colourwheel Posted January 29, 2014 Author Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) @Lisnpuppy If you look at the stance in most Republican social policies all of them are against the inevitable change in our society. From limiting or restricting a woman's rights to access contraceptives to trying to abolish a woman's right to an abortion completely. It is an empirical fact that a majority of college and law school graduates are female by far in comparison to males. Being against pay equity is just at the bottom of republican's social agenda to stunt the stigma that females shouldn't be the bread winners in a family while giving the illusion of being for "opportunity" of women in the work place... If the Republican party is for "opportunity" for women in the work place then why all of these other social policies that indirectly contradict this goal? Edit: I looked up some studies done about males over females suddenly abandoning the work place in order to take care of family matters dealing with their children and statistically shows the female leaves before a male would do so when both members of the family are working. Yet the studies don't take into account how much more a male or female is making in difference between each other or the opportunities each one faces down the line within their career. Looking at other studies done where there is only a father or a mother taking care of a family shows no evidence where as a mother would abandon her job any more than a male would when in need to take care of family matters dealing with children. Which makes one wonder if a mother is making more money than the father in a family where as both work during the same hours of the day who would be the one to indefinitely abandon or leave the work place to take care of family matters? This is taking into account "if" there was no disparity between how much females or males would be making doing the exact same job because ultimately a male already has more "opportunity" with the empirical evidence from my previous post that illustrates only 3% of Fortune 500 CEO's and only a third of law firm partners are female when a huge majority of college and law school graduates are actually women.... Edited January 29, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 If you ask me I think the cause is the threat to men, that giving the "opportunity" of equal pay for women will eventually take over the traditional thought of that a women should be the home caretakers. Breaking this stigma most likely will make men feel less masculine threatening to a trend where as women will more or less become more dominate in the work place leaving the man in a family to become equal to women as the home caretakers.... Why should gender even matter when paying people for doing the same job anyways? Unfortunately it's much more simple than that. Much of the difference in pay or hiring opportunities is due to the fact that most women will eventually want to get pregnant and have children. Even if those woman happen to be in a marriage where their husband is willing to take on care duties, the bonding isn't the same, and still requires the mother to be present for most of that initial 18 months of life. More over, even on the woman's part, they cannot simply pop out a baby and get back to dealing with business without having some emotional after-effects. It's a fact of nature, how our species has managed to do things for thousands of generations, so you cannot expect to reverse all of it just within the last generation. Given that very few men have the mental and emotional capacity to fill in even partially, you're kidding yourself if you think this is something that can just be ignored. That said, a company, any company, tends to get flung into chaos when key members of their roster have to leave for long periods of time. Even something like vacation times can cause significant disturbances, and is why many in the upper levels of business just simply do not take vacations, or end up having to manage things remotely on a day to day business. Meanwhile, payment is usually based on seniority and reliability, to the point where someone who suffers a major illness that puts them out of work for more than a month can quite easily find themselves being fired or forced to quit. They may be welcomed back later, but usually at a loss of pay or position since the company had to hire a replacement. Meaning that when hiring a woman into an upper-level position, there is an inherent risk that sometime within the next 10-20 years, they will have to leave work for several months, meanwhile a man hired to the same position has a much lower risk of being out of work for any significant time during the same amount of years. Even after accounting for all other health or personal related matters, there is a statistical difference in how likely a male worker is going to be absent from work compared to a female worker. The greater statistical risk relating to the likelihood of the company having to hire someone to fill that position at some point in time is what accounts for the difference in pay. Or did you think it was all arbitrary? Sorry, but it's based on the statistics of the matter, and while it may not be fair, the world isn't fair. I pay more into auto insurance simply because I'm male, I pay more into healthcare now simply because I'm male, and when dating I'm still expected to pay for the whole bill because I'm male, just as I accept that any woman who is earning more than I am would openly regard me as a worthless loser. But, I accept these facts as part of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisnpuppy Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I think this IS where gender bias comes in. I am not talking only about leaving for existing children but new mothers leaving the workforce also. Note I didn't say that this was the only reason for the discrepancy but one of many things. Now I will give you examples from my own experience here. I have noted that women are seen as someone (true or not) who will leave to care for family (from the mouths of my bosses no less.) I worked in a male dominated field for the most part. Women are often seen as the ones likely to have to call in when kids are sick and home from school. It is not typically the man that does this (at least not until recently.) I don't know how old you are Colour but I am getting up there. From the 1970s forward women have made great strides and are making more money. I think the question is also why do they STILL get hired in at a lower rate as that seems to be the biggest issue. It is no longer a matter of education or society in large looking at women as someone not as competent. I am not going to look into the politics recently spilled by whoever as that isn't the only thing here. Businesses will do business in how they think they can get/save money