evenstrangerthandanger said: I'm currently reading through your wage gap myths. I apologize if I skimmed over something but does the wage gap also cover women who don't have kids in their household/don't do maternity leaves? I'm currently debating someone about wage difference between men and women in the nursing field.
Anonymous said: Hi, just wondering what your thoughts are on this: heraldsun. com. au/ leader/ east/ monash- university- sexist-cupcakes- furore- whips- up- stalkerspace- facebook/ story-fngnvlxu- 1226634052752 Also, if you know, where would you suggest I find accurate information about the so called "wage gap" as it relates to Australia? I wouldn't have a clue where to start. Still loving your blog, hope you continue to be perfect!
If the pay gap were real, I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with this approach. They’re their cupcakes, they can sell them for however much they want to whomever they want. The wage gap isn’t real though, so this just makes them look really ignorant and actually does make them sexist, toward men for charge discrepancies and women, baking cupcakes in the kitchen where they belong.
Anonymous said: I just really want to know...where do feminists get this wage gap and unfair treatment ideas from? Because, personally, at least where I live (and I'm a woman), I have yet to encounter any wage gap or unfair treatment. Are they living in a different time era or something?
More influential feminists conduct biased studies for their own gain and feminists readily believe anything that portrays women as the victims.
schrodingers-maybe-dead-cat said: What do you think of Lilly Ledbetter's quote from the DNC that the Obama campaign tweeted an image of (and is presumably a part of their platform): "Maybe 23 cents doesn't sound like a lot to someone with a Swiss bank account...but Gov. Romney, when we lose 23 cents every hour, every day, every paycheck, every job, what we lose can't just be measured in dollars." What do you think of big politicians actively spreading such blatant lies?
I think Obama and those that support him are all about collectivism, targeting minority and interest groups in order to manipulate their vote. They lie because they’ve got race and women on their side, and some belonging to certain races and genders don’t know how to think outside of a herd instinct or realize that they’re being manipulated. It’s how politics works on both sides. People are ignorant, and this makes them easy to pit against one another. Personally, I think it’s why liberal politics are so much stronger than conservative politics. White men don’t have a sense of community or a desire to look out for each other, which makes them less easy to manipulate on a larger scale, which is why most of them usually default to economic issues and practical problems (though they’re usually wrong as well), rather than appealing to emotion. That’s why Republican politics is usually based in self-righteousness and the illusion of fighting for “freedom” rather than fighting for self-interest.
Anonymous said: Stephen Colbert had some popular feminist on his show the other day. I found myself yelling at the TV as she ranted about the gender wage gap and how women are so oppressed. She also went off to say how 'in 25 years there'll be more female breadwinners than male' based off statistics that show there's a growing amount of said female breadwinners.. As if statistics are always growing in a straight line. Eugh.
yo stephen women make less but they’re really taking care of men more because women are victims and awesome all at the same time take me seriously plz.
Men’s Rights Activists: really mad about being “forced” to be parents BUT not mad that women aren’t allowed to get abortions/morning after pills
Men’s Rights Activists: really mad about paying for children they have BUT not mad that women can’t afford to get gynecological care or birth control to prevent these children
Men’s Rights Activists: really mad about paying for children they have BUT not mad that women don’t make as much at their jobs as a man so they can afford to take care of their kids without the men who don’t want them
Men’s Rights Activists: more concerned with their money than women and children
Men’s Rights Activists: more concerned with fixing the symptoms than preventing the disease
Because abortion and the morning after pill are illegal in Western countries.
Because Planned Parenthood doesn’t exist.
Because the choice women apparently “don’t” (read: do) have is more important than the choice that men have never and still don’t have.
Because women’s bodies are more important than carrying out responsibility. Reversing the situation to look women look bad is “fun!” (Read: wrong, but it’s okay when we do it to men!)
Taking real issues and comparing them with non-issues is such a great way to accuse other people of not making any fucking sense. And I just saw a feminist tell people to prevent the disease rather than trying to fix the symptoms.
Anonymous said: When you have time, could you please make a post on the wage gap and also womens underrepresentation in top-tier corporate and govt jobs? I'm constantly seeing that stat that women still earn 70c to a man's dollar for doing the same job, how there's like 5% of women as ceos, etc. I'm interested to hear your thoughts - whether you agree or dispute, etc.
I have a post on the wage gap here (there’s also more links in my FAQ), and a great link on women’s recent successes in the work place here.
Anonymous said: I need some debating points for women's pay. Got any?
