Where's the outrage!?

Male porn stars only earn a third as much as female ones! Oppression!

http://jonmillward.com/blog/studies/deep-inside-a-study-of-10000-porn-stars/

There is a lot of other interesting stuff in this article (if you can get past the silly puns).
BTW, while it is about porn, as opposed to being porn, it is still probably not safe for work.

(Hat tip: Instapundit.)

Male porn stars only earn a third as much as female ones!

Probably because the male's job performance is only WORTH one third of what the female earns.

Not going to click on the link because I'm at work, but does it get at all into gay and lesbian pornography? How do the salaries of the men and women in those films measure up?

Oddly enough, I think that Carnophile may be on to something... Obviously, as the market only allocates funds and resources efficiently, then this must indicate a fundamental pricing truth. One wonders if there are any other fields (aside from fucking/fulfilling largely male sexual fantasies) where Carnophile thinks women are priced properly and may be consistently worth more than men?

Male porn stars only earn a third as much as female ones!

Is this on average? What's the median look like on both of those stats? Price per scene? What's the distribution when one looks at the industry as a whole (are women properly represented in management, ummm, positions or is there an industry glass ceiling?)

>4 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
also, what's the exposure risk to women vs men? or maybe it's more that they pay the same amount to the total of men and the total of women in a scene and the women are "doing the work of" 3 since she's got 3 dicks in her. (actually women are paid on a hierarchical scale based on the sex acts that are performed on them. i doubt men are paid differently if there are other men in the scene with them.) or maybe it's that when a woman's time in porn is done (the average "porn star" lasts 3 months in gonzo, the most popular kind of porn) she's had a hell of a lot more harm done to her body and reputation and future job chances than the men. or...

>4 Jesse_wiedinmyer: All kidding aside, I think that this reflects the differential supply of labor into this industry by sex, or as everyone says these days, gender. In other words, men are more eager to fuck than women, so they flood the labor market and drive down the price of their labor.

I do have a serious point to make though, which is that if someone were to suggest that women might just be less interested in some occupation than men, in other segments of the labor market, screeching outrage would, in fact, ensue. This is not only annoying, but it is, I think, unnecessary. (Though "unnecessary" here depends on what the goals are; understanding the world versus whipping up outrage for political purposes, e.g.)

>2 faceinbook: Good ole faceinbook. You are, in a way, so very dependable. Now reverse the genders. What would your reaction be? (Don't tell me; I don't actually care, and in any case I already know the answer.)

>3 weener: There was nothing on gay or lesbian porn that I recall, though I did start skimming after a while.
I am not counting "girl-on-girl" as lesbian. Maybe it should be counted that way. I don't know what lesbians like in their porn.

No, there is no breakdown according to sexual preference.

I do have a serious point to make though, which is that if someone were to suggest that women might just be less interested in some occupation than men, in other segments of the labor market, screeching outrage would, in fact, ensue.

Well, when you say that women are less interested in certain occupations and they start "screeching" (veritable harpies, them bitches), it might be a good idea to put aside your notions of what they're interested (or should be interested in) and start listening. Or it could just be that women have no desire to be in management positions (and are too unskilled to pull it off).

In other words, men are more eager to fuck than women, so they flood the labor market and drive down the price of their labor.

You sure that you're not looking at the wrong side of supply/demand curve?

>7 Carnophile:
It was a joke.

Not in the habit of watching porn....have never been in the habit of watching porn. It would seem that watching porn is not much different than having to fulfill one's fantasies by playing extremely violent video games......it is not real.....it is probably not healthy and some people are unable to distinguish between what is real and what is not.

The kernel of truth in the joke ? is the fact that often women out perform men . A woman would never have started such an asinine thread in the first place since the "porn" industry is not as much of a concern to a woman as it would be to a man. Which could be the reason women tend to out perform the opposite sex....not as much time and energy wasted on trying to figure out how the porn industry divvies up it's profit margin, who is schtupping who, and where/when there may be schtupping available.

"I do have a serious point to make though, which is that if someone were to suggest that women might just be less interested in some occupation than men, in other segments of the labor market, screeching outrage would, in fact, ensue."

Women are outraged because most everything boils down to sexual connotations. Without going into anything personal......I can assure you that I could write a book about being broke...being destitute and how often I was approached by men of "good standing" (business owners, local politicians, older fools whose wives just didn't do it for them any longer) who were willing to "trade favors" so that I could put food on the table for my kids......none of them offered me a management position. Perhaps I could have "worked" my way up so to speak but I did not....I declined all offers. Foolish me ?

Screeching outrage ? No ! A slow simmering boil ? Perhaps. Especially when the worth of woman is boiled down to what she gets paid for "turning on" men who are willing to spend the 23 cents more per hour they earn performing most every other job available, on porn.

>6 Carnophile: In other words, men are more eager to fuck than women, so they flood the labor market and drive down the price of their labor.

Maybe we should start paying them not to whip it out. :)

>11 southernbooklady:

"Maybe we should start paying them not to whip it out. :)"

I would venture to guess that quite a few of them would go broke.

6> i can think of many jobs that women are less interested in doing than men are, Logging springs to mind. why should it engender outrage?

"In other words, men are more eager to fuck than women."

This has not been my experience.

The economics are simple. The number of men who would like to be porn stars outnumbers the number of women who would like to be (or are willing to be) porn stars. Higher supply = lower demand.

I don't think porn actors are doing it because of all the sexyfuntimes. It's a job. You do realize that those women are acting, right? As are the men. However, an actress can pretend over and over and the actors are more limited in that sense.

And, as has already been mentioned, female porn stars do not emerge from those scenes unharmed. Their bodies pay a high price for your entertainment. Here's one actress's experience. And here's another.

Back when I was younger, it was said that no one got paid. The men did it for the sex and the women did it for drugs.

#16

A.A, Gill suggests that calling performers in porn films 'actors' is incorrect; they are a type of athlete. People generally don't go to porn films to see acting, after all.

Which would explain why being a porn performer is generally limited to a few years; just like athletes, the medium puts a premium on healthy, strong bodies.

>16 RidgewayGirl: I never thought a simple post could ruin my life.

Mayhap this will make you less sad.

I didn't say or imply sad--RUINED.

Thanks, though, for the shot of my cousin, Puma Swede (she's not, really).

2. The average rate for a male porn star doing straight porn is $500 to $600. Gay porn will pay three times that amount.

3. Since male porn performers get paid significantly more for doing gay porn, many straight men will now do gay porn for the money. Hence the term, gay for pay. The real gay porn performers out there typically hate this trend and dread the day when they are paired up with such a man.

Found here.

Male porn performers earn one-third as much as female ones. So far in this thread we've seen several possible explanations other than gender discrimination by fascist misandrists:

1) Men are not as productive as women (faceinbook, #2).

2) The result is spurious, an artifact of the particular metrics used for earnings (Jesse, #4).

3) Different risk premia are incorporated into the remuneration for men and women because men and women have different levels of risk (elisa.saphier, #5).

4) The phenomenon is caused by effects on the supply side, not the demand side, of this labor market (me, #6).

All these, as everyone knows, are reasonable possible explanations. But if such explanations were put forth in an industry in which earnings were less for women, they would be dismissed out of hand and would occasion deafening feigned outrage among the self-appointed Gatekeepers of Allowable Thought.

My point is that it's obvious that the outrage is feigned. As this thread makes clear, leftists know quite well that different earnings can have a large number of possible causes, other than BIGOTRY™.

23 cents more per hour they earn

This serves as a good QED to my previous post.
(The 77/100 meme is not true. But if it were, might there be explanations other than misogynist discrimination?)

>8 Jesse_wiedinmyer: it might be a good idea to put aside your notions of what they're interested (or should be interested in) and start listening

See, the “listening” problem with gender earnings differentials goes the other way. People willing to hear explanations in addition to “misogynist bigotry!” aren’t the ones with the listening problem.

>13 SimonW11: Indeed.

>15 BruceCoulson: "Higher supply = lower demand."

It would be better to say higher supply of X ► lower equilibrium price of X. This is what I was saying in #6.

So, in your world, a single exception for reasons negates an issue. There's no complexity or nuance needed. I'll remember that.

Hey, is this the next Republican plan to win elections? As long as one guy votes the way you want, you win?

What's the best beer in southern Germany? (And does it quell the outrage?)

There continues to be trades where women find it hard to compete with men. Potters and blacksmith farriers are examples that spring to mind. and of course I already mentioned logging. I really do not see any" screeching" about the unfairness. of it.

XXX-rated movie stars do become regular Hollywood stars.

They have fine-tuned their acting skills and being rehabilitated into mainstream movies and into family's not seedy multiplex movie houses.

Who are they? Some of them do make the grade. Internet will reveals their names.

I say equal pay for equal work. If the men are doing the same job (risks and all) as women, then pay them the same. But risks are a legitimate factor - after all, both men and women who do high construction work make more than ground workers because their risk is higher.

Nods blacksmiths and potters are both limited in what they can do by their strength . hence women tend to earn less. bending heavy steel bars or shaping thick clay are jobs that requires muscle mass women typically find hard to acquire.

31>

Hmmm, I've never really had any trouble with clay or making pottery and I'm small and not very strong.

Of course, I don't dig my own clay - that part does require a lot of upper body strength and even at my best, I probably couldn't dig an equal amount of clay per hour as a man of equal height, weight and overall fitness. Jobs like that should probably be paid by weight dug rather than hours put in to make them truly fair.

Oh, as an addendum to 32 - if you give me a backhoe I should be able to dig as much clay as anyone else.

I wonder if Grayson Perry skews the results when it comes to potters' pay?

>27 RickHarsch:: "What's the best beer in southern Germany?"

The answer is clearly the Doppelbock Dunkel Starkbier brewed at the Kloster Andechs.

I'm confused, though...

If porn is such a competitive market for men, then how is this guy...



such a star?

I mean, that's the best the market could do?

Ooh, Mr wiedinmyer, you're making me blush.

Mr Campbell, since Saturday is forecast to be warm and sunny, our plan is to walk to Andechs from the S-Bahn station and drink some of that beer. It's not quite Stark Bier time -- that coincides with Lent.

>38 RidgewayGirl:: I'm firmly of the opinion that one must always walk -- the hike up is both beatiful and the necessary tribute to make one deserving of the beer.

Also: the Doppelbock is brewed at Stark Bier strength all year round at Andechs, not just during Lent. (So be careful: one half-liter of it alone carries quite the punch!)

ETA: An Andechs joke: a trade delegation from China was visiting Munich and was being advised on how to get out to the monastery. When their guide told them to take the S-Bahn to Herrsching, it caused confusion among the trade delegation, whose leader was a gentleman by the name of Ching.

(That probably works better in person / after a half-liter of Doppelbock.)

ETA2: Also be sure to take the time to visit the abbey church; it's pretty standard baroque, but it is also the final resting place of composer Carl Orff.

We've been, but it's been years. I'll stick to a Helles. About Orff -- we saw Carmina Burana performed in Munich's Konigsplatz. It suited the space perfectly, although I felt a little nazish just by listening to Orff in that location.

#39, 40

Per Culture Made Stupid, Orff is one of the three composers whose name you can teach to your dog.

>37 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

There's the theory that Ron Jeremy is a popular performer because he is schlubby, because men who aren't conventionally attractive can relate to him. They can enjoy this fantasy of this hairy beefcake getting with some beautiful ladies rather than trying to identify with some greased-up, hairless Ken doll.

Yeah, but once again, the whole dynamic there is to give men what they want...

So, we're back to women are "inherently more skilled/valuable than men when fulfilling male fantasies."

That's pornography for you.

Well, so we then accept that women are indeed paid more for jobs that they are actually better at.

And the implicit assertion within that claim that women are less than men in just about any other sphere than fulfilling male fantasies...

And Carnophile wonders why this is described as misogyny.

>46 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
"Well, so we then accept that women are indeed paid more for jobs that they are actually better at.

And the implicit assertion within that claim that women are less than men in just about any other sphere than fulfilling male fantasies..."

Thank you !

And how is it that society pats itself on the back regarding the equalization of women and there is still this type of thought process......not just a thought process really, it is a reality and always has been. As far back as I can remember.

What is amazing is the fact that someone would want to point this out ! Certainly a lack of circular thinking going on there.

As for the flubby guy ? You hit the nail on the head there as well. Doesn't have anything to do with what women are wanting to see.

Women may watch pornography occasionally but my guess would be that statistically it is pretty lopsided....tipped toward males. As for deviant pornography, not sure I ever heard of a woman getting arrested for storing pornographic pictures of little boys on their home/work computers.

Women may watch pornography occasionally but my guess would be that statistically it is pretty lopsided....tipped toward males. As for deviant pornography, not sure I ever heard of a woman getting arrested for storing pornographic pictures of little boys on their home/work computers.

The tilt becomes less lopsided as time goes on. "Deviant" pornography is a pretty loaded term (google Rule #34)... It uses something of a normative standard that may be meaningless (and given that pornography is largely considered fantasy, it's de facto deviant in the way that most fantasy is...)

There have been quite a few cases recently where women have been arrested for sexually molesting abusing minors in there charge recently, though I would wager that you are right about that being a largely male thing for the most part.

This is the most recent example that comes to mind.

Women may watch pornography occasionally but my guess would be that statistically it is pretty lopsided....tipped toward males.

And I'm sure that Carnophile would simply argue that this is because any woman could have sex at pretty much any time she wants, unlike Carnophile.

>48 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
"The tilt becomes less lopsided as time goes on. "

Yes I had heard that, as well as of recent cases of sexual abuse perpetrated by women. I can not relate.

"This is the most recent example that comes to mind".

I would say that, though both are a crime, sexual abuse is different than collecting child porn. One may very well lead to the other but it is usually a man's computer that is taken into custody as evidence for a child porn case.

""Deviant"

Poor word choice. Illegal porn might be a better way to put it.

42: Jeremy is an exception to the general rule that porn with "ordinary" looking men coupled with attractive women is less marketable than porn with male performers rippling with muscles having sex with attractive women.

Jeremy is what is regarded as a comic performer in the porn industry, so it is plausible that his comedic value is what keeps him popular.

>26 RidgewayGirl:
So, in your world... There's no complexity or nuance needed.

Anyone willing to consider multiple possible explanations for wage differentials, lacks nuance and complexity. OK, noted.

(True nuance and complexity, in the deeper, dialectical sense, consists of jumping straight to “Discrimination!”)

>44 Jesse_wiedinmyer: So, we're back to women are "inherently more skilled/valuable than men when fulfilling male fantasies."

>46 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Well, so we then accept that women are indeed paid more for jobs that they are actually better at.
And the implicit assertion within that claim that women are less than men in just about any other sphere...
And Carnophile wonders why this is described as misogyny.

I’m confused here. Are you describing yourself, and everyone else included in that “we,” as having misogynistic beliefs?

