Well, i think because most of the women have not yet get out of the shell where she is confined.
Nice answer,,,,,nd what shall happen when they do so?
They could be far better off than men... Women tend to be more committed on what they are doing but they are emotional or easily be hurt.. Women are not strong enough to face rejections ending to covering themselves by men...
What century you are in, SM? We can tolerate emotionally amd physically much more and for a longer period than men. We recover faster from our emotional scars and with less damage. The only problem, if it is a problem, not everywhere society is ready to tolerate that. Tradition is still strong. We do not posess pure physical brutal force. We cannot lift 100 pounds, but it is not something that required that often. That's why certain professions are out for us. A woman can work two jobs, take care of 3 small children, cook, clean in her house, take care of her husband and his business, and look great (sometimes). What man can do that???
I am not saying that it is for everybody.. but that's for most of the women.. I may not belong to that group or even you as well.. We can do a lot of task maybe more than men can do.. Another thing is that the high earning positions do not need physical brutal force..it needs risk takers and free flowing minds. it has been studied that women are more affiliated with family or children. We think of other things before going or focusing to career- as you have cited...
It's not that I do not believe what you are suggesting as reflective of reality here is valid - it's more that you failed to provide any data specific details. . . .
Look through the statistics closely, and you'll find an indisputable pattern:
Women who get married make less money, women who don't get married earn on par.
The finding makes sense: women in general will move to their husbands job (if a move needs to take place), and thus will sacrifice their own career. Women get pregnant, and thus have to sacrifice a huge amount of time whenever they get pregnant. Women tend to stay home and take care of homes, which both lowers their market value and increases their husband's market value (trust me, "I'm married" makes a difference in a job interview).
And don't take me for a male jerk-wad. I was in the middle of graduate school with countless women looking to strike a career of their own. One day a teacher told us a story about a woman trying to become a teacher, but who was not being paid enough. The girl sitting next to me, without thinking, blurted out "She needs to find HERself a MAN!". We all know it's true, women WANT rich husbands. Numerous women I've talked to have also said that they definitely take "his career" into question when determining whether they'll marry a guy or not.
I'm not a male chauvinist pig, but women and men are built differently. This difference has a very profound effect on our lives. This effect makes men more likely to succeed in the market if they're married, and women are more likely to be a bit subservient to their husband's desires. *Not always, but more likely*.
I await the oncoming onslaught of feminists to yell at me.
No, actually I think you're right - as a broad generalisation.
Of course the trouble is that many people (probably the majority) translate the sentence "This is generally true for women" into "This should be true for ALL women". So those women who don't conform to the norm have to battle against the assumptions made about them by people who believe that all women act and think the same way. And often the worst offenders in the "assumption" stakes are other women.
Sorry, this is just a joke:
I had to point out that you said "a broad generalization" and we're talking about women.
I love puns.
To say a bit more: Numerous women I've talked to about careers have openly admitted what I've written above.
"My mother told me I could marry a rich man... or, I could not....", one employed woman told me.
"When we have kids, I'm gonna stay home to raise them", another has told me.
And countless stories of the like.
Sure, women make less in the workplace, but for God's sake, they kick ass at home. My mother made me dinner almost every night of my life, took care of me, and has known almost every thing about me for my entire life. My dad still can't remember that I'm deathly allergic to peanuts, but he paid for the whole life.
Men and Women are teammates, we just have different jobs!!
It was entirely unintentional lol. To me, "broad" means either (a) "wide" or (b) "a stretch of fresh water in the county of Norfolk". We are two nations divided by a common language.
Yeah, but. Not all women are the maternal, nurturing "know everything about their kids" type. This is the crux of the problem - the vast majority of people (both men and women) seem to buy into a "men are all x, women are all y" mindset whereas it's actually a case of "most men are x most of the time and most women are y most of the time".
Not being the maternal/nurturing type, and being mentally "wired" in a different way to most women, I have throughout my life been on the receiving end of blanket assumptions of this kind - from both men and other women.
An example I can think of is the book "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus", which makes HUGE assumptions about the differences between men and women in relationships - which probably are indeed true for a lot of relationships. But when it comes to describing the way that I behave in a relationship, the book is as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.
I think you are right that, broadly speaking, women tend to make choices that make it harder for them to compete with men on exactly the same level in the workplace. However, it is also true that sexism, mostly unconscious sexism, still exists in the workplace and is also a factor in lower wages for women.