Hours worked, field differences between men and women, experience level, family life, and maternity leave, differences between companies in certain fields (cashiers working at Walmart make a different hourly than those at Target, for example) are good points.
Anonymous said: Honest question but how does the wage gap apply to men and women of color (that are non-white)? Since men that are not white make less than white women and women that are not white make less than both?
I do think this is an actual proof of oppression, and not directly a fault of a racist society, but a racist system. The “justice” system gives little incentive for criminals with records to become honest once freed, since most places won’t hire them. This is especially so with POC, since they’re the main targets of police and the majority of the prison population. This makes them prone to poverty and it’s harder for them to get a good paying job (or a job at all).
brittanyleighski said: You are probably one of my favorite people on Tumblr right now. You handle arguments and stupid comments beautifully. Way better than I ever could. And actually, reading your replies has helped me to find a better way of phrasing my own arguments. I'm a republican so I don't always agree with your political posts, but I still enjoy reading your opinions sometimes because you don't make me feel bad/stupid for being a republican so many people do. So, thank you.
Thank you (: I used to be rebublican as well, and the majority of my family is, so I kind of understand where you’re coming from, though after being a republican it irritates me much more than liberalism ever has. Usually the only thing that bothers me is the stubbornness common in a lot of them.
Oh and another thing. I just wanted to point this hypocrisy out. I just don’t understand. And sorry if i don’t phrase this right. Feminists got angry when the republican women did nothing when the bill for equal wages wasn’t passed, saying “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.” Yet when S.E Cupp was attacked/humiliated in that magazine, and playboy wrote that article about the top 10 republican women they would like to hate fuck, where were the feminists then?
I think if you brought that up to any of them they’d denounce it but they generally like to ignore it when it comes to women that don’t fit into their dogma.
Coming from their point of view, simply writing an article isn’t as bad as “not allowing” women equal pay, but we already know that women generally are payed equally and that studies saying they aren’t are purposely flawed.
Feminists are too busy attacking non-issues to address real injustice.
A few Democrats are trying to push a previously-blocked bill called the Paycheck Fairness Act, which will update the 1963 Equal Pay Act.
Except, it’s not completely necessary.
If anything, it just proves how much political posturing the Democrats are doing to try to make the “war on women” more than the phantasmagorical illusion than it is.
Many feminists and their supporters often repeat the same trite line: “It’s not fair! Women get paid 77 cents of every dollar that men do!” Certainly, they mean well. Nobody is opposed to paying men and women equal.
Or, perhaps they are guilt-tripping the rest of society into believing that an unnatural problem exists, that only a more expansive and bloated government can treat.
But, statistics frequently lie. Or, more bluntly in this case, people use statistics to tell lies.
To arrive at the 77 cent stat, economists measure the gap by taking the median yearly income of women, and dividing it median male yearly income. Needless to say, this manner of calculating the gap is prone to much error.
Frankly, women and men with exactly the same qualifications, experience, competency, and leadership qualities are paid exactly the same. A male cashier isn’t paid $10, while a female cashier is only give $7.70. An engineer will be paid $100,000 for a base salary, whether male or female.
The 77 cent statistic does not take multiple factors about the differing roles that men and women play in the labor market into account. For example:
Men tend to take “dirty jobs”:There are a disproportionate amount of men in industries such as mining, logging, and fishing. All of these industries are seen as dirty or unpleasant work. Hence, there is what economists call a “compensating wage differential”—firms pay higher wages to workers in these industries to entice them to work. A person might not want to be a lumberjack if paid at minimum wage, but if paid at triple or quadruple the minimum wage, he or she may take the job. Conversely, women statistically gravitate towards professions such as teaching, which are considered more desirable. Jobs that includes working with animals or children are often considered more desirable, so people are less likely to need higher wages to take a position dealing with them.
Women work fewer hours than men, on average: If men and women face the same base wage, then obviously whoever works longer will make more money. Plain and simple. There’s no use complaining about a male working being paid double what a female is paid if he worked twice the amount of hours she did, or vice-versa. Men tend to work more hours, and more hours means more income.
More women work part-time than men, on average: Similar to above, working fewer hours or not having a full-time job means that income will be below someone who does.
Women tend to opt-out of the labor market, or opt for lower hours: As Lisa Belkin says in her famous article, The Opt-Out Revolution, “Why don’t women run the world? Maybe it’s because they don’t want to.” Women almost always can have the glitzy and glamorous jobs, but often just refuse them. Or, even with a normal-paying job, women still think slightly differently than men. Women are often associated as primary caregivers of children, and are more likely to leave the labor market to take care of children than men are. Men tend to instead stay in the market, even with a child. Women usually value jobs with flexible hours, but that also lets them have time for children or other activities. Men usually take the jobs with inflexible and long hours. Plus, many women leave the labor market after childbirth, and either do not return or return after a long period of time.