No, I'm talking about your half-assed thread where you (you kid, you kid!) point to the porn industry as the basis for gender derived inequalities in payment and assume that this argument makes you look like anything other than the sort of angry 14 year old that would be hanging out at the Circle K complaining about how all women are bitches.

The best thing about this discussion is that we get to watch you shoot yourself in the foot and you do it willingly.

Porn stars are just one of the many "erotic" professions such as stripteasers,bar hostesses, professional callgirls/escorts and many more you can think of.

There are many grades in their professions.

Nothing to quibble about these vocations, everyone has to make a living ,he/she is more comfortable with and bring "butter and bread" on their dining tables.

Unfornseen circumstances are the most valid and likely reasons to choose these vocations. These are realities of life.

Ron Jeremy is so popular because he can even make Blacks feel inadequate.

>54 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Whoa ho ho ho! I seem to have touched a nerve!

But seriously, your courage in the face of cisgendered privilege gives me courage.

A nerve, brother...? I think we've already worked this out, no? Any woman that thinks she should make as much as men in the broader marketplace obviously needs to go get fucked. And you post that and wonder why people consider this misogynistic?

It's about as cute as a dongle joke at a programmer's convention. Get some therapy, man.

It is telling that the exception that means we don't need to be concerned about pay disparity is for a job that depends on treating the person as a sex object.

Was a time that being a "sex" object was the ONLY way a woman made money, if anything, women have a lot of experience in the field.

The question still remains as to why anyone would think that this is , in any way, a wise comparison to make ?

I would have faired a lot better in the sex business than I did at some of the crappy jobs I performed. That in and of itself makes a pretty terrible statement. Especially since I worked two jobs and went to school at the same time.....making far less than I could have otherwise. Some kind of inequality going on there that is far deeper than dollars and cents.

>60 RidgewayGirl: ...pay disparity...

What pay disparity are you talking about?

And do you have any ideas about what causes it?

Probably the fact that you need to pay for sex.

Many women become porn stars by accident when such individuals are searching for acting careers in the regular movies in the entertainment business at Hollywood. Some acted in the adult movies as a stepping stone or to be passed on or promoted to other normal acting roles.

Some do to get out from the adult movies but most of them are being hooked to become well known in these adult movies.

I believe that this business is very lucrative, and the women are being attracted for the big money they can earned.

Are these people nymphomaniac in nature? Too many excessive sexual desires not under their own control? Is this a pathetic situation,or it happened due to the some personal circumstances?

It does not make any sense as "revenge" on her ex-boyfriend to become an adult movie star seeking as a "closure" to their relationship as most people would guessed to be the reason.

This career will tarnish one's future and getting no respects from others.

>59 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Two possible reasons for women earning less “in the broader marketplace” are discrimination against women by employers, and one that you mentioned – while bizarrely attributing it to me - that women are less productive than men in the broader marketplace.

Do you think those two exhaust the list of possible explanations, or might there be others?

If a woman is pretty, to get a job is very much easier over the not so pretty ones and promotion's ladder for her is much faster than the usual progress. This is the fact. Now, the women are holding CEO's positions, and there should not be any discriminations against the fairer gender. The capability to hold a post should be based on merits and not by the gender's discrimination that women can't do a man's job.

Salary equalities for both genders have a long way to go especially in Asian regions I believe, maybe I am wrong to mention there is a "win-win situation" especially for those married women-employees to be compensated by other benefits such as long maternity leave period with salary still being paid.

A core meme of the modern Left is “76 cents on the dollar!” This meme is a sack of noxious bullshit. Sources that confirm this are, lo, as innumerable as the insects in the fields. So I’ll be selective and cite just four fiskings, three of which have impeccable leftist/feminist credentials:

(1) The Washington Post takes Obama to task for his rabble-rousing repetition of the meme in his State of the Union address.
I could stop there. When The Washington Post is ripping a leftist meme to pieces, it’s time to put it to bed. But I’m in a knife-twisting mood, so...

(2) The WaPo piece cites a St. Louis Fed study that finds a pay gap of 5% when hours worked, etc. are taken into account. For all compensation (including health plan, company car, etc.) it’s 3.6%. This isn’t saying the 3.6% is attributable to discrimination. It just finds a 3.6% that’s unexplained.

(3) Here’s yet another debunking of the meme by those horrifying right-wingers at...Slate. The author is Hanna Rosin, the feminist who authored The End of Men and founded the DoubleX website. (To get an idea of that site’s politics, pay it a visit.)

(4) Christina Hoff Sommers is not a radfem, but here at HuffPo she delves into a study by the thoroughly feminist American Association of University Women that found only a 6.6% gap.
To get a sense of the political leanings of the AAUW (“Empowering Women Since 1881”), check out their webpage.
Sommers notes that you have to actually look at the numbers, not the rhetoric, in the AAUW study. Their rhetoric is “82 cents on the dollar!” Their finding is that when you control for experience, etc., the gap is 6.6 cents.
Again, the finding is not that the 6.6 cent gap is caused by discrimination; it’s just unexplained. Sommers notes that when an AAUW spokeswoman was asked what caused the remaining 6.6% her answer was refreshingly honest: “We are still trying to figure that out.”

The 77 cents meme is a core belief of the modern left. For much of the left, it is an article of faith which you are supposed to believe because it is morally uplifting for you to believe it, or something (since I’m not religious I don’t pretend to understand the psychology involved).

It is also a 200-proof falsehood.

>67 Carnophile:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_...

Should we continue to pick and choose what we WANT to believe ? THAT way we can keep things status quo. After all women always have the option of going into the porn industry......can make a killing there !

Tried to find the difference between SS checks for women and for men......that statistic, in and of itself, has a tale to tell.

Reading the statics and following your links is all fine and good but the question is this: What is your experience in this matter ? Obviously you know and understand the discrepancy of pay in the profession of porn but your experience in other fields comes into question.

>68 faceinbook: Sigh. In citing that Wikipedia link, you're simply ignoring the point the studies in 67 make: When you control for hours worked, level of eduction, etc., the unexplained gap is single digits. The entire meme that women only get 77 cents for the same work is not true. Among other things, they work fewer hours. Etc.

>68 faceinbook: Obviously you know and understand the discrepancy of pay in the profession of porn but...

I don't, in fact, know what leads to the pay discrepancy in porn. I put forward a conjecture, one of several reasonable ones that were mentioned in this thread before people went suborbital.

Seriously, still no flags on 63?

Wow.

sorry, 71, 63 is too ambiguous

69> But the fact of women working fewer hours could itself be an example of discrimination and thus controlling for the hours worked would just be masking the problem.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/3-myths-working-women-190653888.html...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm

http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/payscale-study-women_n_3360863.html

I am wondering why it matters what the percentage is ? To nit pick on percentages appears to be a way of justifying the inequality. Article after article say that it isn't equal, for various reasons but the fact remains......there is a lack of equality in the earning power of a woman over that of a man.
It bothered you enough, when you found that there is a profession where women earn MORE than men, to wonder why men were not outraged about it. ONE profession......and still statistically men have more earning power. Really don't get your point at all unless it is to air the opinion that women should shut up about not making the same amount as men cause the amount is less than some would have them think ? If women were equal we wouldn't even be discussing this. At which point, perhaps the inception of this thread might be a rallying cry regarding the fact that women make more in the porn industry and it is bothersome enough to try to unite men into demanding equal compensation. Now that would be a table turning situation.

To my mind if the statistics are off by half a percent.....it is not equal.

Have you read this exchange, FIB?

Messages 54 and 63 on this thread are unacceptable. To insult someone by saying they "have to pay for sex" is about as clear cut a violation of the terms that does not involve someone's mother. They are part of a long pattern.

This is your last warning, at least for some time. If you continue to make such attacks, you will be suspended from the site. As a realistic time-span, I am laying it down that if you violate the terms in a similar way before May, you will be suspended.

These are the only two messages I have read in this thread. If there are others that should be brought to my attention, please do so. I found these two because they were flagged, and I'm spending time with flags and spam. The people who flagged them should also have reported them, if they expected anything to come from the violation.

Duly noted.

>77 timspalding:

62: What pay disparity are you talking about?

And do you have any ideas about what causes it?

63: Probably the fact that you need to pay for sex.

That's how I read it. Though I realize now it was intended otherwise, of course.

>54 Jesse_wiedinmyer:: No, I'm talking about your half-assed thread where you (you kid, you kid!) point to the porn industry as the basis for gender derived inequalities in payment and assume that this argument makes you look like anything other than the sort of angry 14 year old that would be hanging out at the Circle K complaining about how all women are bitches.

Even that, without the parenthetical, which is mild as can be, is rather eloquently argued in a way that would not be possible without a bit of the ad hominem, and so is not a very significant violation. At the very least, the exasperation is well-suppressed.

Anyway, whenever you play this role, Mr. Spalding, you are as unsympathetic as an Irish nun. You really need to learn how to warn without scolding, especially when you're dealing with adults who really are not acting like children.

Even that, without the parenthetical, which is mild as can be, is rather eloquently argued in a way that would not be possible without a bit of the ad hominem, and so is not a very significant violation. At the very least, the exasperation is well-suppressed.

I'll take may lumps, Mr. Harsch.

And I'll state my thoughts regarding Mother Spalding. (Mr. Wiedinmyer.)

>73 jjwilson61: But the fact of women working fewer hours could itself be an example of discrimination and thus controlling for the hours worked would just be masking the problem.

Oh, come on. A woman who wants a 40-hour-a-week job can’t find one? Really?

I also think it’s significant that, even if one takes this seriously, the argument is, “Well, discrimination hasn’t been definitively ruled out.”

Juror: “Why should we convict this guy?”
Prosecution: “Well, it’s possible that he did it.”

>75 faceinbook: Several links, will read (maybe skim) them later. (Not today, though.)

For now...

It bothered you enough, when you found that there is a profession where women earn MORE than men, to wonder why men were not outraged about it.

No, I am not weeping for the poor oppressed male porn stars, lol. You missed the sarcasm in the thread title and initial post.

>84 Carnophile:
No I didn't ! It just strikes me that people who find the situation significant enough, or funny enough or what ever it is they find it to be, to point it out, are trivializing an important issue. One that you as a member of the male sex have had little opportunity to deal with. You are speaking from suppositions rather than experience.....and you are finding it rather amusing.....just be aware that there are individuals who have experience regarding pay discrepancies, sex for money and a 40 hour a week job that doesn't make ends meet........they may not see the humor in what you are saying. In fact they may just wonder what it is about the White male in this country that makes them think that paying a woman for her body is worth more than paying her for her mind........it may actually piss some individuals off to make light of such a thing.

I suppose the sarcastic humor in this depends on one's perspective. Sorry....I don't share your insight into this matter. I find it rather sad. Tis a sorry statement not only in regards to the earning power of women but also the mind set of those who perpetuate the status quo.

There are two categories of job function where women earn more than the male counterparts in US.

They are counselling jobs and health support services.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jobs-where-women-earn-more-than-men-2013-10?IR=1

I'm 100% for women getting equal pay for equal work.

That said, there are some women who want equal pay but shirk the equal work, usually work that is physically demanding. I don't claim to know what goes on in American society in general, this is specific to what I've seen in my working lifetime (47 years). There are women I've worked with who do their job and wouldn't think of playing the "helpless female."

87: Are you arguing that only women can be lazy?

>87 CharlesBoyd:
So women are worth less because they are not physically as strong as a man ? Please tell me you didn't just post that ? If worth were based on physical strength there would be far less overpaid, under worked, crooked CEOs.
"helpless female" indeed....good grief.....

88>
No I think what he is saying that because men perform better at some physically challenging jobs they are worth more than women.....which brings me to one of prior posts where I made the assertion that women in porn might make more money because they perform better. You see.....perfect example of why this is a valid argument to have......why discrimination is still alive and well.

True story here :

Years back the little township I live in had an opening for a county worker.....the truck driven, hole diggen, weed cutting, pot hole menders type of opening. A friend of mine applied.....she was young and strong. Because the men on the job got such a case of knots in their collective knickers they upped and changed the entry test for the job. They made her change a tire on a plow truck. She did it but not many women could. She works there to this day and just last year one of the counties finest employees....some guy who would like to see my friend play the "helpless female" card switched out the fertilizer in her tractor attachment. They loaded it with weed/ grass killer and she spread it on all of the town's baseball fields. Just some guy playing the "see how macho I can be" card !

As a sensitive human, I would argue for the virtues of laziness.

>90 RickHarsch:
Sadly, it doesn't pay all that well.

87> I have seen a lot of physical jobs improved because women took them up. women are not to wrapped up in their masculinity to say. "I need lighter equipment." "It will take two people to move that item.", or give me two light sacks of work instead of on big one. Men then reap the benefit.

I expand the definition of pay.

>92 SimonW11:
Another way of looking at the "helpless female". Thank you.

>93 RickHarsch:
You have a point.

83> Oh, come on. A woman who wants a 40-hour-a-week job can’t find one? Really?

You aren't very familiar with the realities of the job market today.

You aren't very familiar with the realities of the job market today.

I wasn't making a point about the unemployment rate remaining elevated after the recession, as I think you well know.

Furthermore, since the unemployment rate for women is lower than that for men (6.4% vs. 6.8%), the "realities of the job market today" don't seem to be supporting your point.

>85 faceinbook: trivializing an important issue.

I can't make any sense of this unless you're assuming that there is an "important issue" because there is discrimination against women. I am not persuaded of that. That is, in fact, what this discussion is about. To put it mildly, you've put the cart before the horse. FIRST you establish that there is an earnings gap due to discrimination. THEN you get to express anger about it.

You are speaking from suppositions rather than experience.

I am in fact speaking from data.

what it is about the White male in this country that makes them think that (etc.)?

Are you assuming I'm white?

So I've skimmed the links in 75. The three about the PayScale study actually support my scepticism about the discrimination meme. They mention , e.g., that when apples are compared to apples, the gap disappears or narrows a lot. E.g., in managerial positions it’s 91/100; in non-managerial positions it’s 98/100. Again, these aren’t “It’s discrimination!” They’re “It’s unexplained.”

The link that finds the largest gap is the one from the GAO. ( The actual study referenced is here.) After a very brief skim, one thing leapt out at me: The most recent data in that study are from 2000. That can’t explain the entire divergence, so more later.

Census data: Young single urban women earn 8% more than similar men.

DISCRIMINATION!!! MISANDRY!!! BIGOTRY!!! BLEAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGH!!!

Enjoy the earnings gap outrage while it lasts.

The educational level of young women anywhere in the world especially in the developed and developing countries have improved and surpassed their male's counterparts in salary gap differences and the prospects of a promotion.

I believe a promotion of any job should really be based on merit
and not on your gender,race,religion,color of your skin or age.

Ironically this thread sucks.

(But in a bad way.)