I heard this argument about sexism that went something like this:
you'd think that if chauvinist pigs wanted to degrade women, they would want to hire MORE women!! The only way to hire more women would be to offer more money.
Also, if women are consistently being paid less money but actually are doing the same amount/quality of work, then they would be sought after in the market place: who wants to pay an ugly man 50% more (if women get paid 33% less, then that means men get paid 50% more) for the same work when they could hire a cutie pie for less money?
Anyway: the "men are sexist pigs" argument doesn't really hold much water.
Hi Evan. You're a bright guy, but you have a tendency to discount the fact that humans often do not behave rationally, but instead act upon inherent biases. Sure, sexism (and racism) would not exist if people only used their rational minds to make choices. In the real world, people make stupid choices all the time, and many of them are based upon gender bias.
Right, so if the men hired nothing but men, then women would easily be able to be hired.
And, I dunno, I guess i just refuse to believe that enough profit-seeking capitalists would ignore "cheap labor" enough to make the difference in wages.
"Men are sexist pigs" is an uninformed way to discuss feminism and sexism. Sexism is a cultural system that affects all of us, men and women.
It's not anti-feminist to point this out. In fact, it is systemic sexism that creates these conditions. In a society in which childcare falls almost entirely to women, of course women will have to make career sacrifices. Men don't have to choose between children and careers because they can safely assume that their wives will handle the tough choices.
The wage gap is also self-fulfilling. Where the wife out-earns the husband, it is often the husband who will move for her career, and it is often the husband who will stay home to care for babies. So, if it's the lower-wage earner who makes the sacrifice (which is sensible), the economy is structured to continue the status quo.
Wives are considered an asset, and married men are more frequently promoted than single men. This is, again, because of the "Second Shift;" having a woman around to do all that exhausting extra work is great. But the same "marriage bonus" isn't there for women, who are penalized for having children in the workplace. That makes it a much easier decision when it's time to figure out who will stay home with the kids. Hmmm, lemme think, the one who's suffering in her career because she had kids anyway? Or the one who's being rewarded at work for having kids? Decisions, decisions.
The glass ceiling still exists. Women, even single women, are promoted less (look at the recent Walmart class action). Therefore they earn less even though they may earn the same as men in equivalent jobs--because they get fewer of those jobs.
I know we all want to believe that gender roles falls upon "culture", but I MUST protest.
Can you identify ONE SINGLE SOCIETY where men were NOT the warriors? Where women were NOT the caregivers? where men were NOT the workers? Where women were NOT the nurturing side?
I've asked this to my professors and fellow graduate students who demanded that gender roles were culturally based, they have yet to give an answer.
If NOT A SINGLE CULTURE EVER has had these gender roles switched, then that's one piece of pretty damning evidence that gender roles are genetically based.
Also, you're analysis that:
"Wives are considered an asset, and married men are more frequently promoted than single men. This is, again, because of the "Second Shift;" having a woman around to do all that exhausting extra work is great. But the same "marriage bonus" isn't there for women, who are penalized for having children in the workplace."
Seems to imply that women and men are at war with one another. It's not just you, but this entire debate pits men against women. It actually begins foisting wedges between marriages.
Being married is a fantastic bonus to both spouses: one CAN stay home and do all the house work (in every society, this happens to fall more to the woman), and one CAN go to work and get raises because they can work harder (this has been men in every society).
Don't act like "going to work every day" is some sort of blissful event that everyone looks forward to; and I promise to act like "staying home and cleaning up after the family" is a blissful even that everyone looks forward to.
Women are sooooooooo being discriminated against! And the worst part of all this is it's 2011! The world should move on. Anyways...to answer your question....it's because people who believe that women r weak are haters and losers!
Indeed, I would certainly be distraught to be considered a "hater" from anyone's perspective. However, such an argument holds little water.
It requires TWO steps of logic:
Think of it like you're a Male-Jerk Employer.
You have 2 options:
1) Hire some guy who's ass you can't stare at all day for $30/hour...
2) Hire a cute girl who does the same amount and quality of work for $20/hour.
If you're a Scum-Bag, Male Chauvinist Pig Employer, which one would YOU choose?
The consequences of hiring women over men.
If all the Male-Chauvinist Pig Employers were competing for cute women who work as well as men, then the price of hiring a woman would increase because they are all competing for the work of the women.
Also, the price of hiring a man would decrease. "I can't get a job for $30/hour ANYWHERE!! I guess I'll have to charge less!", would be the refrain from the men.
Sexism can not be the culprit. Or, at least, it can't be the ONLY culprit.
The majority of people who make the 'power decisions' are men.
When women lead or take over more positions of power ,wages will change and stay changed.
It needs to be a political change however.
When will the USA have female President I wonder ,same answer,when the old farts ,oops I mean older men have stepped down.
2nd part to consider too is this:
Not all women can do the same job as a male might,so I think its important to choose the best person for the job and never chose soley on gender.
Thats my 2cents worth.
Where I live in Birmingham, the city council was taken to court a few months ago, because the women employees were paid much less than the men for doing the same jobs. Birmingham City Council lost the case and was ordered to pay back-pay to their women employees. However the council has appealed against the ruling. This is a council which prides iteself on its equal opportunities, regarding race, religion, sexuality etc. Yet it seems to see nothing wrong in paying women less. Based on their views, it would seem that women still have a long way to go in being considered a truly equal part of society.
It's a shame, really, but nothing holds longer and more conservative than a tradition.
Simply stated- Inequality continues to exist in America and that "inequality" is based on many different factors, which are on a social, personal and business level.
I came to Canada from a society where all people where just members of this society, no distinction of men and women, no excuses, no personal rights and freedoms. Women used to do lots of men's jobs with the same miserable equal salaries. We did no expect favors. I was shocked in Canada, but it's a different story. If a woman treats herself as a weak emotional wreck, what she can expect from society? The proof is in the puding, but you have to make it first!
We all make choices that affect work-life balance, careers and income. Some women place a higher priority on having children and raising a family than they do on having a career. They might not take the job that requires 60 hours a week and extensive travel, but that has high earnings potential because that's not their priority. These women might not earn as much as other men and women who choose their careers over spending time with their families. Neither choice is better than the other, only different. But there are consequences of making each choice. One of those consequences might be lower pay.
The lower pay is not because someone is a man or a woman, it's because of the choices they make and the priorities they establish. But the biological reality is that women can get pregnant and have children; men can't. So they are more likely to prioritize children over a career.
I spent many years managing staffs of both men and women. I paid them equally IF they had the same skills and experience and a similar position. Other factors included behavior, teamwork, the quality of their work and how many hours they dedicated to the job.
If a woman dropped out of the workforce for 10 years to raise children (like my wife did) and came back to work again, I would not pay her the same amount as someone who had been working for me for those last 10 years in a similar position.
Just because you have the same title doesn't mean you should get the same pay.
And by the way, I would do the same to a man if he dropped out for 10 years to be a house husband.
Yup, 85 years ago, today, in the States, women gained civil liberties. But, your question is vague. Where are you speaking from? If America, generally speaking, females are earning the same, if not more than males, in nearly every sector and position.
The "wage gap" has closed in the last half decade and does show a slightly lower wage for females, which is primarily due to females who work from home, are temp/part-time employees or thoroughly non-working STHM's. As of 2013 women, in general, were no longer considered minority. If fact are nearing the majority.
However, am not familiar with the rest of the world on this issue, like Central/South America, Middle East, Asia and Africa...pretty much 80% of the planet. Ha!
by Steven Escareno10 months ago
According to young turks, a new line of sexy lingerie is being mass produced specifically for men that want to wear them. It's also interesting to note that the company making the undergarments are saying that...
by Minta12 months ago
So I work in a museum, and yesterday my position was to accompany people in the elevator from one floor to another and explain to them what their trajectory is.I spend a long time there and I observe how people act and...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
Mitt Romney thinks so.Yet almost 64% of moms with young kids work.What's the solution here?Romney said in Tuesday’s interview that he thinks it’s preferable for one parent to stay home when children are young. The...
by Emunah La Paz3 years ago
The Definition of Unattractive is: as follows: plain, ugly, unappealing, unpleasant, hideous, unlovely, unprepossessing, unsightly, ghastly, revolting, repellent, repulsive, repugnant.However, can this description...
by Felixedet20005 years ago
What do you think about the promotion of same sex marriage?The adoption of this pattern of marriage is also a source of concerns to various stake holders in the religious and political circles.What is you say in all...
by lovelylovergirl4 years ago
It is my unfortunate insecurity speaking. My past boyfriend would make it seem like he could get any girl he wanted. I always so lucky to have him. Not just him, I have had a history of boyfriends who made me feel...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.