Of course, this list is not meant to be exhaustive, and neither do all of these criteria apply to all men and women. However, these general labor market trends explain why we see this “77 cent” statistic. People have known this for years, but our political and cultural dialogue has never thought to explain why this statistic is so misleading.
This is also not to say that men and women do not face inequities in labor markets. Proper maternity leave is still lacking in many sectors, while men face huge stigmatization when taking what is traditionally seen as a “female” job. Sexual assault and harassment are issues facing both sexes. These and more must be addressed moving forward.
However, that doesn’t mean that feminists should brandish the “77 cent” statistic over society’s head anymore, or pressure the government into forcing a solution to a fabricated dilemma, since it’s not true. Such dialogue adds little of meaning to efforts to actually help men and women be treated equally.
Hey there, can I ask for your thoughts about the ongoing drama that the Dilbert creator caused, concerning his comment about feminists demanding equal pay? The whole story’s over here, with the excerpt following:
“The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
I think his first problem is that he’s very general in what the point he’s making, and that feminists are really good at jumping on generalizations rather than what he initially meant and giving him the real criticism he definitely deserves.
As far as the pay gap is concerned, it’sbeendebunkedcountlesstimes (click every word), and I think this is what he’s referring to in his generalization of women. What he’s really trying to say is that you don’t argue with women who claim there’s a pay gap because arguing with those specific women is like arguing with children. They obviously don’t know what they’re talking about and are just spouting mindless myths that they didn’t take the time to research. He definitely could (and should) have worded it better, but honestly, he’s a comic writer and somewhat of a comedian, so I can see why he was rather blunt and sarcastic rather than elaborating his point.
I do take issue with his second point and somewhat agree with Laura Hudson in her assessment of his comments on men’s issues:
I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us.
I agree that he’s just as much dismissing men’s issues as he is women’s, but he’s basically saying, “Who cares, all of us have problems. Deal with them.” Just because there are issues of injustice and those issues might always exist doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make the effort to change them as much as we can, but I see his attitude as something that feminism has conditioned men to do: Let women worry about the issues they have (or don’t), and the men should just stop arguing with them and let them make the changes they want whether they’re real problems or only contributing to the already present inequality between men and women.
What I don’t like about Laura is that, while she’s better than most feminists in acknowledging men’s issues, every time she makes a comparison of men’s issues and women’s, it’s always his mention of the (imaginary) problem of the pay gap to small things like the male “problem” of chivalry, only to further dismiss the point that Adams was trying to make. She mentions real male issues separately, but it’s clear that she sees them on a smaller scale than women’s issues, despite evidence to the contrary.
Note: all stats pertain to the United States, unless otherwise specified.
-Among adults 25 and older today, more women than men have finished high school.
-Female enrolment in post-secondary education had surpassed male enrolment by the early 1980s.
-Due to decades of female dominance in post-secondary participation, 20.1 million women now hold bachelor’s degrees, compared with 18.7 million men.
-Among adults 25 and older in the US, 10.6 million women now hold master’s degrees or higher, compared with 10.5 million men.
-In the US, 57% of students in post secondary education are women.
-As of 2009, 58% of all bachelor degrees were earned by women.
-60% of students enrolled in advanced/graduate programs are women.
-In America’s largest cities, single, childless women 22-30 out-earn their male counterparts by 8%.
Everything’s coming up roses for women. Woot! You go, grrrl!
Okay, here’s something else to think about: Men employed full time work more hours per week, on average, than women. Many experts insist this disparity reflects that “responsibilities for child care and other unpaid household work are still unequally shared among partners.” In other words, women would work more, if they could. You know, if they weren’t stuck at home with the young ‘uns and all, changing diapers and scrubbing toilets.
However, in countries such as Sweden, where generous paid paternity leave is granted in conjunction with maternity leave, men tend to take only about 20% of their entitlement, and where possible, transfer the remainder of their leave to their wives/partners.
If men in Sweden are handing over their paternity leave to their wives…why are they doing it? Is it because they don’t want to stay home and change diapers? Or is it because their wives DO want to stay home and read stories to their kids, cuddle them, rock them, bond with them, watch them take first steps and hear them speak first words? Is it because these women feel stuck at home, or is it because they want to be home?
I have a few issues with the way feminism weighs career success. 1) It assumes the only conceivable way to measure career success is through earnings. 2) It assumes any pay gap owing to women making different choices than men are a result of women feeling “stuck” with child care. 3) It assumes any pay gap owing to men making different choices than women are a result of men “being free” to make their careers their #1 priority. 4) It reduces children’s relationship with their working parents down to a single characteristic: the obligation of domestic labor.
KIDS ARE MORE THAN WORK. For fuck sake, what’s the point of even having them if you don’t get to watch or help them grow up because you’re working all the time?
Blaming women’s tendency to choose to spend more time at home on the fact that ”responsibilities for child care and other unpaid household work are still unequally shared among partners,” means feminism sees kids in only one light—as a burden on parents, rather than a joy. According to feminism, women work fewer hours because they feel they HAVE to be home more, when I’d argue that women work fewer hours because they WANT to be home more. Participating in your children’s childhoods isn’t a goddamn chore—it’s a privilege, and one not everyone gets to enjoy.
Especially men, who often feel that putting their careers first IS the only socially acceptable way of putting their family first.
Warren Farrell coined the term “success object”, and for many men, this is what their value in the sexual marketplace and in their own families boils down to. Feminism believes men have freedom and privilege because they earn more than women. But according to Farrell, “men often feel obligated to earn money someone else spends while they die sooner—and feeling obligated is not power.”
Back in Sweden, where men tend to opt out of their own paternity leave after only a few months, one needs to ask why? If they simply chose to forfeit their leave and go back to work early, one might argue they wished to escape the drudgery of being housebound, changing diapers and scrubbing floors. But men in Sweden don’t forfeit their leave—they transfer it to their wives. From this, we can assume that women not only want to stay home longer with their children, but that they feel it is socially acceptable for them to do so. And that even men who may wish to stay home during their children’s first months of life, still feel pressured to go back to work ASAP, to not allow their careers to stagnate while they spend their days rocking their babies and smelling the tops of their heads and enjoying all the other intangible benefits that are not measurable by feminist standards, but which many parents consider to be worth more than dollars and cents.
And now to circle back to my original statistics. The feminist contention is that women make the career choices they do because they feel “obligated by gender norms” to spend more time at home, while men have the “freedom” afforded by gender norms to put work first. I would argue that it is the opposite—that women make the career choices they do largely because of the freedom current gender norms give them to make choices that are right for them, and that if men consistently put work before family, it’s often out of a sense of obligation owing to those same gender-based expectations.
And what does that have to do with women’s overrepresentation in post-secondary education? Well, if women make the choices they do because it’s what they want…well, in Canada, we already have problems with shortages of physicians in many communities. How will that shortage be affected when 60% of the doctors graduating today take a year off work to have a child, and when they do go back to work, opt not to spend 60 hours/week in the office, but to spend more time with their families because they have the freedom to do so? If we can’t get more men into post-secondary education, many professions will be in for a shake-up.
In medicine, everything from the number of available spots in med schools to the number of physicians licensed by provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, is largely dependent on a traditional male “work-first” ethic that is going to have to change if we don’t do something to eliminate the gender gap in post-secondary education. If male physicians tend to work more hours than female ones, it follows that the larger a percentage of women there are earning medical degrees, the more doctors we’re going to need to provide the same services.
According to feminists, this problem is easily solved by collectively guilting women into making the same choices men typically do. But is this fair to women? Is it fair to kids?
And is it fair to men, who might make different choices in their careers if they didn’t feel socially obligated to become “success objects”, because everyone, including feminism, is telling them that money is everything and nothing else matters?
cosmic-nine-year-old said: I'm a feminist, I only want to be equal with a man. Just because now women can work in almost any work environment doesn't mean we're equal. We want equal pay, we don't want to be seen as the kitchen cleaners or the cooks or the baby making machines. There are some people who believe that they are better than men, but they are wrong, everyone should be treated equally.
We have equal pay. If you don’t want to be seen as a kitchen cleaner or as a baby making machine, then don’t date or marry a man that wants you to be.
If you really wanted equality you would stop identifying with a movement that excludes and demonizes men and ignores their rights. I’ve never said that women have all of their rights, but they’re a whole hell of a lot better off than men and they always have been. You think you’re for equality. You think you care. But in reality you’re identifying with a movement that is the opposite.
Note : Despite the fact that women have made many accomplishments over the past century, they aren’t being paid quite as much as their male counter parts. But should this discourage women from entering the field of business management? It shouldn’t. I believe that the glass ceiling is a matter of perception. If you’re in charge or are in a high level position of a multi million or BILLION dollar company, are you REALLY going to be worried about not making enough money?