>101 JGL53:
This tread sucks because the opening thread sucked. More women live in poverty than men.....period ! There is a reason for this and it speaks of economic disparity. Statistics can be cherry picked for either side but the fact remains that women are not as financially well off. The author of the opening thread seems to think this is something to be cheeky about and that it is worth trying to prove that women are just as well off as their male counter parts when all indicators point to the opposite.

In no way do I say women are lazier than men. There are lazy men and lazy women.

I merely say that, in my experience, there are woman who will try to get out of physically demanding work. I'm fine if a women can't physically do something alone and needs help. There are jobs that one man can't do alone and needs help. Teamwork is often needed and can build a feeling of togetherness. And I did mention that I have worked with women that do the physical work willingly.

I realize that I needed to be a bit more specific. I am talking about women who try to avoid physical work THAT THEY CAN DO. Work I've seen them do when they have to. I don't say this is all women nor would I guess at what per cent of women this would be. Women who do this make it more difficult for other women who can and will do the work.

89> I don't equate physical work as more valuable work than other times. I'm talking about people who try to get other people to do their work. I'm sure men do this in some jobs.

Given this:

In no way do I say women are lazier than men. There are lazy men and lazy women.

This statement:

I realize that I needed to be a bit more specific. I am talking about women who try to avoid physical work THAT THEY CAN DO.

Is entirely irrelevant to this conversation.

.>104 CharlesBoyd:

Do you seriously think that there are no men who are inclined to sit around the house avoiding any involvement in the process while being fully capable of participating ? I know for a FACT that this is true. Though it has NOTHING to do with economic equality or this discussion......you are seriously missing the point. And, I do believe that you are equating monetary value with physical strength, a mind set that has kept women in a lower economic class for decades......men and women are not the same.....but they should be equal.

I am not even sure what the heck your point was other than to point out that you find some women to be lazy and not worth very much.

I'm too poor to be lazy -- sigh!...

On the GAO paper, I suspect this is key: “The dependent variable we focused on is a measure of an individual’s annual earnings.” This is widely thought, per other studies - e.g., the Fed one above - to overstate the gap. The studies mentioned in the Fed paper look at hourly earnings. The more temporally disaggregated the data are, the more accurate they probably are, because they (partly) deal with the effect of different numbers of hours worked. And the smaller the gap they show.

>100 razzamajazz: On education: Indeed. Feminists used to constantly thunder that the higher number of young men in college proved that there was discrimination against women... right up until about five years ago, when the gap reversed, at which time this rhetoric shut off like a switch. Curiously enough, there is no thundering now that the gap going the other way proves discrimination against men. It's almost as if it's a bunch of ideological nonsense carefully selected to get to a predetermined conclusion, or something.

>108 Carnophile:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0193820.html
http://reliableplant.com/Read/27140/Chart-earnings-men-women
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/womens-earnings-and-income

AND

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_...

I can send all kinds of data to support the fact that women are not yet equal in the work place. I can give all kinds of examples of the harassment endured by women who try to do a what is typically a man's job. After all we had no clue what king of wrath having a Black President was going create......not much different with women....maybe even worse.
More women live in poverty than men at this point in time....and I think more women are working than are men. Explain that one !

>109 faceinbook:

I have no objection whatsoever to your view. Women are not equal in the workplace yet.

That said, it's easy to muddy issues. Even if women were equal in the workplace, but social attitudes and, perhaps, psychological ones, continued, women still not make as much as men, would have higher poverty rates, etc. The fact is that women--by choice and not by choice--shoulder far more of the burden of creating and then caring for children, and this has an impact on their hours, work choices and career trajectories.

I'm not putting this forward as an excuse. Women are not equal in this, minimal, way yet, and won't be anytime soon. And society has a long way to go in creating the social equality that would make the childcare burden more equal or, if you want to go that way, devoting state resources to providing child care.

>108 Carnophile: ...right up until about five years ago, when the gap reversed, at which time this rhetoric shut off like a switch.

Now, wait a minute, Carnie : are complaining about this?

Because the theme of this thread has been you complaining that the "59¢/73¢/(whatever it is)" rhetoric about (declining...) earning inequality hasn't YET "shut off like a switch".

When the complaint about women's under-representation in higher ed was no longer true, then people stopped complaining about it. See how that worked?

Women still don't make what men make, and yes, the reasons aren't entirely straightforward: but if it's even "99.9¢ on the dollar", there's still justifiable reason to simply POINT OUT THAT SIMPLE FACT.

>110 timspalding: "Women are not equal in this, minimal, way yet, and won't be anytime soon."

As the husband of a currently-pregnant wife, I can tell you that there are some things that simply can't be changed. No amount of changed attitudes will alter the reality that during pregnancy, a woman can't always be as "productive" at a given task of purely pecuniary employment as a non-pregnant man -- but that's because she is being far more productive than he ever can be on a task far more vital (but far less recognized as such) than any particular employment: the continuation of the species.

(Of course, I look at what my wife achieves everyday while also carrying our child, and my mind spins in awe at how much more she can do that I can. Men are wimps compared to a pregnant mother.)

Edited to rephrase, as per the gracious help in >115 southernbooklady: )

(>112 nathanielcampbell:

congratulations nathaniel!!!!!!!)

Thanks!

>112 nathanielcampbell: As the husband of a currently-pregnant wife, I can tell you that there are some things that simply can't be changed. No amount of changed attitudes will alter the reality that during pregnancy, a woman can't always be as "productive" at a given task as a non-pregnant man.

Actually, she is being more productive then a man can even hope to be. But society does not put a monetary value on such "work" so it is ignored since it "doesn't count."

>115 southernbooklady: Exactly. My apologies if I phrased that poorly. (If you don't mind, I'm going to edit my comment 112 to better express this.)

Many of you people need to go back to school and learn to read with comprehension. You are unable to understand posts written clearly and to the point. Try reading for comprehension and without preconceived ideas.

Conceived but unpreconceived I went back to read the CharlesBoyd posts and am led to wonder why he seems to have taken such note of lazy woman workers. I like woman, and I like lazy workers, but I've never thought to merge the two into a single category. I've also spent a great deal of time in India, where there are a lot of lazy workers who sit in the shade of giant mimosa trees for hours in the heat of the afternoon, men and women, though predominantly men, and an unusual number of women present at constructions sites carrying bricks on their heads. I would rather sit in the shade of a mimosa than carry bricks on my head, yet I would rather spend time with a woman without bricks on her head and under the shade of said tree, especially if she has just come from carrying bricks on her head. It's all very confusing.

>109 faceinbook:

The first two links you mentioned only cite the fact that women earn less than men. Neither mentioned any of the various ways of controlling for relevant factors that might affect earnings. The third one makes a cursory attempt to do so, but doesn’t even mention the effect of hours worked! And when it presents data on the level of the degree earned, does not mention the field of the degree earned, which is well known be a relevant factor. The Wikipedia article you linked to before. Is there some particular part of it you intended to direct my attention to?

You just keep repeating, basically, "It's an undeniable fact that women earn less!" It is as if, to construct an analogy, women earned half what men did, but when we dug into the data we found out that that's because they just work half as many hours as men did. And people like you would keep repeating, "Nevertheless, it's an undeniable fact that women earn half what men do!" Doesn't this bug you?

As to poverty, which you’ve mentioned in two posts now, that is a topic that is different from, though of course related to, labor compensation. Maybe we (or someone else; God knows I pull my weight around here) could devote a conversation to that topic. I'm not a poverty expert, but I have a suspicion that the standard leftist memes about the feminization of poverty, etc., won't survive scrutiny any more than many of the other memes.

More women live in poverty than men at this point in time....and I think more women are working than are men. Explain that one !

It’s not true that more women are working.

>111 AsYouKnow_Bob: Bob, the point is this: When the ratio was 55 men : 45 women (or whatever) there was constant mentioning of that fact as proof that women were discriminated against. So now that the ratio is reversed (or whatever), that should be constantly mentioned as proof that men are being discriminated against.

>119 Carnophile: Field of study is another factor that isn't fair to factor out because it is well known that fields in which women historically predominated earn less than male-dominated fields. Take grade and high-school teaching for examples.

>121 Carnophile: So now that the ratio is reversed (or whatever), that should be constantly mentioned as proof that men are being discriminated against.

OK, fine... but when?
In the first semester the trend is noticed? in the first decade?

And who should be doing this complaining? The same people as were complaining before? Or should the complaints come from the newly aggrieved?

Believe it or not, the "liberals" that you seem to despise don't say these sorts of things simply to annoy cranky conservatives; people are people, and are more likely to complain when they themselves are affected; the goal is not to complain for the sake of complaining, the goal is to seek redress of grievances.

If YOU think men are suffering, then YOU should be in the lead in decrying this particular injustice.

Does it take time for social problems to be recognized as problems? Does it take time to organize a community to seek redress for a newly recognized problem?

AsYouKnow_Bob, there is already a vocal presence of valiant fighters for the rights of the persecuted men. Their chosen name is Men's Rights Activists and a quick internet search can put you in contact with any number of groups.

>117 CharlesBoyd:
Your statements were not relevant to the conversation......no matter how much one wanted to comprehend what it was you were getting at. Read the opening post, which is asinine in the first place and rethink the point you were trying to make about women claiming to be helpless. Granted the subject veered off course a few times but the premise you were making was not about equal pay or equal economic status or anything other than resenting women who were not physically capable of performing what ever it is you think they should do to earn a decent wage.

>123 AsYouKnow_Bob:
In the vein of most Conservative thinkers, there are no problems in Carnophile's world....just trumped up assertions. Statistics can be found on both sides of any argument. I believe the mind set is that if you are a woman, say like my friend ,who is doing a man's job and has paid in spades to KEEP that job, even at the expense of the town's little league fields, and you are displeased with the disparity that exists in the workplace , you should consider going into the porn industry. A field where men are lagging behind.
Wonder what women are doing with all that "equal" economic wealth ? I believe statistically more men are moving money around than women.....women must be hiding it in their collective piggy banks ?

We should all put up and shut up I guess........If any of the statistics coming from Carn....are correct, I can tell you it isn't because women put up and shut up !

Personally, I think we need to switch things around for a while.......I think women should enjoy the power and economic freedom that men in this country have enjoyed for the past couple hundred years. Ying Yang type of thing.

>125 faceinbook: Personally, I think we need to switch things around for a while.......I think women should enjoy the power and economic freedom that men in this country have enjoyed for the past couple hundred years. Ying Yang type of thing

One of my not-so-tongue-in-cheek solutions to gun violence in America is to allow women to own guns but make it illegal for men to have them. :)

125> You are a prime example of what I was writing about in my post 117. You seem totally unable to put your preconceived ideas aside and objectively consider what a person with different ideas is saying/writing and respond to those thoughts. You fight tigers that aren't there.

Mr Boyd, your post was ill-conceived and badly worded. That isn't the fault of the reader. If you don't believe those things, you might want to consider how your words betrayed you and take a little extra time to consider your wording next time. If one person takes someone's post a way the writer did not intend, then it may be the reader. If several people do, it might be worth considering that the author of the post did not take the time to word that post clearly.

Let settle our differences wiyh this quiz.

http://www.battleofthesexes.com

Oh look, some actual research. How quickly do you think Carnophile will try to explain away this?

#130

Dumb bitches, when they could be sucking cock for serious money instead.

I award this thread the title of the Most Disgusting LT Thread Ever.

Congratulations, OP. You get a free trip to Moldova and the starring role in the next avant-garde cinematic production featuring a contingent of unemployed metalworkers unwashed since baptism, a mixed gang of Albanian and Italian mafiosi, a donkey, and a feather duster.

Happy retirement, moneybags!

A preconceived notion that should be shelved :

Sameness = equality

Men and women are not the same....have never been the same...will never be the same. There are some things men do better than women and vice versa. That does not however, mean that women should not be equal to men. Thus far the physical abilities of men have been monetarily more beneficial than those things that a woman is suited to perform. While it is changing it is not a fight women can walk away from. The fact that the man who works for a construction company is better equipped to pick up a 50 pound bag of cement than the female secretary who is multi-tasking in the office is not doable in today's society. Women are often the main bread winners......
Women should not have to become like men to receive a more equitable pay.....the value of what they are good at doing should be considered on a more equitable basis. When men were the only breadwinners in the household, this was not so much of an issue.....just not the case anymore.

It has always been my contention that the secretary was worth far more than the 50 lb per bag lifter, as without her the lifter wouldn't get his paycheck, receive his benefits or in some cases, he wouldn't know where to go and sling the 50lb bags around, but this has never been the case, still isn't the case.

>126 southernbooklady:

Good solution that !

>1 Carnophile:
========
Sex workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to loose but your gold chains.

CharlesBoyd>
Go read 103 substituting the word blacks for the word women. Then tell me if it is any more or less true.
Personally I think you are lucky they have treated what you said as a mere inanity.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I wish liberarians would move to that country where they actually put it all into practice and where it works....oh, wait...that place only exists in their heads.

#131 I award this thread the title of the Most Disgusting LT Thread Ever.

And I wasn't even trying! I run circles around you guys.

Does anyone else second this nomination?

Congratulations, OP. You get a free trip to Moldova and the starring role... (etc.)

Do I get to be the bad guy? They get all the best lines.

I'm going to put the honor on my Profile page, then I'm off to another thread. Back later.

This is the silliest thread ever.

The OP is a lame attempt at wit.

Instead it is only a smelly something that rimes with "wit".

>122 jjwilson61: Field of study is another factor that isn't fair to factor out because it is well known that fields in which women historically predominated earn less than male-dominated fields.

It’s not fair to control for this? SERIOUSLY? It’s not fair to compare a male HS teacher to a female HS teacher?

If this isn’t fair, can you explain what would be fair?

You’re actually trying to convince people NOT to compare apples to apples. That’s... wow, I’m just agog.

>123 AsYouKnow_Bob: OK, fine... but when? In the first semester the trend is noticed? in the first decade?

This has been true for several years, so... I should be hearing shouts of outrage.

And who should be doing this complaining? The same people as were complaining before?

Yes.

If YOU think men are suffering, then YOU should be in the lead in decrying this particular injustice.

I didn't think it was oppression when there were fewer women in college, and I don't think it's oppression now that there are fewer men.

people are people, and are more likely to complain when they themselves are affected.

No. Leftists are crusaders for justice who are outraged by any oppression. I know this because they've been shouting it for many decades.

You've just disavowed the cherished leftist marketing line that they are activists trying to achieve "social justice," advocating for the oppressed - by their own definition of oppression, note - etc. It was always obvious that it was BS anyway, but it's nice to see the admission in black and white.

If YOU think men are suffering, then YOU should be in the lead in decrying this particular injustice.

Is this a plain admission that the left has abandoned even the pretense of moral principle?

Oh look, some actual research. How quickly do you think Carnophile will try to explain away this?

This quickly: All their work quality data is... self-reported!!! LOL!!!

Meanwhile, some actual data on non-monetary aspects of work:

Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2011: 92% of workplace fatal injuries happened to men.

Preliminary report for 2012 here. Same deal.

Similarly for the preceding four or five years, as far back as I checked. It’s remarkably stable.

But remember: This is a society that hates women and places an excessive value on men, as revealed by workplace outcomes.

>144 Carnophile:

This is a society that thinks nothing of televising a group of men who are deciding whether or not women should have contraception readily available to them. This is a society where powerful lawmakers think that women "shut down.....down there" when they are raped. We live where many individuals have the mistaken idea that women are not sound enough of mind and body to decide whether or not they are capable, either physically or financially, of bringing another life into the world. Why on earth would the work place be any different than any place else ?

How men consider the rights of women (or in many cases fail to consider them at all) is still prevalent enough to indicate that women still have a ways to go.

Heck, your asinine thread here is proof positive, a complete failure to see and understand what equality is about and why women still are lagging behind their male counterparts, in many ways, financially and otherwise.

I didn't think it was oppression when there were fewer women in college, and I don't think it's oppression now that there are fewer men.

He does, however, view it as oppression that men may not make jokes of a sexual nature in a professional setting.

See #76.

>137 Carnophile: >138 Carnophile:
...make it sound like you're trolling.

Which makes me less likely to engage with you, Carnie.

>141 Carnophile: >142 Carnophile: Is this a plain admission that the left has abandoned even the pretense of moral principle?

Carnie apparently thinks that there's some monolith out there called "The Left", rather than individuals who see injustice and are moved by it.

So can we flip this around, and generalize from Carnie's misapprehension to 'conservatives in general'? This idea that the The Left is some Monolith of Disapproval; that everything is just fine until "The Left" starts making up stuff to criticize?

Liberals or "The Left" have some problem with women? No. It is the right wingers who want to control women.

How many fucking examples of this do we need for some not-so-bright independent right-wing political critics/agitators to catch on?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/lawrence-lockman-rape-_n_4874586.html

>144 Carnophile:
But remember: This is a society that hates women and places an excessive value on men, as revealed by workplace outcomes.

It is not about "hate"....it is about respect or lack there of. Don't give a fiddler's fart about those who may "hate" me as a woman as long as they respect me as a person.
Men still have the controlling power in our society and they DO tend to place excessive value on themselves, even to the point of opining about how women should or should not react to being raped, rape being the ultimate in power and control.
The ONLY men who know much about rape would most likely be those in the penal system, they are not our lawmakers and , thus far, they are pretty silent regarding this subject.
There seem to be a contingent of men, with over blown egos, who seem to think that there is excessive value in regards to their opinions on rape, rape victims and the resulting issues around rape, and they simply can not or will not shut up.

Again....although this seems to be off subject....it is not. Why would the structure of the American work place be any different than that of the society from which it is formed ? It is not. Without laws......women would not have gotten very far and all evidence points to the fact that they are not yet equal in all facets of society.

As I mentioned before...I have a friend who works a "mans" job.....she earns the same as any man she works with BUT, she worked harder to get that job and she is the target of all kinds of incidents that the men are not. She works HARDER for the same pay. This is not equality either.

Is somebody stopping more men from enrolling in college? Are they discouraged by their families, society, and the schools themselves from doing so? You'll have to come up with some reasons besides lack of interest before you can cry marginalization.

I have a hunch that more women enroll in college because many high-school educated males can still get decently-paying construction and labor jobs. High school educated women often don't have that option; they're more likely to get stuck with a low-paying customer service job, which can be incentive enough to further their education.

Women are generally more suited to the retail and services sector such as customer service/relations jobs, nursing,tourism, and hospitality-related vocations . If they do have a high school's diploma or a university's degree, they usually reached a managerial or supervisory levels in this sector.
They made a better choice for these service vocations as compared to the male gender for their poise, grace and the feminine's attributes and personality's traits.

Women are generally more suited to the retail and services sector such as customer service/relations jobs, nursing,tourism, and hospitality-related vocations . If they do have a high school's diploma or a university's degree, they usually reached a managerial or supervisory levels in this sector.
They made a better choice for these service vocations as compared to the male gender for their poise, grace and the feminine's attributes and personality's traits.

Take #3 -

Women are generally more suited to the retail and services sector such as customer service/relations jobs, nursing,tourism, and hospitality-related vocations . If they do have a high school's diploma or a university's degree, they usually reached a managerial or supervisory levels in this sector.
They made a better choice for these service vocations as compared to the male gender for their poise, grace and the feminine's attributes and personality's traits.

What happens - Message 152 is a clone of Message 151 ?

A freak message.Are you are totally in agreement to this statement? No offence to the ladies, and it is my best and sincere compliments to all the ladies of the world.

Take #4 -

Women are generally more suited to the retail and services sector such as customer service/relations jobs, nursing,tourism, and hospitality-related vocations . If they do have a high school's diploma or a university's degree, they usually reached a managerial or supervisory levels in this sector.
They made a better choice for these service vocations as compared to the male gender for their poise, grace and the feminine's attributes and personality's traits.

Hip! Hip! Hooray!

Trumpets blowing loudly.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Clapping, Clapping,Clapping!!!!

Back in the day it was pointed out that garbage collectors in NYC made a higher salary than school teachers.

There was actually a good reason for that being the case.

Which had fuckall to do with sexism.

razamajazz, you really don't get it, do you? Glad you're applauding sexism. Your mother must be very proud.

" .... you really don't get it, ...." - not to be bias against the fairer gender, when comes to taking up any jobs, I believe that no discrimination are being played against both genders. If you are willing to take some of the unpopular vocations being exposed to the "natural" aroma of human by-product, blood, garbage, dirt, oil, sewerage,death, putting aside whether you are a male or a female, nothing to do with sexism or wrongly labelled as a male chauvinist, there are many "high paying" jobs.

They are ( in ranking):

1.Crime Scene Cleaner (US$75,000 annually)

2. Plumber

3. Embalmer

4. Coal Miner

5. Sewer Inspector

6. Crab Fisherman

7. Portable Toilet leaner

8. Oil Rig Worker

9. Gastroenterologist

10. Garbage Collector (US$43,000 annually) With O/T US$60.000

All about: Skyscraper building cleaner, Container port machine operator( lifting containers,stacking containers), Construction machinery operators, and many others

http://www.howstuffworks.com/10-high-paying-dirty-job1#htm.page=10

Do you want the change of "working" environment from a mundane desk job?

razzamajazz, I was responding to your tone deaf laughing and cheering at the links posted by Mr Weidinmyer, none of which had anything to do with the jobs you have randomly listed above. Aren't you at least a little embarrassed by your posts? I'm curious as to your motivations and your definition of basic manners. Usually, even when someone has only contempt and fear of a group, they do understand that showing open happiness at the misfortune of others only makes themselves look diminished. Even my somewhat clueless neighbor has the self-awareness to preface his comments with an, "I'm not a racist, but…" And he's pretty tone deaf to how others react to his words.

Everyone has his/her opinion, my "tone deaf laughing and cheering" is just trying to get Mr. W's response for what is trying to do - his sarcasm by taunting the three times of my statement.

My listing of jobs is irrelevant to this post but to point out that sexism is not an issue whether you are a male or a female for the job.

Male chauvinism still do exists.

My statement is basically my opinion and will be agreed upon by many, let us face the truth.

Do not judge others, as we do not like others to judge us.

We all know that the male and female genders think and behave
differently from each other. They are strong and weak points in each gender. Maybe, I am being neutral in this case.

>160 razzamajazz: not to be bias against the fairer gender

From now on, I'm going to start referring to men as "the uglier gender."

whether you are a male or a female, nothing to do with sexism or wrongly labelled as a male chauvinist, there are many "high paying" jobs.

Don't confuse "the way things are" with "the way they ought to be."

I'm going to have to tell my good friend who runs her own contracting business that all the sexism she encounters as a woman in the construction field is imaginary.

Here is a novel idea: How about we reward "poise and grace" monetarily ? How about if "poise and grace" paid higher than garbage pick up and sewer inspection. Cause I can tell you this from experience.....dealing with the general public (as in retail) and keeping "grace" under fire (ugly bosses) is not one whit easier than slinging a garbage can or inspecting a sewer pipe.....lots of crap involved just a totally different sort.

Why don't we flip things around a bit...shake things up ? Men can STRIVE to attain some level of "poise and grace" so as to get a higher paying job or they can settle for crap of a different sort and not get paid as well.

Why not evaluate the poise and grace of garbagepersons, sewer workers, etc.

Pay them accordingly ?

Only the men, the women get a standard, lower, rate

I am sure we all here agree that women garbage-collectors and women oil rig workers should be paid equally with their male counterparts.

Go for it, ladies.

People who pick up trash in a trashed society are my "heroes"...

>168 JGL53:
"I am sure we all here agree that women garbage-collectors and women oil rig workers should be paid equally with their male counterparts.

Go for it, ladies."

Nice snark ! That is so the exactly point !

I was a Unit Secretary....for 14 years on an Intensive Care Unit. I was under the dictates of the entire working team on that Unit....physicians (arrogant or not), nurses (beleaguered with under staffing), techs of all stripes. The decisions made in prioritizing what one does as a Unit Secretary on a Unit such as the ICU.....are often life and death decisions. My pay, as compared to the physicians was laughable, my pay compared to the nurses was pretty amusing as well.......should I have gotten paid the same ...nope...but because it was a job that was typically performed by a female and because there was a great resistance within the medical field to Unit secretaries becoming licensed ( I was a licensed Unit secretary but because it wasn't a requirement it did not raise the pay level) I was paid at a very low level.
I can tell you this much....a doctor holding a phone in hand and trying to transfer a call to another department of the hospital is a helpless individual despite the million or so he pulls in per year. Same goes for many of the nurses.

I do not believe that any male on an oil rig would want to do the job I did......equality does NOT mean sameness. Because I did not do the SAME work as guy on an oil rig does, does not necessarily mean that I did not work as hard. Just worked hard in a different way. Women's jobs pay less.......because it has been accepted as a norm......it should not be the norm.

You are misrepresenting the issue. Many men do this....it is a way to flex the old macho muscle...and I am not talking about the brain. Seriously, anyone with half a brain would find your post to be horribly insulting.

>169 Michael_Welch:

What to do about the "trash talk" ?

Unfortunately we're all left with "picking up the trash" here? But there's some "gold" amongst the dross hmm...

> 170 "...Because I did not do the SAME work as guy on an oil rig does, does not necessarily mean that I did not work as hard. Just worked hard in a different way. Women's jobs pay less.......because it has been accepted as a norm......it should not be the norm....."

You misunderstand my thrust here.

I.e., I think we must recognize there is a difference in the TYPES of jobs - a difference that goes beyond how hard we work at doing our best, or who has what genitalia.

Certain people - many people - are not interested at all in the job of oil rig worker. I am one. The job pays very well because it is a nasty horrific job - in many ways - way more so than any office job, including, e.g., a nurse working a 70 hour week running a huge hospital or clinic.

Ditto garbage collector - most - like me - will not do such work - unless the pay is so high it would be prohibitive - like say $10,000 a day - I think I would take the job at that rate.

So the reason that garbage collectors get paid rather well compared to school teachers is that most people don't want a nasty outside job - one that must be done.

WITHIN a certain job description - sure - equal pay for equal work. And let everyone have equal opportunity to go for the job they want.

E.g., if huge numbers of women start applying tomorrow for garbage collector or oil rig jobs then we should not discriminate. And pay them the same for equal work.

Does THAT work for you?

Everyone know that women make less money on average than men. The salary gap is very much wider in the Asian countries where women are so clearly being discriminated when compared to the rest of the world. Iceland has the least discrimination against the women.

I believe that the wage gap will be much smaller when women are more educated and single , and also among young men and women having the same educational background. Women dared to venture or being employed in the male-dominated professions, the salary gap between the gender will be diminishing, and the disparity of wages will be much smaller .

Male-dominated professions such as building constructions, engineering, technicians,security,motor vehicle mechanics, architecture,oil rigging,science & technology, funeral industry,academics,heavy vehicle operators and many others, the wage gap will be much narrower doing the same measures of work in term of hours spent working and the scope of job duties.

Links:
10 Things You Did Not Know About The Gender Gap in US.

www.healthland.time.com/2013/11/11/ten-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-gender-gap/

(see interactive map in the website0

Do you agree to the report made on the gender gap in the context of salary disparity?

#145 and 149: You’re going to contraception and rape? Let’s try to keep the focus on the job market. I have tried to do that, with some success, except for the college thing, about which I was responding to someone else’s post. (And got embroiled more than I intended due to Bob and weener jumping in.)

We could broaden the discussion to a general Gender Smackdown!!! but that would keep us here forever, and in any case, would not lead to the outcome you seem to anticipate, similarly to the labor markets topic.

>147 AsYouKnow_Bob: individuals who see injustice and are moved by it.

No. Individuals who when their ox is gored shout "Injustice!" and when someone else's ox is gored - by their own definition of goring, note - yawn and say, "Fuck 'em."

>150 weener: You'll have to come up with some reasons besides lack of interest before you can cry marginalization.

I am not crying marginalization, as I think I’ve stated twice now.

I have a hunch that more women enroll in college because many high-school educated males can still get decently-paying construction and labor jobs. High school educated women often don't have that option; they're more likely to get stuck with a low-paying customer service job, which can be incentive enough to further their education.

Look what you’re doing. If women are “underrepresented” in college it's evidence that women are victims of discrimination. (Indeed, it's ipso facto discimination, as such.) If men are “underrepresented” it's evidence that they must have better outside options than women... thus proving that women are victims of discrimination.

In 1965, no feminist ever argued, e.g., that men must have “had” to go to college because they didn’t have women willing to support them. Oh no, the “outside options” argument miraculously appears - coincidentally! - at the exact moment in time that it becomes convenient for feminism.

If the evidence says the earth is 6,000 years old, that suggests it's 6,000 years old.

If the evidence says the earth is more than 4 billion years old, that just goes to show how clever Satan is in manipulating the evidence, thus confirming that it's 6,000 years old.

Leftism is now literally a religion, in the sense that empirical reality is utterly irrelevant to it.

(As a follow-up, on the details of the utterly ridiculous always-interpret the-evidence-to-get-to-the-same-conclusion "argument":

They make no sense even taking them on their own terms. The earnings gap was decreasing, not increasing, during the period in which the college enrollment difference was reversing. See Figure 1 here, e.g.:
http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ANNALS_Conger,Long_Manuscript%20%28Feb%200...
Also, employment in the construction industry tanked during the recession, even as the enrollment gap continued to favor women. Graph from FRED cited here:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/jontalton/2014/03/05/construction-employment-still...

I know I shouldn't pay this nonsense the favor of bothering to refute it. I should just say, "You're obviously always interpreting the evidence to get to the same conclusion." But it's a compulsion.)

>175 Carnophile:
"You’re going to contraception and rape? Let’s try to keep the focus on the job market."