regardless of politics. What is it that marked women by in large start out less money than men? It isn't just one thing. Not just politics or gender biases. Why do many companies (and look at many that are being run by women nowdays) still doing this very thing? You would think putting the women in charge would spark a change, yes? Yet it continues. I am going to have to look into this a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) @Vagrant0 If we live going on forward as just accepting things they way they are because the world isn't fair, nothing will ever change... In regards to women leaving the work force to have children, shouldn't it be in the best interest of a company to help a women to plan for when they wish to have children, instead of making it a consequence to force a woman into having children when in a sexual relationship? How about women having the choice to have an abortion because she is just not ready to start a family when she does happen to subsequently get pregnant? Too many republican policies are against a woman to actually have the chance to pursue "opportunity" when their policies limit their rights to their reproductive system despite the disparity of pay they make in the work force.... Most women in a serious career either already have children or do not intend to have children when hired into the work place. How much pay a women gets shouldn't be an issue regardless if an employer is trying to save money in their better interest. An employer might as well be blatant about it and just say... "You not being paid the same amount as your male counterparts because you're a woman!" Pay inequality, this is something that can be changed.... Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizon72 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Most women in a serious career either already have children or do not intend to have children when hired into the work place. I know a lot of women who have entered the workforce in a serious career who do not have children, but hope to one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 I know a lot of women who have entered the workforce in a serious career who do not have children, but hope to one day. So you think this justifies women not being paid the same as their male counterparts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajKrAzAm Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 How about women having the choice to have an abortion because she is just not ready to start a family when she does happen to subsequently get pregnant? Aborting a child out of inconvenience.....shameful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) How about women having the choice to have an abortion because she is just not ready to start a family when she does happen to subsequently get pregnant? Aborting a child out of inconvenience.....shameful Alright lets switch it around .... if men were the child barer's I doubt this would even be a debate... let alone inconclusively claiming what someone does with their own body as "shameful"... Or how about the inconvenience of a male having an erectile dysfunction? Where is the uproar of a ban on these types of medication to help males get up being mandated to be provided by insurance companies under the new law? Yet a huge push to limit access to "birth control" through the healthcare mandate as if it is something evil.... The hypocrisy, It's phallic if you ask me... Edit: Anyways going back to the topic... Here is something i found interesting .... Men are considerably more likely than women to have an accident or to die at work. Almost four out of every five (79.5 %) serious accidents at work and nineteen out of every twenty (94.9 %) fatal accidents at work in 2009 involved men.... makes one wonder why women are still paid less than men if these statistics are true... With these numbers one would think hiring a man in general would be more of a liability than a woman any day despite the difference in pay between them.... Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rizon72 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I know a lot of women who have entered the workforce in a serious career who do not have children, but hope to one day. So you think this justifies women not being paid the same as their male counterparts? Color, please point out where I mentioned anything about inequality of pay between men and women in my comment. I was merely correcting, what was surely an oversight by you regarding women entering the workforce/jobs and wanting/not wanting kids. Men are considerably more likely than women to have an accident or to die at work. Almost four out of every five (79.5 %) serious accidents at work and nineteen out of every twenty (94.9 %) fatal accidents at work in 2009 involved men.... makes one wonder why women are still paid less than men if these statistics are true... With these numbers one would think hiring a man in general would be more of a liability than a woman any day.....The one thing that jumps out at me here, and looking back on past experience, is where these accidents are occurring. The two jobs that I worked at that had accidents, were werehouse and oil field, both of which the women worked inside the office, not out in the field where the accidents occurred. So such numbers could be skewed because of such factors. What jobs are the most dangerous, and then what is the ratio of men to women in the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colourwheel Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) I know a lot of women who have entered the workforce in a serious career who do not have children, but hope to one day. So you think this justifies women not being paid the same as their male counterparts? Color, please point out where I mentioned anything about inequality of pay between men and women in my comment. I was merely correcting, what was surely an oversight by you regarding women entering the workforce/jobs and wanting/not wanting kids. I wasn't claiming anything about your comments was merely just asking a question.... The two jobs that I worked at that had accidents, were werehouse and oil field, both of which the women worked inside the office, not out in the field where the accidents occurred. So such numbers could be skewed because of such factors. What jobs are the most dangerous, and then what is the ratio of men to women in the job. Just as much such numbers and examples can be skewed in statistics where as to justify why women are more likely to leave during work to attend family matters... Which brings back to the point then why are women paid less then men? Using the justification as to women should be the ones as caretakers or take leave to start a family is more irrelevant than one would think when it comes to pay.... Edited January 30, 2014 by colourwheel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts