The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion
US politics
>
What Do We Think About This Schlafly Article?
date
newest »
newest »
http://being-classical-liberal.blogsp...Here is a brief little piece (not written by myself)that I think has a good voice on the supposed income inequality between the sexes.
The two biggest points I got from this articles are 1) jobs that are dangerous do not give the same advantages to women and 2) women are penalized because they have the ability to bear children. Both still wrong. Both still contribute to women making less than men.
By the way, that is a blog. These are reliable sources:http://www.americanprogress.org/issue...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/bus...
http://inequality.org/womens-wages/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/t...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMood...
No, men choose more dangerous jobs. That is not sexist, it is just the choices a man and woman makes. Women generally choose more social jobs, as administrative staff, academia and the like. Again, their choice. And if a woman takes a collective total of lets say 2 years out of the work force to bare children, that is two years experience that she didn't have experience in a particular area- her career. Two years without any distinguishable skills increased in a particular field. If a man took a collective total of 2 years off of work, he would show generally the same skill/experience/wage stagnation. You will also find in the sources provided in the article that when many of the variables are accounted for, in many cases women make more then men in certain fields.Plus, I want to reiterate the closing point of the article I linked to. If Women can be hired for nearly a quarter of the cost for the exact same work a man does, with the same quality, then why do companies not hire women? I find it hilarious that many progressives see companies and corporations as nasty, evil people who would sell their own family to make an extra dime in profit. . . unless they get a chance to be sexist. Its ludicrous.
This is just another propaganda campaign to keep us at each others throats instead of tackling real issues.
How about these links?
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/201...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
http://www.statcrunch.com/5.0/viewrep...
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/w...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/bus...
http://www.forbes.com/2006/05/12/wome...
Those are some of the links and sources given in the link I gave, reputable sources.
I think this report also comes in handy: http://www.consad.com/content/reports...And this quote from the forward:
"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous
conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a
multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify
corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be
almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
Jarod,None of the articles you posted support your argument. And the economic blog even suggests that a lack of government funds may be why the number of fatalities are not recorded, which I took as the "government needs more money."
Also, using the same blog, the hours women work full or part-time have increased since the seventies. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/201...
In the same blog post, "...women’s employment patterns had remained unchanged for the last three decades, the economy would be about 11 percent smaller, translating into $1.7 trillion in lost economic output in 2012, roughly equivalent to government spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." However, Schafly suggests women should work less so they can find a suitable man....
meaning women should be paid less... meaning women are paid less.
Also, in regards to the, ''Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action.'' There is already additional research out there, when you look at individual positions between male and female workers... male workers get paid more.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMood...
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/201...
The links I gave are for the source of the research and facts that support the original link I posted. They are footnoted in the original link. I think that rather gives more credence to the original link because they are using sources from a variety of areas.The increase in hours over the past few decades I think is irrelevant. Women still nationally work 35 hours to men working 40.
And I never said I supported Schafly or defended his remarks, but I found it an opportunity to bust the myth that women are paid less because of sexism. Workers are paid based on their experiences, relevant skills, previous quality of work, education.
I also thought this was a good quote from the Forbes link: "But what happens when women make the same lucrative decisions typically made by men? The good news–for women, at least: Women actually earn more. For example, when a male and a female civil engineer both stay with their respective companies for ten years, travel and relocate equally and take the same career risks, the woman ends up making more. And among workers who have never been married and never had children, women earn 117% of what men do. (This factors in education, hours worked and age.)"
I'm gonna restate that if men are paid more because of their sex it would be against the employer's best interest to hire males. After all, employers only care about the bottom line.
Hi Lee, I dread reading that article. You mean Phyllis Schafly is back? That's the worst news I've heard all week. I remember her well from the days of the ERA campaign. Thanks to her, it went down to defeat in Illinois and never became an amendment. I remember hearing her debate Karen DeCrow then national president of NOW and Illinois State University. Although she had six children and a full-time housekeeper so that she could have a career, she was bent and determined to prevent other women from having the same opportunities that she did. I'll have to work up the courage to read that article, perhaps later in the day.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04...