Can't do it.....cause the same attitude is prevalent in the job market as is evidenced in the debate being waged by our lawmakers about women's right to make her own decisions about health care.

Now I'm sure that many men think they are being fair in so far as the job market goes...I pretty certain that they consider their binders full of women when they are hiring, promoting and generally interacting on a daily basis but the fact remains.....many do not.

My daughter in law is nurses aide in a nursing home....all female NA staff.......she and her coworkers deserve to make as much as any guy on an oil rig. I will defend my opinion on that forever....but it is a "woman's" job and it pays shit for wages.
This is not made up stuff. This is a fact. Not many would do what she does. Maybe she should go to collage ? Maybe she should quit and become a garbage collector ? But then, who is going to do the work at the nursing home. She does equal work to any oil rig guy or garbage collector...perhaps more. You are NOT looking at the issue....you keep sending links about all kinds of statistics and such without recognizing that not all people are going to do the same type of jobs. There is no reason a Nurses Aide shouldn't make good money and the only reason they don't is because it is primarily women who do the work.

No, women were underrepresented in college, and it was because most majors weren't open to them, they were discouraged from seeking education by their families and society, and colleges had policies against accepting them. These are verifiable facts. Sounds like discrimination to me.

Now, men are underrepresented in college, because...? I'm not 100% sure, but if you think it's discrimination, you're going to have to show me evidence for that. Because my best guess is that women attend college more because more men than women can find jobs that pay a decent wage without higher education. That sounds like the opposite of discrimination.

>179 faceinbook:
“You’re going to contraception and rape? Let’s try to keep the focus on the job market.”
Can't do it.....cause the same attitude is prevalent in the job market...

Oh, stop. Women convicts get lighter sentences than men, even controlling for the severity of the crime and so forth: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2870.pdf Now the same anti-male attitude is of course prevalent in the job market - because why should the job market be any different? - thus proving that there’s discrimination against men. We could do this forever, faceinbook.

My daughter in law is nurses aide in a nursing home....all female NA staff.......
So you admit that they discriminatorily exclude men.

she and her coworkers deserve to make as much as any guy on an oil rig.
Seriously? ANY guy on an oil rig?

I will defend my opinion on that forever
I believe you.

but it is a "woman's" job and it pays shit for wages... There is no reason a Nurses Aide shouldn't make good money and the only reason they don't is because it is primarily women who do the work.

The mean salary for the “traditionally female” profession of registered nurse was $69,110 in 2011. The median was $65,950. For the personal care services subsector it was more than $85,000. Yep, if a field is “female-identified,” it pays a pittance, it does.
Meanwhile, US income per household - not per worker, mind - in that year was around $50,000! (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MEHOINUSA646N)

You are NOT looking at the issue....you keep sending links about all kinds of statistics
Fair warning: I intend to keep doing that.

>180 weener: Among other things, the feminist yelping about college discrimination against women did not stop in, e.g., 1965. It continued right into the early 2000s, decades beyond the "most majors weren't open to them" era. (And indeed, well into the Affirmative Action era.)

Now, men are underrepresented in college... if you think it's discrimination, you're going to have to show me evidence for that.

And indeed, if I ever argue such a thing, I will in fact, feel obliged to provide evidence for it.
On that topic, do you have any evidence for your "best guess"? Or was it chosen because its ideological implications were suitable?

You might find this site interesting.

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6551538/Nursing-factboxes-responsibilites-and-salaries-of-the-NHS-grades.html

www.jacksonvilleu.com/nursing-degree-resources/high-paying-states-nurses/

www.therichest.com/business/salary/how-much-do-nurses-make/

Just for comparison with US nursing salaries/grades.

the feminist yelping

Yelping. Screeching. It's a veritable cacophony.

It's worth noting that faceinbook was not talking about nurses, but about nurses' aides, who earned a median of $24,420 in 2012. These are the people who do the very physical and unpleasant labor of lifting, moving and bathing patients, changing urine-soaked sheets and cleaning up shit. Quite as unpleasant and physical as collecting garbage, I would think.

Healthcare Assistant or Patient Care Assistant are not really RN or Registered Nurse better known over in my country.

They are not allow to administer any injections or drugs into the patients, besides the "domestic" aspects of nursing, they are also train to take straightforward measurements of blood pressure, blood glucose and setting up of the body traction equipment/mobility aids and equipment. Assisting the registered nurses in other aspects of nursing - bandaging, cleaning up of wounds, setting up of dialysis equipment/accessories, rehabilitation and therapy clinics.

I believe "nurses " aides are not really registered nurses and the student and junior nurses sometimes do fill up in these roles to
learn all aspects of nursing.

Also known as a nursing assistant , you can find them usually in nursing/homeless sick,hospices and old age homes doing up the basic aspects of nursing and cleaning-up the patients. They are in the lowest rung of nursing profession.

I believe you need "passion" to take up nursing as a profession for both gender. Do you agree?

181> yes it is quite remarkable how the pay for the "traditionally female profession Of registered nurse" has increased with the advent of men into the profession. It is a shame that the pay of nursing aides, The women who perform the more arduous and unpleasant duties that RN's eschew. has not kept pace with them.
Have you similarly noticed the decrease in pay that results when previously all male profession, gain a significant female component?

>181 Carnophile:
"So you admit that they discriminatorily exclude men."

Not the point...not the point at all. One can argue that oil rig work and NA work are equal in the type of work performed. They should command the same in pay. Doesn't matter whether the workers are male or female. Most men wouldn't do the work my daughter-in-law does.

" The mean salary for the “traditionally female” profession of registered nurse was $69,110 in 2011. The median was $65,950. For the personal care services subsector it was more than $85,000. Yep, if a field is “female-identified,” it pays a pittance, it does.
Meanwhile, US income per household - not per worker, mind - in that year was around $50,000!"

How about comparing the salary of nurses with that of doctors (a field that is statistically still heavily populated by men)

>186 razzamajazz:
"I believe you need "passion" to take up nursing as a profession for both gender. Do you agree?"

I agree 100% Worked with nurses for many years. Most of them are saints and UNDER paid for the work they perform.

Carnophile is the lone voice here......much like the rest of the deniers who claim that "racism is done and over with", "gays have bullied the American people" (Bachmann) and perhaps this : "the only way to stop a good guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke" (Palin) They all seem to have their heads firmly planted in a different world and will support their position by siting all kinds of "evidence" and statisics without really having any experience what so ever as to what they are blabbering on about.

No use of whining about being overworked and underpaid for the nursing profession.

If she is caring and liked to help the sick and passionate about it and not looking for fat salary, nursing is the choice job for her.

If you are a RN , there are much prospects in the profession and I believe it may take many years to reach your prospective goal through further training and taking examinations.

What make you want to compare a nurse and a doctor in term of work load and salary?

doctor: a person skilled in healing arts; one(one as a physician,dentist or veterinarian) academically and legally qualified to practice . noun

To give medical treatment and authorize to give prescriptions.

nurse: a girl or woman trained and employed to take care of sick people. To assist doctors in a surgery room, a hospital ward and a clinic for some routine tasks - giving injections, taking blood pressure and pulse readings , and etc

The scope of these two occupation is so much different. The doctors hold much more responsibilities than nurses.

Do nurses really cover the role of a doctor ?

razzamajazz, you might want to quit while you're behind here.

So, in your view, women should not work to earn money, but because they like to help out.

Are you fine with the increasing numbers of men working in the nursing profession? Should they also only expect a token wage because they are only "helping" keep you and your loved ones alive? Should female doctors be paid differently than their male counterparts? You don't have a clear understanding of what a nurse's job actually is.

>189 razzamajazz:,190

An imperfect comparison is that of pilots and mechanics. Last I knew, at one airline pilots were making six times the amount of mechanics. I want my mechanics happy (and by this time their jobs are likely much more difficult than the job of a pilot).

Yes, RG, first thing wrong with 189 is the supposed male/female doctor/nurse split--I have noticed an increase in woman doctors and male nurses over the past three decades.

The problem with the pay scale is not that the pay is not equal, rather the extent to which it is. Can anyone really justify the argument that one person working in a profession is worth TWICE as much as another? I am grateful to the thoracic surgeon, for example, who operated on the aortic aneurysm I had that was discovered some 14 years ago. The doctor who led to its discovery was a woman, my 'family' doctor, and it was an astonishing feat of intuition and/or patience that led her to ask for the tests that detected the problem.

While in the hospital I was competently anesthetized, prepared for surgery, and, finally, surgically repaired. During recovery I had complications and a nurse saved my life by realizing that I needed to get back to ICU right away.

A bonus for the surgeon, sure (though is there no value in prestige? in self-esteem?). But who among the rest deserves less?

The money being made by the sex workers (male, female, or other)is a pittance compared to the profits earned on the "respectable" end of the business.

In May 2005 U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales established an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. The task force, according to a Department of Justice news release on May 5, was "dedicated to the investigation and prosecution of the distributors of hard-core pornography that meets the test for obscenity, as defined by the United States Supreme Court." Under President Bush's and Gonzales' rationales the FBI Adult Obscenity Squad was recruited in August 2005 to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of adult pornography. wiki

Since these "manufacturers and purveyors" of adult pornography turned out to be major financial players, nothing happened.

Most of the people who slept in your hotel bed watched porn.

"What do you think... people looking at porn are just looking at it? Pornography and masturbation go hand in hand."

>192 quicksiva: & 193

What the ??????? Stuck on porn are we ?

>189 razzamajazz:
In all reality, in a hospital situation.....the nurse has more responsibility than the doctor. The nurse actually spends far more time with the patient than the doctor. The doctor DEPENDS on information from the nurse to make decisions regarding the patient. I have seen nurses save lives countless times, I worked in ICU. In fact most often when a patient goes south their doctor is no where around, that job falls to the nurses.

I believe doctors should be rewarded for the amount of responsibility they have but it says a whole lot that the pay scale for nurses has gone up a bit since there are more male nurses. The fact that women typically have been the care givers has meant that they "settle" for far less in compensation. Why? A hospital with only doctors would be disaster as most doctors do not have a clue where the bedpans are kept and what to do with one that is full.

The question is this "Why do jobs that are primarily done by women, receive such a disparity in pay ?"

Even in the office setting. A good secretary can make or brake a business executive. A receptionist is the first person a customer has contact with when they contact a business......receptionists receive pennies on the dollar compared to the man upstairs and they are vitally important. First impressions and all.

The argument is not totally about women doing the SAME jobs in order to be valued equally (although without laws to ensure equal pay women were paid less for the same jobs)....the issue is that those things women do are under valued, and not by small amounts....undervalued to the point that far more women live in poverty than men.

>194 faceinbook:
???????
=========
See OP

>195 quicksiva:
Income inequality ???

OP...OP...OP?...!: Orgasmatronic Posterbed!

Female part add more glamour to the performance !!!

>185 Helcura: It's worth noting that faceinbook was not talking about nurses, but about nurses' aides, who earned a median of $24,420 in 2012.

Yes, I understood the distinction when I wrote 181. My point was that they’re both “female-identified” professions, yet one of them makes a lot more per worker than the nation’s average household income.

>187 SimonW11: yes it is quite remarkable how the pay for the "traditionally female profession Of registered nurse" has increased with the advent of men into the profession.

No, it coincided with the shortage of RNs, which people have been talking about for years. Seriously, punch it into a search engine.

Have you similarly noticed the decrease in pay that results when previously all male profession, gain a significant female component?

No, actually, I haven’t.

It is, however, believable... on basic supply/demand grounds. Unless there’s an offsetting increase in demand, what do you expect to happen when a flood of new supply enters a market?

It would be interesting to see what happens when the labor supply in a field increases by X% because a bunch of women suddenly enter that field, compared to what happens when the labor supply increases by X% because a bunch of men suddenly enter it.

Healthcare assistant or worker do not need a certified nursing diploma, Any able-bodied person,both gender who like to care the sick, do not mind the nitty-gritty aspects of "dirty" tasks of nursing and a much smaller pay check.

Nursing is not really a popular "female-oriented' profession, and there is a great demand for nurses to fill up the acute shortage of nurses.

A RN or registered nurse is legally qualified to assist the doctors of the routine tasks such as giving injections, and not the healthcare assistant or patient care assistant or a nursing assistant.

>188 faceinbook: One can argue that oil rig work and NA work are equal in the type of work performed.

I couldn’t argue that. Not with a straight face.

(Therefore) They should command the same in pay.

If I can paraphrase Clint Eastwood, Should’s got nothing to do with it. It’s supply and demand.

How about comparing the salary of nurses with that of doctors (a field that is statistically still heavily populated by men).

It’s also a field that requires more education and no doubt is different in other ways. E.g., higher costs like malpractice insurance? It would make more sense to compare male nurses to female nurses and male MD’s to female MD’s - comparing apples to apples, e.g., same specialty area, same level of experience, etc. Also compare male MDs to male RNs and female MDs to female RNs.

...nuke...

You went to contraception and rape; now you’re dragging nukes in?

siting (sic) all kinds of "evidence" and statisics without really having any experience what so ever as to what they are blabbering on about.

Statistics are invalid! Oh. So much for the meme that women on average earn less than men.

...blabbering...

Apropos of nothing, above you called this an asinine thread. Just saying that I agree that some parts of it are asinine.

I have heard RN's call themselves "Real Nurses" ;)

Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men?

You decide after reading this.

www.cbc.ca/news/business/why-do-women-earn-less-than-men-1.1316375

>202 Carnophile:
I did not say the SAME.....I said equal.

My daughter in law is about 5'2' She lifts, turns, carries, cleans up crap and generally does physical work all day. Her back has about had it. I would indeed say that her work is EQUAL.

You can laugh if you want but it would only serve my point that the work women do is demeaned by many who have a no clue as to what equality really means.

>205 faceinbook: I did not say the SAME.....I said equal.

I didn't say you said the same. In fact, in 202 I quoted your exact words.

My daughter in law (etc.)...

Oil rig work and nurse's assistants are completely different. They have nothing to do with one another. They are alike as Proxima Centauri and grape jelly. They are hardly sanely comparable, let alone equal, same, equivalent, similar, etc.

You can laugh if you want but it would only serve my point that the work women do is demeaned...

I never dissed nurses' assistants. You read that into my post.

no clue

...said the person who didn't read the post she was responding to.

According to left-wing faith, a significant part of the male-female earnings gap, and maybe all of it, is due to misogynist employers discriminating against women.

Warning: cognitive dissonance ahead.

Among self-employed people, the male-female earnings gap is larger than it is among those who have employers.

I’ll cite and discuss below, but for the moment just let your horrified eyes bleed.

Warren Farrell, in Why Men Earn More, mentions - among many other facts that faithful leftists will find absolutely nightmarish - the humdinger in the previous post. For this fact Farrell cites data from the IRS’s income statistics. He says the data is unpublished as of when his book came out, and I haven’t tried to track it down on the web yet.

But I did find this...

The Monthly Labor Review, February 2005, “Self-employment, entrepreneurship, and the NLSY79,” by Robert W. Fairlie.

There is a table showing the mean and median total annual earnings for self-employed and wage and salary workers.

For men, the self-employed earn substantially more, on average, than do wage and salary workers. Men’s average earnings are $14,042 higher among the self-employed, and median earnings are $4,979 higher. For women, average earnings among the self-employed are slightly higher than average earnings among wage and salary workers, but median earnings are lower.

Here are the percent gaps implied by the figures in the table, for the median (they say the mean numbers are only a little different). Note these don’t control for the usual list of controls.

For wage and salaray workers, women earn 27,131/38,258 = 71%.
For the self-employed, the gap is 28,217/52,300 = 54% of what men earn.

But remember: The only possible explanation for an earnings gap is discrimination by employers. Repeat this fifty times while clutching a rosary.

207> If you really believe feminists think misogyny is in any way limited to employers. Then you have no clue. Misogyny is found in all occupations. It is not limited to Rich Uncle Moneybags or Mr Burns. Indeed it shows most when it is not regulated against,when the victim has no support. It shows not on a factory line where every one of the same grade earns the same money, but at the wedding where the misogynist boss and the misogynist worker will both seek out the male photographer as "more professional".

>208 Carnophile:

The only thing I could wish for you is a life time of working the jobs I did under the bosses I worked for. I wish for you to encounter the legal system, not by choice but for survival for your family and encounter the judges, attorneys and "court appointed" aides that I came into contact with.
It would be nice if you could turn on the television and watch a group of women decide who and who does not deserve to take Viagra or who deserves to receive treatment for prostate cancer for that matter, since hormone therapy for women is used for multiple reasons. (although first and foremost it allows her to stay competitive in a man's world)
Salary becomes a mere blip on the radar screen when it comes to the issue of what it means to be female in a patriarchal society. You can post links and blather till the cows come home but unless you've been on the opposite side of where you are standing while deciding that all is honky dory...... you really have no clue other than someone else's "statistical" summation.

Women need to be seen as "equal" and this includes those jobs that have typically been "women's work". You are right there is no comparison but neither is there any reason why one should pay far more than the other. Hard work is hard work and should be rewarded accordingly. It doesn't matter if that work is done by more women then by men. In fact, pay may be incidental to being seen as an equal within society.....to date, women still have a ways to go.

>208 Carnophile:
I would also add that I would like to see you and a few other's who seem to think that liberal's are hysterical about women's rights for no good reason other than the fact that they need some trumped up issue, keep life and limb together on the wages I received.....sometimes while working two jobs. (not easy jobs either.....no sitting around in a rolling desk chair)

>204 razzamajazz: Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men?

That article underscores the fact that money is a very poor indicator of what we value in society.

It also sidesteps the reality that when women do make choices that favor career over family, they are often perceived negatively. Ambition is a quality that is admired in a man, but usually viewed with suspicion in a woman.

And like anything that rouses suspicion, society takes actions to confront the perceived threat. That can be anything from explicit hostility (the irrational reaction to Hillary Clinton running for president being one example) to subconscious, internalized misogyny, like the implicit assumption that a male photographer or chef is more "professional" than a female one. That such ingrained prejudices would be reflected in pay scales and salaries is hardly a surprise.

210> Oh please. What a load of reeking bullshit. Like people even know who owns most businesses. Quick, who owns all the independent restaurants in your town? The gift shops? Book stores? You don’t have a clue for the vast majority of them (maybe all of them) and neither does anyone else. Nor do they care.

You can’t discriminate on the basis of sex if you don’t even know the sex of the person. Your entire post is blatantly obvious bullshit.

Employers know everyone they hire. What fraction of people know the owner of a business? People seek out the knowledge of who owns a business, for most businesses they buy stuff from? Are you seriously suggesting this? AND they seek out this knowledge so avidly that they know more about the gender breakdown than the employers who employ wage and salary workers?

AND of all those who know the gender of the owner, a significant fraction of them say, “No way, I won’t deal with a woman!” Such a large fraction that it reduces self-employed women’s income to 54% of men’s?

Simon, if you’re reduced to asserting all this, I think it’s time to just concede that I’ve won the argument.

>211 faceinbook: It would be nice if you could turn on the television and watch a group of women decide who and who does not deserve to take Viagra or who deserves to receive treatment for prostate cancer for that matter, since hormone therapy for women is used for multiple reasons. (although first and foremost it allows her to stay competitive in a man's world)

You lost me here. I mean, what?

You can... blather till the cows come home

contraception, rape, nukes, Viagra...

You might find this article interesting.

www.financialsamurai.com/gender-wage-gap/

"You can’t discriminate on the basis of sex if you don’t even know the sex of the person."

Yes exactly.

Hence the increase in the proportion of female musicians employed when orchestra's move to blind auditions.

Hence the equality of pay when people of both genders are employed in interchangeable positions, in a factory. warehouse or store.

You seriously claim to believe someone who hires the local self employed wedding photographer is generally unaware of the photographerssex until after they hire them?

>215 Carnophile:

"You lost me here. I mean, what?"

Obviously....connecting the dots is not a strong suit of those who seem to think that feminists do not have a ways to go. Much in the same way our Supreme Court doesn't think we need to insure voting rights because racism is no longer an issue. Blind denial seems to be a good way to keep the status quo while trying to push backwards.

Every issue I mentioned affects a woman's economic well being. Equality means more than sameness and this is a concept that is very easy to act all kinds of confused about.

One woman's solution: http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/texas-gop-tells-women-stop-using-equal-pay

>219 RickHarsch: It worked for Lysistrata.

yep

Oh wait.......Native Americans......African Americans......Women......Homosexuals ....they still haven't gotten it. They MUST be the "same", they must look more like Whites, act like White men and present themselves with all kinds of machoism (forget the feminine since it just doesn't pay well, unless of course there is nakedness involved) then and only then will everyone be "equal"

Well hell's bells, why don't we all be the "same" ? Talk the same....... walk the same......look the same and most importantly do the same jobs (ie oil rig work or garbage retrieval or CEO of successful company)......just the jobs that pay well ? Why didn't we think of this before ?

All men* are not born equal.

* Mankind, all human beings.

There are people worse off than us, try to be contented and we try our best to meet our goals in our lives.

Good Reads: Life Without Limits by Nick Vijicic

Unstoppable by Nick Vijicic

>219 RickHarsch: (From the article): "Men are better negotiators."

Not in my house. (And I'd reiterate SBL's point -- the women seem to have had the better negotiation skills in Lysistrata...)

Or at least the better bargaining position.

I posted it, but only because it was remarkably stupid.

#217. Good, you’re still here. I was going over some math related to the self-employed. Nothing fancy; basically just writing down the definition of an average (mean) and teasing out its implications. I’ll make some points here and provide the details in another post.

1. Your misogyny theory requires that more than 46% of self-employed women are known by their potential customers to be women to even get a positive answer for their income! Not a plausible answer, just a positive one! If it’s, say, 45%, your little notion can’t even work in theory!

2. And if it’s, say, 47%, then the implied income for self-employed women who are known to be women is only about 2% that of men. Want to argue that that’s plausible?

3. If half of self-employed women are known to be women - half! - their implied income is only 8% of men’s! Would anyone like to argue that due to misogyny, self-employed women, known to be women, have only 8% of men’s income on average?

4. BTW, note that 8% would be the combined effect of non-misogynists and misogynists. The non-misogynist effect, naturally, is to make women’s income equal to that of men. So the misogynists must reeeeeaaaaallly be dragging their income down to make the average effect come out to 8%. Those are some powerful and motivated misogynists! How many of them are there, exactly? And what are they doing, sneaking into women’s businesses at night and stealing cash from the till?

Suppose we consider all this from the opposite angle. E.g., suppose that, due to misogynist discrimination, identifed women only have 95% of the income of men. That seems plausible. I’m not saying I got that number from anywhere; I’m just saying I came up with a number that doesn’t strike me as a crazy, overtly fantastical number. We can ask, if that’s the case, what proportion of all women would have to be identified women to make this occur? The answer - see below for algebra - is that 920% of women would have to be identified as women! Oops!

Call the number of self-employed women w and the number of self-employed men m.

Call the total income of all self-employed women I(w), so their mean income is I(w)/w. Similarly, total income of self-employed men is I(m), so their mean income is I(m)/m.

Some proportion k ∈ (0,1) of the self-employed women are known by their potential customers to be women. In the interest of brevity, let’s call these business-owners “identified women.”

For the fraction 1– k who are not known to be women, their average income must be the same as the average income of self-employed men. This is not true in reality, but it is required by the theory that only misogynist discrimination can explain lower income for women. (It would be nice if folks would concede that that’s not the case. But doing that would undercut the foundations of your entire position, so if you concede it then I’m done.)

Given that, the total income of self-employed women who aren’t known to be women is their total number, (1-k)w, times their average income. But as just said, their average income must be equal to that of men, so we have their total income as

(1-k)w I(m)/m.

The total income of identified women we’ll call x.

We also have, from the paper I linked to in 208, that the mean income of all self-employed women is 54% of the mean income of all self-employed men. However, in the interests of generality, let’s just call this proportion z for now. We can impose z = 0.54 later. In general,

I(w)/w = z I(m)/m.

Now we can start transforming this. First, the total income of women can be broken into the total income of identified women, x, and the total income of women not known to be women, (1-k)w I(m)/m. Substitute that into the previous eq’n:

{x+(1-k)w I(m)/m}/w = z I(m)/m.

Or,
x/w+(1-k) I(m)/m = zI(m)/m,

or,
x/w = z I(m)/m – (1-k)I(m)/m,

or,
x/w = (z – 1+ k)I(m)/m.

Almost there. Now all we need to do is divide both sides by k to get the average income of identified women on the left (i.e., their total income, x, divided by the number of them, kw):

x/kw = ((z +k – 1)/k)I(m)/m.

Done. In words:

The average income of identified women equals the average income of all self-employed men, times (z +k – 1)/k.

Plug any assumptions you like into that to see the implications, and to check my assertions above.

Notes:

If z+k is less than 1, the implied income of identified women is negative.

If z+k = 1, the implied income of identified women is zero.

From the study we have z = 0.54, so if k is less than 0.46, the implied income of identified women is negative. If k = 0.46, the implied income of identified women is zero.

More later.

Are you a student of John Forbes Nash, Nobel Prize winner, Mathematics ?

If there is anything worse than denial......it may very well be smug denial.
Usually displayed when one has the upper hand and often has nothing to do with whether the upper hand is due to correctness of their position but speaks more to the undeniable fact that the upper hand is of benefit to themselves so facts are of little consequence. Seems to be the thing to do these days.....no proof, twisted facts, smug assumptions and blatant lies thrown in the face of anything that may change things for the better. This attitude ensures that some individuals can sit back and gloat about the absolute ridiculousness of other peoples concerns and/or issues.

Kind of the "I know better than you about what you have encountered" never mind that I've never been there myself....just look at my flow chart, look at the statistics I've compiled......look at MY math. Clearly you did NOT experience what you just experienced.

If things are on the up and up as some seem to feel they are.....what difference does it make if new laws are instituted so as to ensure equality for women ? Just pass the dang law......it won't make a difference to business what so ever since they are doing the right thing any way, so why fight it ? It may seem a waste of time to those who think women are "over reacting" or "whining" about nonexistent circumstances but surely our law makers have wasted time on other things as well. I suggest one takes a peek at the Republican party voting record for the past six years......

This seems apropos: http://readingmedievalbooks.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/university-is-no-place-for-...

Housekeeping is the vocation for women in the past. Time have changed, now some women are the sole breadwinners, and their spouses are house husbands.Their roles have reversed.

>217 SimonW11: "You can’t discriminate on the basis of sex if you don’t even know the sex of the person."
Yes exactly.
Hence the increase in the proportion of female musicians employed when orchestra's move to blind auditions.

...or not. I tracked down the ur-paper on that topic, which I’ve heard of before. Let’s see what the authors themselves say about it. Here’s the Abstract, quoted in its entirety:

A change in the audition procedures of symphony orchestras—adoption of "blind" auditions with a "screen" to conceal the candidate's identity from the jury-provides a test for sex- biased hiring. Using data from actual auditions, in an individual fixed-effects framework, we find that the screen increases the probability a woman will be advanced and hired. Although some of our estimates have large standard errors and there is one persistent effect in the opposite direction, the weight of the evidence suggests that the blind audition procedure fostered impartiality in hiring and increased the proportion women in symphony orchestras.

(Goldin and Rouse, American Economic Review, September 2000.)

As in many cases, you have to read the actual details, not how the authors characterize their details. Large standard errors, for those of you who don’t speak stat, reduce the confidence we can have in the results.

Page 726 contains this ka-pow of a quote: “The relative success of female candidates appears worse for blind than for not-blind auditions and this finding also holds for each round of the audition process...” (Emphasis added.) Oh. In the next paragraph they say that an alternative data construction reverses this finding. What we have, then, is ambiguity.

And later: “The effect (of a screen on female success) in the semifinal round, however, remains strongly negative.” (Emphasis added.)

In general, I'm sure there are more carefully-done studies that show anti-female discrimination. But there are also ones that show it the other way.

You seriously claim to believe someone who hires the local self employed wedding photographer is generally unaware of the photographerssex until after they hire them?

I claim such cases are nowhere near sufficient to create a 46% difference in income. See 227-229.

By the way, speaking of photographers, some women's magazines keeping sending issues to my wife, who hasn't subscribed to them, for some reason. Within the last year, I was flipping through one and noticed a footnote in an ad, bragging about how they only hired female photographers and layout people, etc. Charming.

#218 "You lost me here. I mean, what?"

Obviously....connecting the dots is not a strong suit of those who seem to think (etc.)

Or it could be that your posts are garbage heaps of incoherence. That could have something to do with it.

#222 forget the feminine since it just doesn't pay well, unless of course there is nakedness involved

Have you been paying any attention at all? Urban single women earn 7% MORE than similarly-situated men.

That word, once again, is MORE. Please make a note of it.

PS: MORE.

>210 SimonW11: and 217. It's even worse for your position than it seems. The piece I linked to in 208 shows the dynamics of the earnings over time. First women start out making less, then more.
That there are any dynamics at all argue strongly against your point. After all, you’re not any less female after ten years than when you started out.
Nevertheless, I'm sure this will lead to some creative stories about how females suddenly stop encountering all those misogynists when they hit age 30 or whatever.

I could power Los Angeles with William of Occam, given how fast you folks have him spinning in his grave.

>230 razzamajazz: Are you a student of John Forbes Nash, Nobel Prize winner, Mathematics ?

Only in a manner of speaking!

#231 Blah blah blah, my anecdotes count more than large data sets (many compiled and analyzed by feminist organizations).

>241 Carnophile:

What ever !

Racism ?

What ever !

Failing educational system ?

What ever !

Income disparity ?

What ever !

Health care mess ?

What ever !

Inequality ?

What ever !

All statistically debunked.


Work on it hard enough and one could claim that, statistically, Ms. Palin is a genius.

There is some good news for women in the technical vocation, they earned as much as the male counterparts.

http://www.qz.com/182977/there-is-no-gender-gap-in-tech-salaries/

This seems apropos to the discussion: Mary Beard, The Public Voice of Women (London Review of Books):

For it seems to me that many aspects of this traditional package of views about the unsuitability of women for public speaking in general – a package going back in its essentials over two millennia – still underlies some of our own assumptions about, and awkwardness with, the female voice in public. Take the language we still use to describe the sound of women’s speech (...). In making a public case, in fighting their corner, in speaking out, what are women said to be? ‘Strident’; they ‘whinge’ and they ‘whine’.
(...)
Do those words matter? Of course they do, because they underpin an idiom that acts to remove the authority, the force, even the humour from what women have to say. It’s an idiom that effectively repositions women back into the domestic sphere (people ‘whinge’ over things like the washing up); it trivialises their words, or it ‘re-privatises’ them. Contrast the ‘deep-voiced’ man with all the connotations of profundity that the simple word ‘deep’ brings. It is still the case that when listeners hear a female voice, they don’t hear a voice that connotes authority; or rather they have not learned how to hear authority in it;

>234 Carnophile: So why do you think there was there was this one persistent effect in the opposite direction?

243> shame there are so few of them.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w17888?ntw

We investigate women's underrepresentation among holders of commercialized patents: only 5.5% of holders of such patents are female. Using the National Survey of College Graduates 2003, we find only 7% of the gap is accounted for by women's lower probability of holding any science or engineering degree, because women with such a degree are scarcely more likely to patent than women without. Differences among those without a science or engineering degree account for 15%, while 78% is accounted for by differences among those with a science or engineering degree. For the latter group, we find that women's underrepresentation in engineering and in jobs involving development and design explain much of the gap; closing it would increase U.S. GDP per capita by 2.7%.

>245 SimonW11: I don't know what, if anything, to make of that paper.

Personally I saw it as a case of one organisation having a selector biased towards women and the other selectors being biased against them.

>250 SimonW11: Apparently the typical orchestra has two or three rounds of try-outs. For the first round and third round they found one thing; for the second round they found the opposite. So I can’t make anything of this.

Regarding 247 (though it seems to be addressed to razzamajazz), I wouldn’t say that the underrepresentation as such is evidence of discrimination; after all, men are underrepresented in K-12 education iirc. It could just be a matter of taste (i.e., men are more interested in some jobs, women in others). To be extra-clear, I'm not saying it's impossible that it's some sort of bias.

On that note, here’s an anecdote, for what it’s worth. When I had a kid in first grade, I went to one of the school’s open house nights. The teacher made this observation about library day, which is when they take the class to the school library and let ‘em loose to take out any books they want: The boys tend to gravitate to science and tech more; the girls more to fiction. These are 6-year-olds, mind.

>251 Carnophile:
"On that note, here’s an anecdote, for what it’s worth. When I had a kid in first grade, I went to one of the school’s open house nights. The teacher made this observation about library day, which is when they take the class to the school library and let ‘em loose to take out any books they want: The boys tend to gravitate to science and tech more; the girls more to fiction. These are 6-year-olds, mind."

Sameness does not mean EQUALITY ! We were not meant to be the SAME......but we were meant to be EQUAL. Perhaps many women are better at dealing with the emotional while many men are more apt at the concrete ? Why is the concrete of more value than the emotional ? It shouldn't be....there should be a balance actually. Trying to "remake" women so as to be more "man like" is as useless as trying to remake the Black, Asian, insert what ever you wish, race into a valuable European White model.

Your statements are a glaring reminder of why it is sexism still exists....racism as well. Until we accept that we are all different and that our differences should not determine whether one is of value, or how much that value may be , "isms" will remain.

Carnophile is just making the point that if men are over-represented in science careers perhaps that is not proof of bias in education and hiring but only points to a tendency of women to have other interests. But then when you say, "Perhaps many women are better at dealing with the emotional while many men are more apt at the concrete ?" it sounds to me like you're saying the same thing.

>253 jjwilson61: But then when you say, "Perhaps many women are better at dealing with the emotional while many men are more apt at the concrete ?" it sounds to me like you're saying the same thing.

It also has the air of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>253 jjwilson61: "Carnophile is just making the point that if men are over-represented in science careers perhaps that is not proof of bias in education and hiring but only points to a tendency of women to have other interests."

As the husband of a woman in the sciences, I can tell you at least anecdotally that bias and sexism is quite rampant. She was openly harrassed by several (older white male) members of the faculty when she was a grad student, and when she tried to complain, nobody wanted to hear about it.

When she defended her Master's thesis, she wore the equivalent that one of her male colleagues had worn to his defense -- slacks and button-up shirt. She, however, was told specifically by one of the male members of her committee that she should have dressed "more appropriately" for the occasion; no such wardrobe advice was offered to the male colleague.

I could go on and on and on with such stories. They are a dime-a-dozen amongst women in the sciences.

For what it's worth, when I was in college and first entered grad school, I agreed with much of what Carnophile has written here. I thought things had changed, the world had moved on, and that sexism and racism were dead issues, consigned to the quaint world of the past. I thought that people who continued to complain about them were "playing the victim card", unnable to break out of a discarded paradigm and shift their perspective to the new reality.

Then I saw first-hand with female and minority colleagues, and above all my wife, that it just wasn't true. Far from "playing the victim card", claims of racism and sexism were valiantly trying to point out the reality of the situation in the face of an institutional hierarchy that wants to think like Carnophile does, to turn a blind eye to the realities of sexism (etc.).

The ability of the human mind to ignore that which it does not want to see is remarkably powerful. Unfortunately, no number of stories shared in an online forum will convince Carnophile to remove the blinders and look at reality. It will take someone in his own life, someone that he cares about deeply, undergoing the outrages of sexism or racism or other forms of discrimination for him to finally wake up and see that he's been duped by the fiction of an equal society.

>253 jjwilson61:
The point I am repeatedly trying to make is that sameness should not be the determining factor in equality. My daughter-in-law is perhaps the sweetest most kind person I know. She works in a nursing home, she tends to the needs of our elders....she CARES for the people she tends.....she works with all women. They all work hard. Why should this job in which the key factor for optimum performance would be compassion, pay minimum wage ? while extracting the oil from the ground pays top dollar ?

I do not believe we are all created the same...... I think that nature in it's own form of wisdom has a balance. That balance is there for a reason. This does not mean that women can not achieve in math and science, nor does it mean that men can not be great care givers......but I do think that the things women have done well, to date, are sorely under valued. Perhaps women do well with emotional type work because they "fit" into those jobs ? Fighting the sexism that exists elsewhere is daunting.
It is also important to note that women and men are not created the same physically. Yep...that is right. We are different. Men are built with more upper body strength than women...this is a physical fact. Men and women do not share the same center of gravity within their physical makeup. It just so happens that men are very nicely rewarded for possessing that bit of extra upper body strength, while women have to fight to own the rights to where her own center of gravity sits.

Equality is not about a woman trying to be a man, nor should it be. Equality is about valuing a job well done without the disparity that exists between those jobs that have, to date, been done by women and those that are done by men. It isn't that hard to understand unless one wants it to be.

>254 southernbooklady:
"It also has the air of a self-fulfilling prophecy."

My daughter-in-law doesn't want a degree in math or science......she has no desire to work on an oil rig or on a construction crew. She is very good at what she does. Her patients love her, their families value her......yet she makes little more than minimum wage. This is an inequality in so far as I am concerned. She has a hard job both physically and emotionally and is rewarded with crap wages cause it is "women's work". If indeed all of the NA's in the nursing home were to strive for equality in the manner that it is being perceived by some on this thread, they would all be out there trying to become the next big name in science or changing a truck tire on a snow plow truck.......and who would take care of our elderly ? Why on earth is it of so little value ? Maybe because primarily women do it ?

Woman Whose Boss Told Her ‘It’s Best You Go Home With Your Babies’ Won’t Get Discrimination Trial

When she went to her boss to inquire where she could go to pump milk on her first day back from maternity leave, Ames was redirected to the company nurse, who said the only available "wellness" room was in use and unavailable. Ames then returned to her boss several hours later to again request accommodations, at which point her boss told her, "It's best you go home with your babies," and then handed her a pen and paper and told her to write our her resignation letter.

Yet somehow, a three-judge panel (all men) ruled that, "that no reasonable person would have found her working condition intolerable, such that she would have no choice but to quit." Theirs is a strange definition of "reasonable person" who would happily oblige when her boss orders her to resign because she requested a place to pump breast milk.

@Carnophile: do you still contend that systemic discrimination against women is a myth, given this evidence of both workplace intolerance and a judicial system (of men) unwilling to recognize it?

My daughter-in-law doesn't want a degree in math or science.

That's fine for your daughter, but in this context it is a meaningless anecdote.

My son loves math, my daughter doesn't get it. Do my wife and I have universal genes? (I hated math, my wife was good at it, advanced much farther than I did in that horrid subject.)

>258 StormRaven:
"That's fine for your daughter, but in this context it is a meaningless anecdote."

Nit picking ?

"It also has the air of a self-fulfilling prophecy."

My statement was in response to this comment which was disappointing to say the least. Because someone aspires to do the emotional type of busy work, women typically do, it would seem that they deserve what they get. Unless aspiring to break into those things that have typically been male dominated, it is silly to think of equality ?

She works full time, she works hard and she should be able to survive on what she makes. In this context it makes perfect sense. Equality isn't about degrees, be they science or math or what ever....equality is about the value of what you do. Our society rewards physical strength and male dominated jobs much more than those jobs done by women. Which has also led to women being paid less than a man while doing the SAME job by the way.
I realize that not everyone can receive the same pay but the discrepancy is glaring and today, with more and more women trying to support a family it is a huge issue.

Why on earth do we all have to strive to be the same ? I do not get it. It is a concept that is far removed from being equal. I know this is why we can not overcome racism.....we want SAMENESS to be equality and are constantly disappointed because it doesn't happen. I don't believe that feminism is much different.

>259 RickHarsch:

My daughter, the blond blue-eyed beauty, aced physics. I failed most every math test I took once I advanced beyond general math. My daughter also requires an explanation when jokes are too fine tuned to be out and out rather simple. She is smart and she is not. Probably like most of us.

My daughter is an ex-ray tech.........she makes OK money but not nearly what her husband makes for electrical wiring. Guess the difference is wiring people back together is not as valuable as making sure the lights go on ?

Math and science is "overrated"...

Nit picking?

No. I'm saying that you giving one example of your daughter not wanting a degree in math or science is entirely irrelevant to this conversation. Anecdotes are meaningless in this context. Your entire post is a meaningless non-sequitur.

How's this for a non sequitur? Gloria Grahame is UNDERRATED!...

>260 faceinbook: "It also has the air of a self-fulfilling prophecy."

My statement was in response to this comment which was disappointing to say the least. Because someone aspires to do the emotional type of busy work, women typically do, it would seem that they deserve what they get.

If you are going to make unfounded blanket statements like "Perhaps many women are better at dealing with the emotional while many men are more apt at the concrete ?" I'm going to call you on it.

Oh gee are we back to saying a woman can't be president because she uh gets "emotional"? Well Hills is past that anyway...

>253 jjwilson61: Carnophile is just making the point that if men are over-represented in science careers perhaps that is not proof of bias... it sounds to me like you're saying the same thing.

I had the same thought. In fact, she went way beyond where I went. Weird.

>255 nathanielcampbell: When she defended her Master's thesis, she wore the equivalent that one of her male colleagues had worn to his defense... She, however, was told specifically by one of the male members of her committee that she should have dressed "more appropriately" for the occasion; no such wardrobe advice was offered to the male colleague.

Students are told the same thing; I had a fellow grad student vent to me and other grad students about the annoying micromanaging of his interview attire that his (male) advisor laid on him.

This brings me to an eternal pet peeve of mine, which is when some piece of assininity is spewed on a female, who then immediately ASSUMES that no male ever has to put up with it and instantly runs amok the hallways screaming that it’s rank sexism, without even bothering to ASK a man if he's ever experienced anything similar.

My favorite (if that’s the word) in this genre is the female columnist who complained, bitterly, that men never have to make any career-vs.-family tradeoffs. WHAT THE FUCK!? WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK!?

>268 Carnophile: Let's all repeat for the reading impaired: no such wardrobe advice was offered to the male colleague.

Another illustration of how determined to find sexism some women are is revealed by this fact:

One of the HR people told me a couple of years ago that my school gets sued for discrimination in hiring about twice a year on average.

This is pretty interesting, since the average job candidate has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suspect bias and start a lawsuit.

In my Dept, for example, when we hire we get more than a hundred applicants. Say it's 170, so 169 candidates won't get an offer. Furthermore, they have no idea who the other candidates are, let alone what sex or how qualified they are.

So what's going on? Some young woman, after being bombarded with invidious feminist agitprop for 25 years, gets it into her head that the only possible reason she didn't get the job offer is MISOGYNIST DISCRIMINATION!!!

By now, the only effect of all of this is

(1) when we hire we leave a paper trail documenting our women & minority outreach efforts, so we're defended from this fucking nonsense.

(2) Some lawyers are more fully employed.

>269 nathanielcampbell: Let ME repeat for the reading impaired: And at my school no wardrobe advice was offered to female grad students.

Do you see what I mean here? Are you starting to get the point? Every possible is fact is automatically interpreted as evidence of discrimination. There is a religious incuriosity about any facts which might threaten the narrative.

Also, I find it amusing that the worst example of "discrimination" is now unsolicited wardrobe advice. If that's the worst of it, Nathaniel - compared to e.g., men having a death rate from murder several times that of women - I think it's time to put it to bed.

BTW, I want to actually see the clothes the two people were wearing. Were they exactly the same in every respect, or what? Etc.

>257 nathanielcampbell:. Tactical error. It didn't occur to you whether I might know someone who has pumped breast milk. In fact, my wife did for both our kids. If there wasn't a set-aside room, she'd just do it in the ladies' room. No, it's not traumatic.

My wife is a self-identified "pro-woman" Vassar girl.

Seriously, put this shit to bed.

>271 Carnophile: But the point of the anecdote was to see how men and women were treated differently in a comparable setting.

That is to say: all other factors being controlled (same university, same program, same committee members, same year, same level of dress), the introduction of the single variable (gender of candidate) determined the outcome (wardrobe advice vs. no wardrobe advice).

>268 Carnophile: "instantly runs amok the hallways screaming"

I'm going to choose to ignore this grossly sexist characterization of women. (Apparently in Carno's world, having women share his workplace is equivalent to setting banshees loose "running amok". Disgusting.)