More women are breaking through the glass ceiling to become CEOs in Fortune 500 companies. There are 15 women CEOs in Fortune 500 companies this year, up from 12 the previous year. Here are the women who hold top honors in some of the United States’ most lucrative companies.
Barnes has been the chairman and CEO of Sara Lee since 2005, a company that ranks 199 in the top 500. Sara Lee earns more than two-thirds of its profits outside the United States. Barnes strategy in the coming years is to use coupons, in-store coupons, and economical brands to win over more customers.
Carol A. Bartz
Bartz is the CEO of Yahoo, a company that ranks 345 in the top 500. Her goal is to strengthen Yahoo’s global presence by focusing on content and information. She’s also open to creating partnerships with social networking sites to help overcome a decline in profits.
Angela F. Braly
Braly is the president and CEO of WellPoint, number 32 in company rank. Braly thinks that WellPoint could benefit from government programs, and is open to creating mutual partnerships with the federal government and health insurers.
Lynn L. Elsenhans
Elsenhans is president, chairman, and CEO of 41 ranking Sunoco. Her focus is on creating sustainable sources of energy. She’s also in support of increasing the federal gasoline tax and is calling for climate change legislation.
Western Union ranks 451 in the Fortune 500, and Gold is the president and CEO of the company. Her task is no small one since Western Union touches more than 200 countries worldwide.
Ivey is the chairman, president, and CEO of Reynolds American, which has a Fortune 500 ranking of 294. With sales falling 2%, Ivey plans to shift the focus to smokeless and dissolvable tobacco products.
Chairman and CEO of Avon, Jung leads the company that ranks 255. Avon has more than 75% of its sales outside of the U.S. and has enlisted celebrities to promote Avon in advertising campaigns.
Ellen J. Kullman
Kullman is president and CEO of 75th ranking DuPont. Her position is notable because she is the first female CEO in DuPont’s history. Prior to her appointment, she was running four out of five of DuPont’s primary businesses.
As president and CEO of TJX, number 131 in the rankings, she is focused on promoting her company’s products to budget-conscious consumers. She is simultaneously cutting costs while expanding A.J. Wright stores and Marshalls Shoe MegaShop.
Mulcahy is the chairman and CEO of 147th ranked Xerox. Her most notable achievement has been preventing Xerox from filing bankruptcy. She has been at Xerox for more than 30 years and has been running the company since 2001.
Indra K. Nooyi
Nooyi is chairman and CEO of Pepsico, a company that ranks 52 in the Fortune 500. Nooyi has not only increased profits for the company but has also targeted a more health-conscious market by introducing new products.
Kraft Foods ranks 53rd, and Rosenfeld is its chairman and CEO. Under Rosenfeld’s leadership, Kraft increased revenue. Notably, she is the only woman to lead a company in the Dow 30.
Sammons is the chairman and CEO of Rite Aid, which ranks at 100. She hopes that Rite Aid’s national prescription savings card, which has already increased Rite Aid’s customer base, will continue to increase company profits in the coming year.
Sen is president and CEO of BJ’s Wholesale Club, a company that ranks at 269. Sen’s most notable success is that she has been able to increase profits. Her strategy is to attract more customers to her company who normally shop at traditional grocery store chains.
Woertz is president, chairman, and CEO of Archer Daniels Midland. This company produces oil-based ethanol and ranks 27 in the Fortune 500. Woertz’s 30 years experience working in the oil industry made her an ideal candidate for a leadership position. She is committed to company growth by investing in and acquiring new companies.
The accomplishments of these women are, by and far, admirable, particularly in a male-dominated business milieu. However, the realities of their leadership abilities are not always matched by the perceptions that others have of women overall in a leadership capacity.
Although women are inching their way past the corporate glass ceiling, men still outrank them in overall compensation. According to a 2008 CEO pay survey by the Corporate Library, a sampling of 3,242 North American companies revealed that women earned more money than men in base pay but still lagged behind in stock compensation, bonuses, and other perks. The median salary of women CEOs was $1.7 million.
Even more surprising is how women are perceived by their peers, subordinates, and supervisors, even as they gain leadership in top companies. According to the January 2009 Harvard Business Review, although women are perceived as equals in emotional intelligence and tenacity alongside men, some still perceive female leaders as lacking vision.
Apparently, the glass ceiling is still creating barriers when it comes to how women are perceived as top leaders in companies, regardless of their overall performances.