There's a hot debate going on in the Q&A feature of HP:
http://hubpages.com/question/151864/why … -for-women
But, the debate is limited by the format of the Q&A.
People have had a lot to say, a lot of pepper involved, but there's a limitation in the format about how people can respond and interact with each other. So, I'm bringing it here.
Read molometer's question and the responses. What do you think?
I'm thinking there's a lot to be said about this. I'd like to see someone write a Hub addressing the question. However, I'd also like to see a full debate.
I think the reality is, it's still a man's world out there, but in time, that will eventually change.
I'm not so sure it will, at least not easily. There is now a silence of women's voices, as there was not in the 70s and 80s, much to molometer's point.
Oh boy, that's for sure. (The silence - and I have a pretty good understanding of how that silence has developed among women, and it's a subject I've got so much to say about that I can't even reign in the thoughts and get a Hub, or any other piece of writing, started about it.)
I'd take REAL issue with the person on there that said (essentially) that there's no discrimination any more. It doesn't even particularly matter (or matter enough) what laws there are or aren't about equality. There's human nature, and often a lot of ignorance, and they're both things women have to deal with on a day-to-day basis, whether at work or in the personal lives.
Lisa, I know you will get the thoughts and words together about this topic. Often, my head is so full of stuff, nothing will come out that's coherent. After a bit of time it all comes together. When you write those thoughts, I'll be among the first to read.
The reason women are generally paid less than men for the same work is because they don't ask for more. They don't tout there achievements because they feel the achievements speak for themselves. They're on the resume, right? Wrong.
Just because something is on paper is not enough reason for an employer to offer you more money than the next guy. Women don't sell their abilities the way men do. Most women don't value themselves enough. I know we all say we do, we're brave and strong and blah blah blah. But the truth is, in the corporate interview, or any interview, if there is money to be had, we just don't ask for it because we don't know how to do it with aplomb.
IMO, as an employer, I can offer two candidates an amount and if someone can convince me I should pay them more, more power to them. But I need to be convinced, I'm not just going to hand it over.
I totally agree with you! I was working as a computer analyst about 10 years ago, and realized that I, as the only woman, was being paid much less than my male coworkers. I carefully wrote a letter requesting that this imbalance be rectified. I cc'd it to supervisors about three levels up. I didn't hear anything for about a week. Then, suddenly, I had a raise that amounted to about $15,000 per year! It doesn't always work, but it can be done.
I don't really understand what's so hard to understand about this:
It's risky to hire women: Women get pregnant, and if they do, the company gets screwed over for at LEAST a few months. Also, women generally follow "their man" to his new job, wherever that might be. Also, when married, the woman is more likely to stay home.
Take away ALL of these variabilities (it IS possible), and you actually find that women get paid more.
You can find such a study in the book "the case for discrimination" by walter block.
Evan, here's a challenge. Write a Hub citing Block's book and explaining your position. When you do, start your Hub by linking from the question here:
http://hubpages.com/question/151864/why … -for-women
I think we'd all like to read your thoughts on this issue. Plus, you'll have another Hub to add to your portfolio on HP.
When I was young and single (as were the men who worked with me) I got paid less then the men and asked my boss why - this was in a call center - and he said that women were less "authoritative" on the phone and not as effective as men. Then I got promoted to the job of keeping the daily call records - it turns out the women were all much more productive and "effective" than the men, but when I called this to his attention I was put off and an answer was never forthcoming. As I have had a fairly long working career I've had a chance to observe that although the women had children and maternity leave and homes to look after they have generally always been much better, loyal and hard-working employees. They were always much better at conflict resolution (something offices always need) and produced well. Still we got on average 20 to 30% less then men in equal jobs. I don't believe that pregnancy and "following their man" has anything to do with it, since women stay in their careers just as long as men do, sometimes longer, because we tend to have less health problems associated with high blood pressure, high levels of cholesterol leading to more heart attacks, and sports injuries, to name just a few. If you were to really reckon all the variables you would find that we are equal to men in every way in the work world and should be paid the same. I've also been told, after I was married, that I didn't need as much income because I was married to a man with a good job! It is a sexist world, that's all I can say!
Your comment is so rich and so to the point. Your user name isn't mega1 for nothing!
thanks, very much! I feel so passionate about this subject because it is one of those situations that must change, and it is very, very frustrating that it is taking so long! People (usually men) who argue that it is fair for women to be paid less usually have their own power issues and unfortunately, many of them are in a position to make pay decisions.
Four of my wife's friends have left their job to follow their man.
still, does that reflect the national trends? Either partner can follow their spouse's jobs - of course, if the woman is getting paid less, it means that her husband may not want to leave his higher paying job to go with her! That doesn't mean that women SHOULD get paid less, now, does it? Why the heck would anyone WANT women to be paid less? unless they have masculinity/power issues and feel they need to make more to be "stronger" than the woman? I'm saying all those old ways of thinking are on their way out and it is wonderful! The world will be much better for it.
Most of those variables are outdated.
especially because now many men take maternity leave too, and many follow their wives to new jobs - not to mention they have more heart attacks, injuries, and other health problems - and it may be true also that they are really not as good at teamwork, being more inclined towards competition and endless ambition!
Where I work as a nurse, the employees are paid based on position grade and seniority.
I make very good money and a lot more than some of the men, the same as some men, and less than others.
What's even better is that I love my job.
I am happy with the pay. If I work overtime I get double pay, not time and a half.
Wherever you are, someone before you worked very hard to make sure your job position and pay were not compromised by gender differences. You are among the fortunate in this respect.
In the early 70s I worked for a state university and had a great job, but when it came time for a promotion I was passed over in favor of a young man who did not have the experience and tenure I did. Some years later, that institution was the object of a class action suit that called for making retribution for failing to promote and compensate women accordingly.