>270 Carnophile: "Another illustration of how determined to find sexism some women are is revealed by this fact:"

Another illustration of how determined Carno is to ignore the reality of gender discrimination all around him is revealed by his insistence that the innumerable reports of discrimination are all only figments of women's overactive imagination (as they run amok in the halls, of course -- I mean really, who let the women out of the kitchen and into the office in the first place?).

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps you are the one whose imagination is overactively producing figments disconnected from reality? That you are the one running amok through the halls screaming at women that they should be grateful that you even let them in there, and that they should just suck it up and take the harassment because, hey, that's what's expected?

Carnophile's shrill voice echoes up and down this thread, eager to find any possible way to blame women for the problems of the world.

Edited to tone down possible TOS violation. Though I'd point out that it was Carnophile who insinuated that my wife was "running amok" in the halls crying "sexism" -- is it a violation of the TOS to personally attack relatives of LT members?

Carnophile is the banshee whose shrill voice echoes up and down this thread, eager to find any possible way to blame women for the problems of the world.

And you just noticed this now?

>273 nathanielcampbell: Carnophile is the banshee

Skirting the TOS there, I think.

This seems apropos (though I will note that I am a bearded and bespectacled white male who teaches in a college, albeit as an adjunct with only a Master's degree):

Introducing "Sexism Ed" (Chronicle Vitae):

Mary Ann Mason describes the “pyramid problem” in higher education: Fewer women than men occupy full professorships and administration roles, while more women than men fill the ranks of adjunct faculty and part-time laborers. Additionally, Mason reports, women are paid less—and are less likely to have children—than their male peers.

Even though women earn more Ph.D.s, master’s, and bachelor’s degrees than men (at a rate of three to two), we are still underrepresented in academia. According to a 2006 report on gender equity by the American Association of University Professors, women made up only 38 percent of all faculty. A further breakdown is especially revealing: Women represented 46 percent of assistant professors, 38 percent of associate professors, and just 23 percent of full professors. Those numbers have improved over the last eight years—we’ve reached parity with men at the assistant level and we’re up to 29 percent of full professorships—but men still earn tenure at higher rates and outnumber women at the senior ranks.
(...)
The stubborn persistence of this gender gap, however, is hard to explain. There’s just no “smoking gun,” as Jane Mansbridge notes, that easily explains the absence of women. Instead, the sexism that women face is implicit and structural. And it manifests itself in a number of ways. Here’s a helpful (but by no means all-inclusive) catalog from Eric Anthony Grollman, who notes the subtle but nefarious gender (and race) biases endemic to mentoring, hiring, service, tenure, and promotion.

Compared to identifiable sexism (though that happens too), implicit bias is harder to combat. Media theorist Susan Douglas describes the embedded nature of feminism, in which women’s achievement and equal treatment becomes normalized and expected. Of course, women can earn graduate degrees and excel at scholarship! Look how far we’ve come! For Douglas, the larger problem is the appeal and embrace of post-feminism, the idea that the work of feminism is now done. This is a fantasy, and it’s a dangerous one.

It’s dangerous, Douglas argues, because it gives rise to “enlightened sexism.” Enlightened sexism allows women to be treated differently than men by trotting out an oft-recited canard: If women aren’t as well-represented (or as well-compensated) as men in a particular field, that’s not because of structural inequities. It’s because women are making “choices” that hinder their career development. Gender discrimination, then, falls solely on the shoulders of its victims.

We might even call this the Lean In effect: “If women would just lean in rather than opting out, we could be as successful as men.” Leaning in, in this calculation, becomes the cure-all for our ills.

But look: We could lean in until our backs were permanently bent forward and still face discrimination, bias, harassment, and more recently, rescinded job offers. The purposeful shift to choice-based language deftly avoids larger structural problems and minimizes the possibility of collective action. Telling women, including academic women, to adopt a certain mentality or strategy often perpetuates inequality rather than confronting the barriers women face. Blaming women for our choices is much easier than examining the conditions that limit choice and possibility.

>257 nathanielcampbell: do you still contend that systemic discrimination against women is a myth

Don’t put words into my mouth. I never denied there is sexism.

>273 nathanielcampbell: Carnophile who insinuated that my wife was "running amok" in the halls crying "sexism" -- is it a violation of the TOS to personally attack relatives of LT members?
No, family members shouldn’t be dragged in. I didn’t notice that it was your wife. And stop saying it was a personal attack.

>273 nathanielcampbell: comparable setting...(same university, same program, same committee members, same year, same level of dress), the introduction of the single variable (gender of candidate) determined the outcome (wardrobe advice vs. no wardrobe advice).

Same in my case. It was same university, same program, etc. Only one student had problems with his advisor regarding dress, and that student was male.

More later.

Oh yeah, this:

#273 "instantly runs amok the hallways screaming"
I'm going to choose to ignore this grossly sexist characterization of women. (Apparently in Carno's world, having women share his workplace is equivalent to setting banshees loose "running amok". Disgusting.)

I think you should ponder your motives in saying things like this. (And all the rest of it in that post.)

Why? He's not the first person (I think he's about the fourth) to comment on the shrillness of your language, and the negative characterisations you use when speaking of women.

Why, Mr. Campbell, I do believe you are a feminist. I have a great fondness for old political cartoons about suffragettes.

At least it's not Rosalind Franklin.

>282 Kuiperdolin: I'm not sure what you mean? (When I shared this photo on Facebook, I mentioned Franklin; but then, she's a favorite for my family, as my wife is a geneticist.)

>281 RidgewayGirl: "Why, Mr. Campbell, I do believe you are a feminist."

See what happens when you don't let stereotypes get in the way? :-)

I don't know that her name should be as well known as Galileo, Newton, or Einstein, when the guy who stole her idea isn't that well known himself.

Franklin is basically the female Tesla : someone famous for being unknown.

After a while it gets repetitive.

>285 jjwilson61: A fair point; hyperbole does seem to be the unforunate stylistic default for items of this sort.

I still don't buy that hydrogen business.

Thank you all for your participation. Please keep in mind that LibraryThing's TOS prohibits personal attacks.

#279 He's not the first person (I think he's about the fourth) to comment on the shrillness of your language

...said the person who wrote, "you need to pay for sex."

No one is concerned about any "shrillness." If they were, they wouldn't have to totally mischaracterize what I said.

No, you're not concerned about shrillness (or at least, not when it characterises your own posts. When discussing women, it's a veritable obsession of yours). There's quite a bit of evidence in-thread to support the idea that others are.

The stealing of a woman’s idea in post 280. (There are much better examples of the pervasive sexism circa 1925, which no one denies anyway, like firms that had an explicit policy of not hiring women, or at least married women. But to continue...) Suppose I told you this:

I knew a guy who had a cold, then he had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and the next day his cold was gone!

You'd instantly ask, what proportion of people who didn't have PB&J sandwiches got over it that fast? (and related questions.)

Yet in the above example it obviously didn't even occur to you to ask, what proportion of men have ideas stolen? And what proportion of stolen ideas are stolen from men?

It really is literally religious. Not supernatural religious, but religious in that leftists' ability to think straight completely disappears about certain topics.

Same for the attire thing. It's not that the notion that this ever happens to happens to men was rejected, so much that it literally didn't even occur to you to ask the question of whether it happens to men.

292 you're not concerned about shrillness (or at least, not when it characterises your own posts. When discussing women, it's a veritable obsession of yours

Excuse me, did you say "women" or "people who make careless accusations of bigotry"?

The best thing about the whole discussion is that it's almost Fred Phelps-ian in its effects.

Your posts in this thread do more to undermine your position than anything than I might be able to put out myself.

The attire thing:
I recall two incidents from my own professional life. I’m using a feminist definition of “incident” here, natch.

1. This one occurred in the hallway at work, on a day that I didn’t teach, and was wearing jeans. I was untenured. As I was passing by a senior faculty member, he told me, “Dr. Carn, I'm appalled that you're wearing jeans. This Department has a dress code and… (etc.).” All tongue-in-cheek, but you could tell he was only half-joking.

2. Earlier, when I was interviewing for jobs, I interviewed with a department that took photos of every candidate so they'd remember them. (My field has one huge interview bash at its major conference each year; they must have been doing a lot of interviewing that weekend.) Er, I assume they took photos of every candidate. Maybe they just thought I was cute. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If I were a standard-issue feminist, I'd just ASSUME that they took pictures of me, and only me, because they thought I was cute, so they could go home and masturbate over them or something, then I’d screech deafeningly about harrassment. And yes, groundless accusations of bigotry against innocent people are screeching. “Screeching” is in fact one of the gentler terms for that kind of behavior.

(Discrimination on the basis of sex is now, if it’s done in a certain way, legally actionable. But whatever, let’s just toss around accusations. BTW, if it’s a crime, or a tort, or a civil infraction, or whatever, doesn’t that automatically make a reckless accusation about it slander or libel?)

Continuing, I had also done a lot of interviews that day, and my tie was pretty loose by then (feminists complain about high heels. Try being choked.) so before they snapped the photo one of them reached out and tightened my tie for me. He didn't ask me first, btw. Oh. My Fucking. God. SEXUALHARRASSMENTMISOGYNYDISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least, if I were a feminist that's what I'd conclude. He made a comment about my attire, no infinitely worse, he actually adjusted it! Physically! Without my permission!
HARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it was only because I'm female! (I would just assume this in a similar situation if I were a feminist.) He would never have done that if I were male (I'd just assume).

Utterly cavalier accusations of bigotry against entirely innocent people are now par for the course.

From Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things, a chapter on witch hunts, historical and modern. He takes up, in particular, literal witch trials, the Satanism scare of the 1980s, and the recovered memory thing in the 1990s, as well as others. Shermer presents a list of features these episodes tend to have. Here are 2 - 4 in the list:

2. Sex or sexual abuse is typically involved.

3. Mere accusations of potential perpetrators makes them guilty.

4. Denial of guilt is regarded as further proof of guilt.

#276
Some quick thoughts:

1. Academia is the bastion and stronghold of leftist political correctness. The notion that there is anti-female bias there is ludicrous.

2. She mentions grad students who don’t finish their degrees (leaky pipeline). In my graduate progam, 2/3 of the entering PhD class dropped out, male and female. People drop out for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes they realize they just don’t want to do this; it happens all the time. Sometimes they fail out. Sometimes they switch careers in a way that can’t sanely be defined as failure. E.g., I had a friend who went from Econ into medicine.

In my program, as in all PhD programs, there are qualifying/competence/comprehensive exams after two to four semesters. A minority female was allowed to re-take hers after she failed them, which no one else was ever allowed to do. This is the reality, as opposed to the utterly false left-wing fantasy, of modern academia’s treatment of women and minorities. (NB: She was given an opportunity to take them again; she didn’t have to. Nevertheless, she was actually angry about it - this is not hearsay; she vented to me about it - which just goes to show how the grievance industry takes otherwise rational people who are given special privileges and makes them whine about how tough they have it. I only wish some of my white male friends who failed their comps and were told “Sayonara” could hear her lamenting the unfairness. Jesus.)

3. A dearth of female Full Professors compared to the number of females at the start of the process. It typically takes decades to get from terminal degree to Full Professor. The % of female degrees awarded NOW should NOT be equal to the % of Full Profs now. To argue otherwise is at best sloppy. If the typical time to Full Prof is, say, 20 years (a unscientific number I just made up), then the % of Full Profs now should be compared to the % of women who started on the tenure track 20 years ago. (Not, by the way, the % who got degrees 20 years ago.) Now maybe that data exists and tells the same story she’s telling, or even strengthens her story. But if so, she should tell us that.

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,

>297 Carnophile:

Did the chap who adjusted your tie use it as an excuse to fondle your nipples?

If not, really no big deal - I've had male strangers on the street tuck in tags that were hanging out of the back of my shirt without freaking out.

On the other hand, the dance teacher who adjusted my stance by placing his hands directly on my breasts rather than on, say, my shoulders, did piss me off enough to push his hands away. I didn't run screaming anywhere, though . . . didn't realize I was supposed to . . .

Out of interest when was the last time you heard a woman shriek at work Carnophile, You keep claiming they do it, but when have you heard it?

Yeah, most of the ones I work with just squeeee!

>301 Helcura: placing his hands directly on my breasts

Now THAT'S sexual harassment.

>302 SimonW11: when was the last time you heard a woman shriek at work Carnophile, You keep claiming they do it...

I have never heard a woman literally shriek at work that I can think of.

So you have never heard one say "HARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRAS​SMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTH​ARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASS​MENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHARRASSMENTHA​!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!​"?

Face-in-book: In this thread you often write that things "should" be a certain way or that things "shouldn't" be a certain way, but you never give any reasons why, you just assert them. While I tend to agree with much of what you write, your saying so doesn't make it so.

Example: "She works full time, she works hard and she should be able to survive on what she makes."

I agree, but upon what do you base this "should?" Some sort of "God's" law? Some sort of vague "law of the universe?" "Enlightened self-interest?" Or just your personal feelings based on your life experience and your sympathy for those of your gender whom you feel are unfairly treated?

>305 SimonW11: We’ve just done that one.

>306 CharlesBoyd:

I do think there is a legitimate argument that work that is physically hard, unpleasant, socially necessary and done primarily by women should be compensated similarly to work that is physically hard, unpleasant and socially necessary and done by men.

Garbage collectors and health care aides probably do about the same amount of heavy lifting, deal with equally nasty smells, and are both critical to the functioning of our society, but the one that is usually done by men has an average salary far higher ($43,000) than the one usually done by women ($21,000). There are historical reasons for this inequality, but as a society that places value on equality should take action to move the society toward its values.

"Should" means that as a society our actions need to reflect our values or at least give evidence that we are working toward that goal.

>308 Helcura: "work that is physically hard...and socially necessary"

Like, say, bearing children?

(As my wife enters the last few weeks of pregnancy, I am continually left bowled over at just how superior she is to me in pretty much every way.)

>309 nathanielcampbell:

The world's toughest job

>310 southernbooklady: I'd seen that floating around Facebook!

Garbage workers have higher mortality rate than just about any one. It is a dangerous job.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fir...

We have heard the term, "don't bite the hand that feed's you" very often.
We can assume that this cliche or idiom originated from the fact that when a man has a dog, and in most cases any other kind of animal reared as a pet, the pet, dog will usually not bite the hand of the one (its master/pet owner) that feeds it.

The dog knows where its food comes from and if it wants to continue to feed for its nourishment, it knows that it must not hurt its master by biting his hand that feeds it.

This is true to humans beings, as intelligent persons have apply this idiom to remind us that we should not lay offence against those responsible for their daily living in getting the monthly wages.

Compensation received upon sacking will make Jill Abramson to compensate her emotional stress and make her a "happy" woman . ( It is only assumption )

Any dog will bite if provoked enough. >313 SimonW11: 's link makes it sound like she was fired for being a bit of a bitch.

Compensation received upon sacking will make Jill Abramson to compensate her emotional stress and make her a happy woman

You think so? I don't know Abramson well enough to say what makes her happy.