I didn’t know who Susan B. Anthony was, I had to look her up.
At the moment, here in Britain, another suffragette was discussed, and celebrated, on the 100th anniversary of her death : Emily Davison was killed by a racing horse in a demonstration for the right for women to vote, June, 1913.
As an MBA? There are a lot of issues at work in regards to pay issues than just gender. (In fact, overt gender discrimination is illegal in America.)[]For example, one of the big issues is that women often step out of the work force in order to become primary caretakers for their children. Then when they try to come back, they get hit with the same issue affecting the long-term unemployed: they’ve been out of work so long that they are considered as being “behind the times” in regards to the latest industry trends and techniques, and may have even fallen behind on their certifications and continuing education. Thus, when they do get re-hired, they’re “less valuable” than someone with a consistent resume and so are paid less.
Yes, Darren. But if you’re a scientific researcher with an understanding of statistics knowledge, you can control for women taking time off for families, for women not being prominent in certain high-paying jobs, and for women not earning as many degrees forty years ago when many now high-powered men started. And the resulting studies consistently show that even when you account for those factors, women are still paid substantially less than men for the same work. See Ms. Ledbetter. Paid much less for EXACTLY the same work for many years, but how was she to know? Payrolls are secret. Yet the conservative supreme court said that’s okay, and the GOP tried to filibuster the Equal Pay act.
Toon is good, but the “Anthony dollar” was a failure because folks couldn’t tell it from a quarter. Which, given inflation, maybe 25 cents is more accurate than 77?
And don’t forget the SCOTUS threw out a wage discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart because it was so systemic that they felt it couldn’t be considered against one store, despite plenty of evidence for the case to be heard. Read that again until you understand the implications….
Here I thought the cartoon was a commentary on the declining value of a dollar, not the gender salary gap. One thing statisticians don’t account for is the crony component to salaries. A male boss looking to keep a male employee on will raise his salary higher and faster than a female boss looking to keep a male employee or a male looking to keep a female. I tried to find the article I read about the difference from a couple of years ago, but google is not your friend when looking for a needle on the interwebs.
When I was working for EDS, it was company policy (probably still is!) that discussion/comparison of your wages with colleagues was strictly forbidden, and punishable by firing. It was in the contract you had to sign. In such a way, they could ensure that it was unlikely for a female employee to find out what her wage was in comparison to male colleagues, and that anyone who did manage to find out could be gotten rid of without having to invoke any other reason.
That’s why it took so long for me to find out that my salary was 2/3 that of my same-rank male colleagues, for doing exactly the same work for the same time with the same qualifications. (And no, no time off for pregnancy or kids.) I found out after I left.
Companies have no interest in changing this. Why should they?
And yes: managers tend to promote and favour those most like themselves. When the previous generation of management is white dudes, that perpetuates itself. And here’s the thing: it requires no overt sex discrimination at all, and in fact, many of those managers would probably insist that they are not being sexist – all it requires is an implicit and quite possibly subconscious assumption that whites and/or guys are going to be better at the job. So there, see, if they keep hiring or promoting white dudes, it’s just based on “who is best qualified”, right?
This, despite the fact that there is a large body of evidence that CVs submitted as anonymous or with male names are consistently rated as more desirable than the exact same CV submitted with a female name, and other such evidence that there is a fair bit of covert difference in judgement going on.
Oh, sure, the fields that women go into are often less well paid in general. That might have something to do with the fact that women are still discouraged from entry into a lot of high-paid, high-status jobs. (.pdf)
And women have a disadvantage in that they are expected to spend more time doing childcare and eldercare than men are. “Family duties” are often assumed – an unquestioned assumption – to fall “naturally” on women.
But why is that? Because men can care for elderly parents just as well as women can. And once that kid’s outta the womb, men can handle bottles and diapers and school runs just as well as women can. None of these things require a uterus or lactation, not last I checked.
So when we hear that women “take more time out for family”, it’s worth asking: why? Why aren’t family duties more evenly distributed between men and women? Because sometimes it may be that women prefer this, but I know for a fact it isn’t always. And it’s those unquestioned expectations that bite the most painfully.
OmqR-IV.0 almost 11 years ago
Ah, the wage gap.
I didn’t know who Susan B. Anthony was, I had to look her up.
At the moment, here in Britain, another suffragette was discussed, and celebrated, on the 100th anniversary of her death : Emily Davison was killed by a racing horse in a demonstration for the right for women to vote, June, 1913.
d_legendary1 almost 11 years ago
Finally! The real reason why women are being hired in the work place instead of dudes.
Ironhold almost 11 years ago
As an MBA? There are a lot of issues at work in regards to pay issues than just gender. (In fact, overt gender discrimination is illegal in America.)[]For example, one of the big issues is that women often step out of the work force in order to become primary caretakers for their children. Then when they try to come back, they get hit with the same issue affecting the long-term unemployed: they’ve been out of work so long that they are considered as being “behind the times” in regards to the latest industry trends and techniques, and may have even fallen behind on their certifications and continuing education. Thus, when they do get re-hired, they’re “less valuable” than someone with a consistent resume and so are paid less.
ARodney almost 11 years ago
Yes, Darren. But if you’re a scientific researcher with an understanding of statistics knowledge, you can control for women taking time off for families, for women not being prominent in certain high-paying jobs, and for women not earning as many degrees forty years ago when many now high-powered men started. And the resulting studies consistently show that even when you account for those factors, women are still paid substantially less than men for the same work. See Ms. Ledbetter. Paid much less for EXACTLY the same work for many years, but how was she to know? Payrolls are secret. Yet the conservative supreme court said that’s okay, and the GOP tried to filibuster the Equal Pay act.
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
Toon is good, but the “Anthony dollar” was a failure because folks couldn’t tell it from a quarter. Which, given inflation, maybe 25 cents is more accurate than 77?
braindead Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Definitely bookmark worthy. Thanks.
I Play One On TV almost 11 years ago
And don’t forget the SCOTUS threw out a wage discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart because it was so systemic that they felt it couldn’t be considered against one store, despite plenty of evidence for the case to be heard. Read that again until you understand the implications….
Boots at the Boar Premium Member almost 11 years ago
Here I thought the cartoon was a commentary on the declining value of a dollar, not the gender salary gap. One thing statisticians don’t account for is the crony component to salaries. A male boss looking to keep a male employee on will raise his salary higher and faster than a female boss looking to keep a male employee or a male looking to keep a female. I tried to find the article I read about the difference from a couple of years ago, but google is not your friend when looking for a needle on the interwebs.
Dtroutma almost 11 years ago
mdavis; Anthony dollar: 79-81 and again in 99. Okay, exactly HOW does Obama have anything at all to do with the “wreck” of that coin?
OmqR-IV.0 almost 11 years ago
Universal suffrage in my country of birth only came about in 1994.
Come on Tigger, I know you know where I’m from; why would I know about your country’s suffragettes?
lbatik almost 11 years ago
When I was working for EDS, it was company policy (probably still is!) that discussion/comparison of your wages with colleagues was strictly forbidden, and punishable by firing. It was in the contract you had to sign. In such a way, they could ensure that it was unlikely for a female employee to find out what her wage was in comparison to male colleagues, and that anyone who did manage to find out could be gotten rid of without having to invoke any other reason.
That’s why it took so long for me to find out that my salary was 2/3 that of my same-rank male colleagues, for doing exactly the same work for the same time with the same qualifications. (And no, no time off for pregnancy or kids.) I found out after I left.
Companies have no interest in changing this. Why should they?
And yes: managers tend to promote and favour those most like themselves. When the previous generation of management is white dudes, that perpetuates itself. And here’s the thing: it requires no overt sex discrimination at all, and in fact, many of those managers would probably insist that they are not being sexist – all it requires is an implicit and quite possibly subconscious assumption that whites and/or guys are going to be better at the job. So there, see, if they keep hiring or promoting white dudes, it’s just based on “who is best qualified”, right?
This, despite the fact that there is a large body of evidence that CVs submitted as anonymous or with male names are consistently rated as more desirable than the exact same CV submitted with a female name, and other such evidence that there is a fair bit of covert difference in judgement going on.
lbatik almost 11 years ago
Oh, sure, the fields that women go into are often less well paid in general. That might have something to do with the fact that women are still discouraged from entry into a lot of high-paid, high-status jobs. (.pdf)
And women have a disadvantage in that they are expected to spend more time doing childcare and eldercare than men are. “Family duties” are often assumed – an unquestioned assumption – to fall “naturally” on women.
But why is that? Because men can care for elderly parents just as well as women can. And once that kid’s outta the womb, men can handle bottles and diapers and school runs just as well as women can. None of these things require a uterus or lactation, not last I checked.
So when we hear that women “take more time out for family”, it’s worth asking: why? Why aren’t family duties more evenly distributed between men and women? Because sometimes it may be that women prefer this, but I know for a fact it isn’t always. And it’s those unquestioned expectations that bite the most painfully.