Guess I'm blowing my own horn here, because I was on that front line of making a difference for the future of women in the workplace.
The very good news is that your job is not undermined by sex discrimination. That's a huge recognition of gender equality in the workplace.
I always enjoy your cryptic comments. Yours is a refreshing voice...sometimes, most times.
So on this one, were you stone cold sober?
I would like to see a hub on this too. In fact, several hubs from different perspectives (women and men, various professions, age variables, etc.) would be great.
As a lawyer who graduated nearly 18 years ago, I can say that I have not seen much - if any improvement - in my profession. Today, there are still more women than men that are enrolled in law school. Women often comprise the majority of graduates at the top of their class, with honors and accolades.
But if you look at the partnership levels in large law firms in the U.S., they are predominantly men. And the top earners are men 3-1 over women.
Many claim that this is due to the fact that women take time out for child-bearing and raising a family. Yet even those women who are either not married and/or have no children still cannot seem to break through to the level of success of their male peers when you look at the stats 5-10 years post-graduation.
This is a great topic for exploration. Thanks S.T.!
Wow, Steph, what a perspective.
So women may be taking the higher honors in law degree programs, but are still falling short in law firm partnerships, if I read your response correctly.
How is this system failing, where women excel in academia but are cut short in their career goals once they enter the market place?
I agree: I'd like to see articles that address this disparity from multiple directions.
Like I said above - women don't hold their own authority up to a high standard. They are, essentially, intimidated, into submission. Now, those are just words, don't everyone jump on me. I mean it in an understated way. We just don't project authority, generally speaking. High honors or no, if you don't speak up for what you deserve, you'll never receive it. If you do speak up and don't get it, move on. It's what men do. We don't. We keep hoping and giving them the benefit of the doubt. No. You need to blow your own horn, forget about the good old boys club.
In fact, some of these women should start their own law firms. Women attys. only.
That's correct! And I'm sure its not just in law, either. Lots of people weighing in on this thread have some good ideas/explanations, and I agree that it probably has a lot to do with perceptions of women as leaders (just think Hillary Clinton).
I may just be enticed to write a hub on this from a woman lawyer's perspective. I published a hub several years ago about the glass ceiling in general. Maybe its time to update and revisit the issue!
Steph, when you write that Hub, maybe you could start it by "answering" ("Make a Hub about it") the question here, posed by molometer on hp:
http://hubpages.com/question/151864/why … -for-women
His question is why I started this thread. The Q/A format on HP doesn't lend itself to discussion.
Let's face it. They have one up on us in the perceived authority department. In any profession. It's a rare woman who can rise to the level of this type of authority. She needs to sacrifice something in order to achieve it. Look at the top 100 female achievers in the world today. (Forbes Magazine) Each is a very strong figure and generally not ultra feminine or given to emotion, each has a definitive speech pattern without reservation, and each has carved her own way based on her own ideas and the way she decided to run her life.
IMO, it's difficult for most women to achieve this and we can't have it both ways.
This comment reminded me of something that went around a few years ago:
You make some good points from the perspective of the woman. But what about the points from the perspective of men and society in general? It shouldn't be up to the woman to prove herself by denying the virtue of her sex; it should be up to society to accept a person regardless of sex.
"Should" being the operative word here.
Is it just me, or does it absolutely boggle people's minds that women have stood shoulder to shoulder with men for as long as there have been men, yet we have only gained a modicum of equality in the last century???
I agree with you, ST.
It's not right to have to give up our femininity or any/all of the things that make us who we are. Because we are ok (no, more than ok) just as we are. We need to embrace the power that has resided in us all along.
Right now, it seems that the "women's libbers" of the 1970s are distant memories. Maybe its time for another uppity women unite uprising.
I do think it's time for another uprising. And that goes back to the original point of this post, which is based on molometer's asking in his HP question the same thing: What's happened to women's voices; why are they silent?
Sorry, I think you gals are wrong. You don't need to give up who you are, you need to extend who you are, blow your own horn but get the job done. Yes women have stood shoulder to shoulder, but historically they've generally gone back to their cakes and kids. The movement hasn't been around long enough and their still aren't enough high achievers in the public realm or in the private sector to change the public/general perception.
Having said that, you are misinformed about the corporate culture. There is equality there. You can wear a feminine suit with a fitted jacket and straight skirt to the board room. You can wear high heels and red lipstick. But you'd better get the job done by dealing from a place of authority without emotion.
Are there bastard male bosses? You bet. Are there bitchy female bosses? Yes. Neither is loved and has nothing to do with the overall picture of assessing your own qualities and achievements and going after the job you want. If you don't get it, don't blame it on being a woman. Blame it on the fact that you either are not qualiied or you did not convince the interviewer that you are.
CPC, I was just getting ready to say I agreed with you, then you called me a "gal" and told me I am "misinformed" about corporate culture?
Are you really saying my 30+ years of experience in the corporate world is wrong?
I was going to say you guys but thought I should change it lest I get my ahhbra ripped off.
I don't know your capacity in the corporate world. I'm just calling it like I see it. How would I say your experience is wrong? Are you referring to giving up femininity?
Exactly...that's what has to change...and that's what they fight so much.
But thankfully, not this young generation, from what I see...they do not have hang-ups about superficial things.
And hopefully, they will be the ones to make sure that we really ARE all equal, like us Fogeys love to spout off on, but rarely make happen!
I like what you say but don't share your optimism. This younger generation got their learning from us "Fogeys" and I'm not so sure we did the best job we could have. They may not have hang-ups about superficial things, but I do think they have no clue about how the difference in sexes can make a world of difference in opportunity.
True that. The feminism of the 60s and the rebellion against corporate America and the man did very little to change the face of it. The boomers who were the hippies are now running things. See any change? Some. Why? Because the machine is complicated and change takes time. Red tape and all of that.
Really, the only way to own your authority is to remain true to yourself. If you don't fit into a place because you don't want to change, change the places you try to fit in to. Work somewhere else, someplace that espouses the same beliefs as yourself. Don't try to buck the system. If you are an advocate for change, then be prepared to fight for it instead of whining about it. (not saying you're whining)
The only reason the ones you noticed are not "ultra-feminine" is that women who are more feminine than some of the "non-feminine" (in terms of the way you mean "feminine" and "not ultra-feminine") often can't even get anyone in the work setting (where women at least get to demonstrate SOME capability) to even imagine they may have the traits required for being at the top. In setting other than work settings, or else in order to break out of one circle into another, those feminine women often can't even break past those around them who don't take them seriously, undermine their efforts to break beyond where that are.
There's a line in the theme song from Pocahontas, "Colors of the Wind": "How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down you will never know." That kind of says it all about what happens to those "feminine looking/acting" women who do have ideas and answers and aims. They're cut down long before they ever get anywhere near the top at corporations, and mostly, maybe, because of the widespread assumption that more feminine women can't possibly "have what it takes" simply because they ARE, in fact, as feminine as they are.
Look at your choice of even using the word, "whining". No matter how smart, capable, strong, or independent a woman is, if she asserts herself by telling people they are underestimating her; she'll be seen as "whining" if she says it in a civil (but feminine) voice, and "b'tching" if she she's "less feminine" when she asserts herself and points out that someone else is over-stepping bounds, insulting her, not respecting her, and/or underestimating her.
Sometimes, nobody starts swinging an axes to cut down those "sycamores" until the trees start getting tall enough to cast shadows. That's often when the axes come out.
Men can whine and bitch as well as any woman. Don't let that stand in your way. kick some butt and stand up to this nonsense.
There's no standing up to a lot of it. The person who has it in his/her head that you're "less" than they are isn't about to take seriously what you say, whether you whine, b __ch, speak with complete reason and civility, put it in writing, or whatever else. They think you don't know what you're talking about or else that you're exaggerating or seeing things "in your usual fluffy and silly way". They can also think you're expecting too much to expect to be treated and respected equally to them, because in their mind, they don't/can't see you as their equal (and they really can't see you as possibly knowing more than they do). They may think you're a nice person. They may know that you know something about SOME things. They don't, though, think that you're someone who should be taken seriously on anything but those "few" things you "apparently do know about". It's not different than if a fourteen-year-old kid asserted himself in his belief that he should be able to go and do whatever he wants - except that we're talking about women who are in their twenties, thirties, fifties - whatever.
Hi Stephanie and everyone else here,
I have seen in recent years, the meager gains won so hard by women in the last 100 odd years, eroded so fast that it makes my blood boil.
Why is a woman that has worked for 20 years and paid her full contribution into the national insurance scheme here in the UK.
Told, when she cannot work through illness, that 'your husband earns so much that he can keep you'.
They did not say to her when she was paying full income taxes for those 20 years. You don't need to pay taxes as your husband pays such a huge amount already?
This is a clear double standard. I have serious doubts that it is even legal?
Even in the so-called professions we see these inequalities as mentioned above.
I remember when I was at college many years ago. It looked like there was a chance of real change. It has vanished.
Feminism has been reduced to a few celebs getting there boobs out and calling that 'freedom'.
Freedom to exploit themselves. They have done nothing to raise the expectations of young women. Some role models hey?
I wish they knew how hard their predecessors had to fight just to be able to vote in elections!?
I will write a hub on this, when I can think about it rationally.
It is a total disgrace and feminist everywhere should well and truly angry.
As a class of people, we are simply too honest and honorable and play by a set of rules/instincts that serve us well in one arena (family, home) but are polar opposite of what is needed to excel at work.
Not excel in terms of the quality of our work. Excel at the "game" of work.
We start out at a competitive disadvantage by being wired for peace not war.
This can be overcome, but we as WOMEN need to have special ops training so we understand the hidden rules and can play the same game.
I would be really interested to know whether women who have played competitive sports end up doing better in the workplace in terms of pay.
I don't have any knowledge of this.
Great question. However, it puts women into an arena of a boy's game. Yet, I like the question.
Absolutely. Studies have shown that girls who play sports, team sports, are far less likely to subject themselves to abusive relationships. That speaks volumes right there. It's only a generation away providing the education of our daughters remains in tact. There is no reason why a person can't stand up for their qualifications and request a salary, no negotiate a salary. The problem is women likely don't research the companies they go to work for. They don't research the medien salary in a given field. They have no starting point so they accept whatever is offered.
We went from burning our bras to filling them with silicone!
You see---this is why I love Pelosi;
"Nancy Pelosi announced today that the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee will hold a hearing Thursday on the issue of women’s health. The sole witness at the hearing will be Ms. Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown University, who was blocked from testifying at a recent Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing by Chairman Darrell Issa . Instead, Chairman Issa brought forward a panel of all men to testify on this topic."
She is not afraid of these men....she gives them what for. Yet, she is hated by a lot of women too.
Your time, energy and circumstances (hello, work-from-home moms!) do not reduce the value of what you do or produce. Value is value. It’s your job to better understand the value of your work to your customers, bosses and clients and then constantly improve on how that value is perceived so that you can truly make (lots of) money beautifully.
Unfortunately, “being polite” about money keeps us in the dark and under the thumb of ignorance. We simply don’t know the going rate for our services or understand the amount we could be earning. Only by talking to each other about what we charge, how we calculate rates, how much we earn in a year and what our earning goals are can we level the playing field for those entering the game.
Think about it as marketing. The product is yourself. It’s not your job to sell to the rich or artificially lower your prices to sell to the “masses.” It’s your job to match your product (you) with the people who need it. Those who prioritize it. Those who most acutely desire it. That’s the heart of marketing.
What’s holding you back from thinking of yourself as a high-end product? What competition makes you feel like you’re in a race to the bottom? How can you reverse that race? How can you set yourself apart?
That's how you compete in the business world.
They have less bargaining power and are considered lower in status. Most men are the owners of businesses and are in top positions who decide the salaries. The disparity is more pronounced in executive level positions.
Women don't have less bargaining power. Bargaining power comes from leverage. You earn or hold leverage by your skills, acquisition, education, experience and so on. We have as many opportunities to gain leverage today as any male.
You negotiate what you want. But you have to know how to play poker. You sometimes bluff but you do it with the proper authority and mostly have to have something to back it up. Women think being friendly and turning over a proper resume is enough. It's not. You negotiate what you want or you turn down the position.
right, but many women have multiple roles as a mom and wife and they are expected to do multi-tasking and thus their bargaining power is lessened by their circumstances. Most societies expect women to be the main caretaker of the home.
True. So priorities are always a factor. The women at the top sacrificed family life to get their. Most of us can't have it all without something suffering. That's exactly why the movement slumped. Generally speaking, women want a family life for the most part. It's the way we're wired. Personally, if I could be home all the time and make money, I'd do it. It's everyone's goal, I think. To be able to be in your own home when you want to be, doing something you love, and having money come in, however you want to slice up the time.
That woman is testifying about her friend, who needs hormonal birth control for health reasons, other than birth control.
When her friend simply couldn't afford them anymore, she grew a cyst on her ovary, and required surgery.
Pain and suffering brough to you by an ideology that is stuck in the stone ages.
But God forbid, grandpa can't get it up!
PLEASE, no one report that. It's the only way to say it!
There are a number of factors at play here. First of all, the premise is not entirely correct. A recent study indicated that in many American cities, single women actually earn more than single men.
On average females earn less than males. But this is increasingly less true with every passing generation. It is more characteristic of middle aged or older workers than it is of younger workers.
Insofar as women do earn less than men in general, one major reason is that women predominate in lower-paying fields such as nursing or teaching. Whereas men predominate in higher-paying fields such as investment banking or financial services. Many women are simply not interested in the high-octane, high-stress battlefield of day trading, where there is a LOT of money to be made.
Insofar as women earn less for the same work or the same jobs, simple discrimination is one factor, but there are others. Women are less aggressive in pursuing a raise or a bonus. Women take more time off (and thus lose earning potential) for children and family.
However, the majority of college grads are now women, the majority of advanced degrees are to women, male unemployment has risen much more than female unemployment in the recent economic crisis, and traditionally male-dominated fields such as manufacturing and construction have been declining for decades. All of these forces serve to increase women's prosperity relative to men's.
So the picture is not so simple.
No, the picture is not simple.
However, this statement of yours: "Many women are simply not interested in the high-octane, high-stress battlefield of day trading, where there is a LOT of money to be made" is completely out of line. How dare you, as a man, speak for women? Unless you have facts to back you up. On the other hand, in all fairness, I could say, "Many men are simply not interested..." And what kind of credibility would I have?
"How dare I?" Lol. Please. I have just as much right to speak about "women" in a general sense as you, and you have just as much right to speak about "men" in a general sense as me.
Moreover I am not "speaking for women." I made an analysis of women.
Anyway, I have plenty of facts to back up all of my claims, but I wasn't going to list them all, as that would be a book in the comment.
You have chosen to focus on day trading. Visit any trading floor or sales/ trading office in New York or London, and you will see a huge number of men, and very few women (probably a ratio on the order of 90% to 10%).
Now, there are several possible conclusions from this observation, either:
(1) There is massive institutionalized discrimination against women by the largest financial institutions in the world,
(2) Women are inherently less talented than men when it comes to quantitative analysis, and therefore are not hired for these jobs, or
(3) Women are not applying for these jobs in large numbers, in which case the qualified women in question are not interested.
You've explained your position well. Thank you for that.
You have answered your own question.
'(1) There is massive institutionalized discrimination against women by the largest financial institutions in the world,'
If you do not see that this is true then you are either naive or the devil's advocate!
That's quite a claim. I'd love to see the evidence to back it up.
Data on male and female job applicants to investment banks and trading houses?
Personal testimonies from thousands upon thousands of women in the financial sector (because that's how many we would need to support a claim of this magnitude)?
Stats on female college grads and their desired careers, versus where they end up?
Information on the gender ratio of individual/ at-home retail traders, versus those working in the big banks and hedge funds?
@couturepopcafe, you removed yourself from HP as an article publisher and have gone on to other venues to publish your words. You can remove yourself from this HP forum thread as well. You've shown in this thread that you have nothing to contribute here but flame. You don't even know how to spell Pelosi.
Why do you say that? I just give my opinion. Rarely call anyone out unless they're really a pill. What's you're real beef with me? I actually agree with secularist that most women and probably most men would neither want to be part of nor qualify to be part of Wall St., et al.
The forum reads well, CPC contributing much in the way of perspective, whether one agrees or not with that perspective. ST contributing a bunch of snipe.
By flame do you mean inflammatory? If so, you have the wrong person.
A life is a treasure chest of people, things, ideas, feelings, events, experiences, and relationships. Its contents can be gleaming and uplifting, dark and foreboding, or anywhere in the middle. You can lock this trove and keep it to yourself, or you can tilt the lid back and share, giving and receiving as you go.
Yes, typos happen.
I just posted a hub on higher paying unconventional jobs for women. The higher paying fields were male dominated until the last 10 or so years. I would bet the women are still getting less in some instances...
Interesting, Stacie...here's the link to your Hub:
http://staciel.hubpages.com/hub/Unconve … -for-Women
As I read through the job descriptions, I couldn't help but think of the jobs women took on during WWI and WWII. Rosie the Riveter wasn't a myth. Women have always handled dirty, physically challenging jobs. Thanks for a contemporary look into where women may be finding opportunities today.
The answer is pretty simple, women will not be in the workforce as long as men. They take maternity leave, take years off to take care of children.
You changed your comment...it was originally paternity leave.
Which is exactly why some people can't just "pull themselves up by the bootstraps"...they have responsibilites and no freedom.
Now, if a man wants to stay home and let the woman reach for her career....that would be a different story.
I have given the answer, y'all can argue all day about different reasons but that IS the reason. Women leave the job market earlier and more often than men, until that one fact changes women will be payed less.
Not all women have children and they are still paid less. Everyone should be paid the same for the same work, I don't know why that is so hard to fathom...
I got a raise a few years back when I worked in a university when the government brought in wage equality... but that was only government and educational workplaces. I was a library technician and before the raise we were paid the same as the parking lot attendants.
No not all women will leave, but on average women leave the workforce earlier and more often. Thats the answer, it ain't a conspiracy.
I have never left the workforce to raise children, so where's my equal pay for staying in the workforce? The only time I received equal pay, it was because I demanded it, knowing that they couldn't fire me, because they needed me. However, my employer still didn't consider my work worthy of the same pay as my co-workers, who were all male. This was even though my work was the basis and hub of most of the projects going on there at that time.
Frankly, I think very few women can afford to leave the workforce to raise their children these days. This argument is weak at best.
And who the heck is leaving the workforce earlier? Not me!
I don't think it's hard to fathom at all.
The actual truth is that women are having fewer babies now than at any other time in the history of humans.
Most women if they have a child at all, only have one. Many women are not having children.
Repairguy47 you need to update your information sources.
You're so right! And it is a fact that to own a home, have a decent standard of living, and just survive in most places there need to be two breadwinners - and that means that staying at home "for the kids" is almost impossible. The first job I had after I had a child was so low-paying that after taxes, the amount it took to support the job (clothes, transport, food, etc.) and childcare, I was making $1.20 per hour - so I was almost paying in order to work. I quit that job, needless to say. Later I found that it was still very difficult to make a decent wage as soon as HR knew I had little ones at home. Well, we never did earn enough to buy a home, and ended up divorcing partly because our income didn't cover everything and we were always arguing about how to spend the little we had. If I could do it over, I would skip that marriage and not have children. Maybe I would have found a better life partner, I don't know, but the status quo for women in the work world meant that I was screwed!
Sad but so common a story amongst so many women.
This is why many women are not having children and if they do it is much later in life.
Raising kids is never easy. At least when we are younger we can usually find the energy.
There are some tough choices being made out there.
I think many women are massively underpaid because they are too kind, cautious, loving, sensible, realistic and go into jobs that keep them in their place.
It is not right. I hope that we elect more female leaders But, hopefully, not like Mag Thatcher.
From across the pond, here...but would Hillary Clinton be OK?
sean - wow. Is it really that bad out there? Women go for jobs that keep them in their place? Not sure what country or century that's from but I know in my workplace, we're all paid at the same level within a bracket much like the nurse above. Of course performance raises vary but the corporate culture is not as bad as it once was. There are equality policies in place along with all the other policies.
To quote you
'Not as bad as it once was'
So basically it's still bad, but not so much?
That kind of logic is what is contributing to this mess.
Have you seen the accounts lately? I bet if you could you would be shocked in terms of who gets paid what!
Do you believe they are really telling you the truth?
Attitudes towards homosexuals aren't as bad as it once was, would you rather go back or start over?
You are correct Mrs Thatcher did nothing for women. If fact she turned the clock back several decades.
Because our society and country is based on paternalism.
These arguments about equal pay are so similar to all the arguments made against other equalities - no difference - just sexist, racist, ageist thinking that holds back our entire society! I especially hate it when I talk like this and someone will say "oh, you're quite the feminist, aren't you!" like that was a bad thing! I find myself becoming pissed off, strident, and loud - which just makes them feel justified in their thinking that feminists are strident, loud and overbearing!! Well, hell - deal with it, I say now - deal with it!
If you are on Facebook, you might be interested in this group.
I joined the group! really interesting dialogues there - I hope more men get interested in discussing this - otherwise we're just preaching to the choir!
You are so right about the value of men joining in a discussion like this. Let's see what happens. And ty so much for joining the group.
Thank YOU! I realize that often men feel attacked when they enter into discussion with "feminists" about equal rights. I just want to reassure them all, that just because we want equality, does not make us into ball-breaking, strident beeyotches who will go for the jugular - while that has been known to happen around me, I personally have never ever behaved like that!
I just get a tiny bit louder sometimes and sometimes I drool a little - but online, that shouldn't be a problem, so join us guys, we need to talk to you!
I am with you mega1. Kick their stupid butts.
YOU are definitely one in a million! I'd like to hear what people like you think we can and need to do about this gross inequality. I never hear elected officials at any level campaigning on an equality platform - they may toss off a comment of "support for women's equality" but there is never a follow up.
I need to collect my thoughts and I will write it up. I was lucky enough to meet some really powerful women when I was at college. They opened the floodgates for me. I can't believe what has happened over the years. It's like we all fell asleep on our watch!?
Well, I am watching my children and their partners, and am seeing the results of many of these changes. I think its ok that they are taking many of these hard-won rights for granted - it just means that they believe the way we want them to. I have noticed certain traditional role-playing happening, but there's this funny twist they put on it - and I will have to think about that more. There is definitely still the uneducated, rigid gender classification going on in the lower-working class - I don't know how that will change!
Because we live in a macho society. To equal skills and diplomas a woman will be paid less! Sad reality!
women are angry. feminists are trying to do something about it!
It does take laws and vigilance to overcome these injustices. I pray that somehow men who are so used to the power they are given as their right will someday have to experience similar discrimination and perhaps then they will also want to do something about. I have seen that only the men whose own wives and mothers and sisters have felt these pinches are aware and speak up about it. But often they can be aware and just say "such a shame" and that's about all. This provokes frustration and anger, too. If awareness is not going to help bring about change, just what IS it going to take?
Unfortunately, trying to adopt laws to address the situation is not going to result in meaningful change, either. This is because: (1) employers will and do "explain away" the discrepancies between pay or position based on individual circumstances; and (2) in the end, the laws will end up hurting women because people will claim that they are not qualified in fact to earn the salaries that they are required by law to be paid, and that they are just the beneficiaries of reverse discrimination laws. This will further undermine employment equality.
The fact that there is a generalized circumstance of men earning more than women exists in every profession, at every age (past the childbearing years, etc.) shows a a deep ingrained prejudice. This exists society-wide and is based on the mis-perception that women cannot or should not be strong leaders, especially in certain roles, and therefore they end up earning less.
For example, in our church, our woman pastor was recently forced out for "personality differences" between her and a group of older church members. During a meeting, these same members actually admitted that, if our pastor had been a man, her leadership qualities would not have upset them. In other words, a strong, directive woman in charge of the church was intolerable to them.
People will see what they want to see when it comes to women in the workplace (I have heard it all: "they are too focused on family," "why pay for maternity leave when they are not going to come back," and my personal favorite, "they don't have a family to support [unlike men who enjoy the 'breadwinner' role]".
What needs to change is the idea of what a woman is - and should be - both in the workforce and within society in general. You cannot easily legislate such change.
exactly! legislation has not done it - education may help - people speaking up everywhere and being aware of their own unknowing attitudes and changing - these are the only ways real change will happen. We need to encourage our daughters to be assertive when they go to apply for a job - and after they go to work for a company, continuing to assert their rights for equality - not only equal pay, but equal assignments and benefits.
Agreed, legislation has not done it, and never will. The root of this is much deeper, and I wonder about women raising boy children. I've never had that privilege. I wonder, what is the role of the mother in raising a boy? Where does this learning about equality/inequality start?
In my extended family, the boys are looked on as princes, progenitors of the next generation, catered to, forgiven, coddled. The girls are taught to accept their places as secondary to their male relatives. Sure, the girls are told that they can do anything, be anything they want to be, but when push comes to shove, the boys are given the advantage while the girls are given lip service, or worse.
What's a mother's role in the early learning of a boy child regarding equality or lack of between the sexes? I think it starts there.
Well said. We have more 'boys' being raised in single parent households now than at any time in recorded history. It has been like this for many years now.
The bulk of these single parents are women? Where are these boys getting their values from?
I am not 'blaming' anyone. It is to important for such silly assessments. There must be something fundamentally built into us as humans or is it simply being reinforced by society?
As I read your words and thought again about what I had said, I realized that I hadn't taken into consideration the role of the father in instilling a respect in his boys for the worth of women.
I'm not blaming anyone, either. I don't know where the problem of inequity between the sexes comes from, exactly. Certainly there's history, and there's cultural tradition. There's institutional influence spanning church and state. But in the end, women are second-class when it comes to wages.
True and this is the real issue. Why are they still second-class when we have laws to prevent this?
Because laws don't matter when you're dealing with people person-to-person.
Laws don't help when you're someone who looks like me, and the human-resources person who interviews you thinks anyone who doesn't look and sound more like Suzie Ormon (sp?) or Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada can't possibly have the right stuff for the job (no matter how "professional" your outfit looks or what you have on your resume). (I'm not looking for sympathy here, by the way. Just saying.)
One can't sue for discrimination when she's not hired because "she just didn't seem right for the job". Besides, there are a lot of other things that go on as well, and the laws don't/can't touch of them.
This then needs more work? why and how are these companies getting away with it still?
(I forgot to mention above, too, that I think the same kind of thing can apply when it's determined whether one person or another will get a promotion; or how much a new employee will be offered when hired).
I think they're getting away with it because it doesn't get put on record. I can't say for sure, because I'm no longer even in the corporate setting (and I was never in human resources at all); but I think there are all kinds of "reasons" that can be "on record" for not hiring, promoting, or offering x amount of money. These days it's probably even easier because there's always "we can't offer x amount for this position right now". Who's ever going to know that the hiring person was thinking of offering Candidate A (a guy) 80,000 a year; but when Candidate B (a woman) showed up with a better resume, all of a sudden what was not yet on paper (the offer) suddenly became 70,000?
I think what needs to be done is people need to be made more aware of the fact that women who don't look "sufficiently intimidating" just may be far more competitive, capable, or tough as someone who does. In fact, this may be a close-to-meaningless "improvement" in society, but I have noticed that at least different types of women are showing up in TV shows as professional women or women with powerful positions. Fifteen or so years ago judges on TV were often played by, for example, someone who had the look of Holland Taylor (the mother on Two and A Half Men). Today, there are women who look less intimidating who play police officers, judges, doctors, etc. Of course, the futility of even such a seemingly insignificant improvement in the messages being sent to the public is that people will say, "That's just TV. Police women in real life aren't like Katharine Ross."
My point isn't TV "messages", though. It's that there needs to be more awareness women don't have to look, sound, and dress like Holland Taylor to be capable. Where the real messages need to be sent is within the human resources field, for starters.
boys can get their values from their moms - and many do, even when they have dads in the home. Single parent homes - it all depends on how good is that single parent? If the single parent is young and inexperienced and hasn't fully grown up themselves, then there may be problems. But even then, the kids can become great people - the main variable that makes all the difference is the quantity and quality of love they get - beyond that there are many opportunities for single parents to get training and exposure to the opposite sex from the community. There's no need to get sexist about single mothers raising kids - there are a huge number of them doing a great job.
I believe one of them even raised a future president.
There are also many single parent mothers doing a dreadful job. That is not the point!
The point is why are women still paid less than men? That was and still is the real question.
The laws are in place and nothing has changed for the vast bulk of women!
Who raises kids is an irrelevance and is derailing the thread.
well, see, now, here it is where you guys brought up the subject of single parenting - not me! I just addressed the fact that single moms can instill good values in their sons!
but as for equal pay - I think I've said all I can on the subject - and so have we all - except how we're going to go about changing the attitudes of waspy men, mainly, who enjoy the the status quo. And since right now I'm feeling kind of grouchy about it, I should just bow out of the discussion, but I will read what the rest of you say and good things always come from these discussion. consciousnesses get raised!!
One more time, women will leave the workforce earlier and more often than men and thus will be paid less.
These days people, men and women, change jobs a lot more often than in the past; not always by choice. While they are there...if they do the same work, they should get the same pay.
In a perfect world maybe, but it takes money to hire people, to train people. Why invest in a person when there is a good chance they will leave after a short while? Averages hold that women will leave the workforce earlier and more often than men! Is anybody getting this?
It can depend on the woman and on the particular job/career in question. If more women had jobs that are careers in which they were being treated as equally as they should be, statistics might look different. Women who have careers (and even those who don't) often take a few months off after having one baby or two - and are then back in the same job. As UW has said, not too many people these days stay at one job for awfully long. At the retirement end of things, child-having and rearing are over anyway. Not paying women the same while they're doing the job, and using the "mother thing" as an excuse doesn't cut it. It's just one more way people use things that are associated with women as an excuse to try to justify unequal treatment.
I appreciate that I really do. Women will leave the workforce earlier and more often than men, and that is why they are paid less!!
well, cite your statistical sources, man - you can't just assert a thing is true and that will make it true. I just don't agree with you. And I am quite, quite sure, that this is not the real reason women are paid less, anyway.
I know you don't, and if I really cared I would take the time, but I don't. That's a lot of I's.
Hello to everyone and thank you all for your brilliant comments.
The comments reflect a wide range of beliefs and value judgements.
I am putting together a hub based on my original question.
I will of course reference all of your comments.
The comments will be attached to the hub to show the development of the debate.
I have moved my Q & A to my sub-domain and had a little wobble, as it appear that all but 4 of the comments had disappeared.
Luckily today the comments are all here Phew!
This is such an important issue, that I have undertaken to write this with the most up to date information, and this has been tricky to find. Plus there has been a ton of reading.
The question:- Why are women still paid less than men?
Requires my best efforts. I am hoping to have something to publish by next Friday. 30th March 2012 I thank you for your patience and support.
Hello everyone. This hub is now published and is getting a lot of attention as you would imagine.
I have linked the first set of comments to the bottom of the hub.
The original Q&A was 10 pages long last time I checked so it obviously struck a chord with many people.
Here is the link to the hub.
http://molometer.hubpages.com/_r6mvzzzh … -For-Women
I'm feeling grouchy, too, so you have company. Please don't bow out. Yours is a refreshing voice.
I think Obama has. He signed the Lily Leadbetter act, and put 2 women on the supreme court...as well he has a LOT of women in his administration.
Plus, a strong mate and 2 daughters......
I think his mom taught him right...no matter if she was CIA!
I do agree that Obama has made a good start and followed up on his campaign promises. I think, however, that we are trying to solve the problem from the wrong end - after the discrimination, laws are there to help. I think we need to do much more from the other end - education, required of all girls and boys in about 6th grade that will enable them to think beyond gender - I guess it is happening some places, but there needs to be more. And I think the government should sponsor class for parenting that include many things to help raise conscientious and aware children - and include "thinking beyond the boxes" of gender, race, age, religion - so that the attitudes that make employers pay less to women will change. Also so that we all can know that assertiveness - being pro-active for our individual rights - is a positive thing and it should be nurtured. If we keep allowing the discrimination to happen in the first place, and then expect women who have been taught not to be assertive to go to court to get what they should have had from the start - where is that at?
Women are paid less because companies can get away with it....no one will pay more that is absolutely necessary and from the past it was expected that women will eventually marry, raise children (and such are not very beneficial workforce concerning future) and if necessary they can rely on husbands' wages...
Time is changing and I am very optimistic seeing it from my daughters' point of view...today's young women are not concerned with 'catching a husband and have a family' as it was in past, but with the tertiary education under their belt they are happy to live independently and 'break the hard terrain of males' domination in their own term'...
My daughter with a Low and International Business degree decided to follow her own passion for a while - Environmental and Humanitarian Issues and works in open office with a group of young enthusiastic specialists from various fields. There are males and females (no one there cares or counts how many of which) and they are all paid the same, splitting the grants they manage to get:)
I believe the young generation has already started to forge their own way to the equal rights for women and men, maybe you can't hear or see it, but you will see the results...soon enough:)
I'm not sure I have the answer, but I can attest there are still problems. I wooed several years ago in an office where the managers traditionally gave men higher raises than the women. I asked why one man (who didn't do much) was given a raise not merited by his work. His manager, a woman, said she thought he needed more money because, "He has a family.". At the time, I was a single mom with two kids to support.
Just yesterday, I went to my brokerage firm to add money to my account. A nice gentleman walked up to the door at the same time I did, and opened it for me. Then a guy came out to see who needed help. The gentleman deferred to me, and I said, "I want to put dome money in my account." Meanwhile, someone came out and visited with the man who came in with me. I waited around, and the brokerage guy chatted with me, but didn't offer to help. Finally, the nice gentleman left and he realized we weren't together. It didn't matter that I'd clearly said I needed to put money in MY account - I was the Invisible Woman (wasn't that your hub, Sally's Trove?).
I think there are a variety of reasons. Many people are afraid to ask for a raise, others assume they must wait until it is offered. Some women are paid less because they are thought of as having a hubby or boyfriend to support them and this should never even be a factor. There are many professions such as Nursing that are female dominated but the women are paid less than men. Some women simply do not know how much value they bring to an organization and must learn it and learn how to ask for and get the higher pay they deserve or they will continue to lose financial ground.
Anyone who has the knack to do certain jobs well deserves a decent salary. This is under the premise of a meritocratic system. The dichotomy between the sexes is a fallacy. It all depends on whether you can prove yourselves to be astute and valuable, and possess qualities that will commensurate with your salaries.
Yet, many men have the prejudice that women are less powerful than men and that they only serve as ''housewives'' or ''minors''. Men assume that they themselves deserve the most authority, which, I think, is so absurd. This shows that men are so callous and aggressive.
As long as men can be enlightened and be more ethical, the conflicts between the sexes can be resolved. Men should be aware that men and women are humans, and everyone has their own rights to succeed
I think there are a whole series of hubs here. These issues have been dormant for far to long. Time something was realy finally done about this blatant inequality.
I guess it really depends on what the job description is....I certainly dont think that men should get paid more then women for jobs that can be done equally by both genders.
There are some jobs which are more geared towards women and some men....A man should not be paid equally for sewing a garment if he is slower and less qualified to do the job.
A women should not get paid equally if she cannot lift the same amount as a man at a similar job and do the hard work.
These are only examples but you get the idea. I know they may seem a little drastic but the point is clear. Some jobs cannot pay equally based on ability.
If the job is something that both parties are equally qualified for then paying the same amount for both genders should be a give! If not, then there is something really wrong.
My grandfather was a tailor. I think he would have something to say about the sewing issue.
There is something wrong when today women earn 77 cents on the dollar doing the same work as men. The statistics are in already?
Hey, my grandfather was also a tailor
where do you get those smiley faces? lol : )
smilie......colon, right parenthesis...no space between the colon and the right parenthesis.
UW and molometer, about tailors. Tailoring is an historical profession practiced by men. Although there are many women who have these skills, they are known as seamstresses or those who do alterations.
Any high-end department store that sells ready-to-wear clothing will have an alterations department (these stores are becoming hard to find). In the alterations department are mostly enormously talented women who can take a ready-to-wear item and customize it for a customer.
But, when it comes to tailoring an item of clothing from scratch, men get this title while women, even though they do the same work, working from measurements to patterns to finished garment, they are still mostly called seamstresses (notice the feminine form of the noun). Who ever heard of a seamster?
Great line of thought, especially from the two of you with your Scottish and English heritages.
March is International Women's Month, and March 8 is International Women's Day. There's a lot going on, and you might want to check out this website:
It's a door to a wealth of information about women's issues in the past and today, including pay differences around the world between women and men. Just type "pay" into the search box for more information than anyone can digest.
I believe that there are many reasons women continue to be paid less than men, even in female dominated fields such as retail, nursing, and gynecology. In some cases there are external factors such as discrimination or nepotism but I prefer to focus on what the woman herself can change or control. One reason is simply that many women accept their pay as being lower while others are afraid to negotiate even though negotiating for what they are worth can make a real difference in them living their lives or living & working in poverty.
Another problem is that where one woman won't accept a lower rate of pay, there is a huge supply of those who will. This goes back to the idea that something is better than nothing. But what is that "something" really getting her? Some women believe that flexibility is just as valuable if not more valuable than pay and there are many employers who will preach about flexibility being a valuable perk to avoid paying a woman what she is worth. Her aggravation surfaces when she starts complaining about her pay.
I know a single woman with a Master's Degree who is a teacher and works two jobs. I imagine she has little saved but I wouldn't know. I truly hope I am wrong for her sake.
I believe that a lot of women undervalue themselves, perhaps some consider their work to be a "calling" or consider themselves as martyrs of some twisted sort. Only those women who can be honest about their true value, money, and what privileges and security money can provide for them will ever be paid what they are truly worth.
by StricktlyDating2 years ago
If society expects equality, why do women still want men to pursue them?
by molometer3 years ago
Why Are Women Still Paid Less Than Men. What Has Happened To Equal Rights For Women?We have had the equal pay act since the 1970's and yet women still earn a third less than their male counterparts. Why is this...
by tdebrick3 years ago
Roles of a man and woman? Are they still ALIVE????With both genders contributing to the household does the roles still apply?
by Les Trois Chenes21 months ago
Why do women STILL change their namesAngelina Jolie has taken Brad Pitt's name but not vie versa. Why do women still change their names - sometimes several times?
by LindaQ794 years ago
Why are women still not allowed to preach in the Catholic church?
by realtalk2473 years ago
What are your thoughts on women who do not have children? Are women still defined by motherhood?Yahoo Parenting reportedIn an Allure interview, Jennifer Aniston addressed the motherhood issue: “I don’t like...
Copyright © 2018 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.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.