not hash out the specifics of this, and move on.

I'm not interested in "tactical" positioning or winning any debates. I only find this subject interesting, which is why I was so annoyed at the aggressive tone you took early on. In any event, I apologize, and I'd like to move on.

Ursa Minimus wrote:But a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences offers evidence of bias among scientists -- male and female scientists alike -- against female students. The study was based on evaluations by scientists of hypothetical student applications for a lab manager position, with the application materials identical in every way, except that half of the pool received applications with a male name and the other half received applications with a female name. The faculty members surveyed -- 127 professors in biology, chemistry or physics -- were told that their analyses of the applications would be used to help the students. And they were asked to evaluate the students' competence and "hireability" and to consider how large a salary they would recommend and how much mentoring they would offer the student if hired.

The scientists evaluating these applications (which were identical in every way except the gender of the "submitter") rated the male student more competent, more likely to be hired, deserving of a better salary, and worth spending more time mentoring. The gaps were significant.

Female scientists were as likely as male scientists to evaluate the students this way.


Obviously that last line is the most relevant finding in the entire study, as well as the ability to follow up with those surveyed to try and infer their reasoning. Many similar studies in the field do not have the ability to follow up like this, which is what I thought was novel about this one.

This is precisely what I've been trying to get at for a good five pages. Is it still discrimination? Yes, by any text-book definition of "discrimination," unequivocally so. But it's not the sort of obvious, malicious behavior most people associate with the word "discrimination" given that men and women were equally likely to discriminate. It certainly isn't "computer scientists (who are) sexist jerks" or some old-boy's club holding women back.

I am of the opinion that it would be wise to distinguish between intentional and unintentional discrimination, since that word (and particularly "sexism") tend to really put people on the defensive (observe last five pages, where I take offense at the insinuation), but that's just my own opinion. I do not feel like I'm "sexist," but statistically this study indicates that really may not be the case. I have to accept that there are things about myself--biases I have--that I may not even realize.
User avatar
kidjan
Active Member
 
Posts: 1930
Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Location: Earth.


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Paralith on December 5th, 2012, 11:31 pm 

You can be sexist without being a jerk. You can even be sexist against your sex.

I'm glad to see kidjan articulated this. Part of what happened in this thread has happened repeatedly across the internet in the various spheres where men and women are trying to fight against sexism.

"You see X? It's happening because of sexism!"

"Hey, I've done X! I wasn't trying to be mean or sexist! Are you calling me a mean jerk?!?"

"Well you were definitely wrong to do X!!!"

"I told you I wasn't trying to be mean! You ARE calling me a jerk!!! What is your problem??"

It gets even touchier and more inflammatory if you advance to cultures of rape.

The thing about cultures steeped in sexism is that it's not about men plotting in their corner offices about how to keep them ladies down. (Though a bit of that may pop up now and then amongst the true jerks out there. But the vast majority of men are not true jerks.) It's about growing up in a world where certain things have always been part of the fabric of the reality. It's not something we think about, it's something that's just there, and that's just been a part of our lives for a long time and we've just never examined it. Changing this can not be done by calling people jerks who are not jerks; that's just lying and scapegoating anyhow. But the behavior must be pointed out and brought into the light so that we can exercise purposeful thought and effort to change the behavior. It is hard for bad feelings not to arise in this process. But this process must take place.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 2791
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Likes received:74
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Marshall on December 5th, 2012, 11:54 pm 

I haven't followed this thread at all, just looked at the last two posts
kidjan on Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:13 pm
Paralith on Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:31 pm

I like these two posts a lot, esp. Paralith's.

I'm really glad to see Kidjan again after a space of time.
User avatar
Marshall
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 6518
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
Likes received:98


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Ursa Minimus on December 7th, 2012, 9:52 am 

Paralith wrote:You can be sexist without being a jerk. You can even be sexist against your sex.

I'm glad to see kidjan articulated this. Part of what happened in this thread has happened repeatedly across the internet in the various spheres where men and women are trying to fight against sexism.




Sexism (and racism, and other "isms") are structural, cultural, they affect everyone in a culture in some way (even if only as a force to be rejected). They exert force through language, law, practice, pretty much every detail of our lives in one way or another. Prejudice is individual, literally one "pre-judges" another based on membership in a social category. One can be acting in a sexist way without any self recognized prejudice, and in fact one can be acting in a sexist way while holding that one LACKS any prejudice based on gender. This is a core problem when trying to educate people about how these things work. Many, many people assume that "I believe in equality so I am not sexist, so my judgement that that woman is not quite as good as that man must be objective and based on their abilities only."

Ridgeway, and the entire "status characteristics theory" tradition which she comes out of, recognizes and analyzes the subtle ways that "isms" bleed into evaluations of others WITHOUT any conscious recognition of it going on required.

Racism isn't just burning crosses on lawns, and sexism isn't guys in the back room talking about how women should be barefoot and pregnant. It's a lot more subtle than that, a lot more constant than that too. Any time anyone starts to realize just how it works in our society, it is a good thing.
User avatar
Ursa Minimus
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Location: Northwoods, USA
Likes received:6


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby Sisyphus on February 14th, 2013, 2:52 am 

For anyone interested... "The Jobs With The Biggest (And Smallest) Pay Gaps Between Men And Women" http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/ ... -and-women
User avatar
Sisyphus
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4220
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Likes received:3
Blog: View Blog (60)


Re: The Wage Gap State by State: 2012 Fact Sheets

Postby carolgreen on May 3rd, 2013, 5:47 am 

A brand new report says that, regardless of the growing workforce, double standards remain when it comes to when women are paid vs. their male counterparts. In addition, the report says, the gender wage gap is evident almost instantly after graduation from university, and follows professional women throughout their entire careers.
carolgreen
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 03 May 2013


Previous

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests