Men's rights group excluded from Toronto Pride parade

[onthebottom]

I suffer from homoapathy, I'm supportive but I really don't care.

In North America if you're a straight white guy your not a victim, everyone else has some special aggrieved status - that's Ok, who wants to be aggrieved.

 

[james t kirk]

I suffer from homoapathy, I'm supportive but I really don't care.

In North America if you're a straight white guy your not a victim, everyone else has some special aggrieved status - that's Ok, who wants to be aggrieved.

Good point, however I'm so fucking tired of all the victims out there.

I think I'm becoming more and more libertarian as I get older.

 

[BlueLaser]

gender pay gap is a result of women's choices from the U.S department of labour

http://www.the-spearhead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Gender-Wage-Gap-Final-Report.pdf

don't attack me attack the folks who created the report


A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to
pay less than full-time work.

A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child
care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who
were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of
children in the home.

Women, especially working mothers, tend to value “family friendly” workplace policies
more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly,
the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.


2.1.4 Career interruptions

The wages paid to workers are affected not only by the amount of work experience that a worker has
accumulated, but also by the continuity of the accumulation. Results from a statistical analysis of the
earnings patterns of male and female college graduates over time indicate that leave taken from a
career, such as leave for childbirth or for raising children, is associated with reduced income, and that
such interruptions are much more prevalent among mothers than among fathers. [Dey & Hill, 2007]


2.3 Summary

Extant economic research has identified numerous factors that contribute to the gender wage gap.
Many of the factors relate to differences in the choices and behavior of women and men in balancing
their work, personal, and family lives. These factors include, most notably, the occupations and
industries in which they work, and their human capital development, work experience, career
interruptions, and motherhood

I swear, why do people reply if they don't read? I already mentioned the US DoL report. It was rather biased, and at the end of the day, it couldn't entirely be supported.

You can't say, "Well, women are making choices," because that ignores SOCIETY influencing them to make those choices, which is the whole point here. Shortly after emancipation, some slaves didn't know what to do and were so institutionalized that they wanted to go back into servitude. So because people "choose" it, does that mean it's ok? Does that absolve society of responsibility? Women take on more work domestically, even when both her and her partner have equally demanding jobs. Why? "By choice" perhaps, but is a true choice, or is it partly institutionalized? Why are women not perusing careers in fields like engineering and technology? Because they have never had any interest in that field, or because society has never nurtured it in them? Even when men and women are entitled to equal amounts of leave for child rearing, women usually take more than men. Again, is that a real choice or due to pressures? And then there's the reality that will get me labelled a "male basher" I'm sure, but there are a lot more deadbeat dads out there than there are deadbeat moms, so how many women are FORCED to dedicate more time to child rearing and less to career advancement thereby skewing the statistics more?

Furthermore, while it's true that part-time work pays less than full-time work, the studies that actually look at this issues honestly and in a relevant way don't take blind statistics like that. They compare full-time pay to full-time pay. They compare men with 20 years experience in their field and a wife to women with 20 years experience and a husband, single men new on the job with single women new on the job, etc. The fact is that if a woman doesn't take any maternity leave, doesn't get married and dedicates herself to her career, she'll still retire making less and at a lower position than men with comparable education levels and experience. Those are the solid facts. Studies that don't acknowledge that, if you drill down to how they are conducted, are not attempting to control the data and are therefore saying, "Well, sure, women only make 60% of what men do, but look at all these factors." How the US DoL managed to attribute numbers to those factors without controlling the data is ludicrous. They basically "guessed". That's not how real science works. So narrow your data set. Take all women working in the financial sector that have never taken maternity, have no children at home and have an MBA from a reputable school and compare their income to men working in the financial sector that have never taken paternity, have no children at home and have an MBA from a reputable school. When the men in that narrow, controlled field are making 16% more than women, you can't chalk it up to choices in field of work, educational differences or interruptions for family reasons because none of those exist in this example. You can't explain away that 16% as arbitrarily as the US DoL did anymore. And this is how the bulk of the "real" studies are conducted. The US DoL should've tried doing real science instead of their half-assed stab in the dark at how maybe science can be done.

DoL decided right off the bat the gender wage gap could be explained, then gathered data on the gap and sought out ways in which the data collection was skewed. That's half the battle. But they didn't take it all the way. The next step would be to devise a way to isolate those variables and examine the result. By not doing that and simply listing the variables, all they did was explain how their study sucked and was grossly flawed. They have no control group, no way to normalize data, and somehow came up with the magic response that all the reasons they list account for a 23% difference in pay. How did they do that? Is every month of maternity leave 1% and their choices of fields of work is 15%? They don't say. They just say, "Yeah, not sexism. Here's a bunch of data, with no control group, no normalization, and here's all the factors that account for a 23% margin of error because we say so. Just trust us. It's legit. Honest." Sorry, I don't trust them. And if you do, you should rethink your standard for scientific inquiry.

 

[Butler1000]

Actualy BL the one factor you haven't mentioned is salary negotiation. From what I've read in more than one acticle on this men are much more aggressive and better at it when seeking a position and at yearly reviews.

I know when my SO was seeking a new position and getting offers I had to actively encourage her to demand more(she would have settled) for both the high end of her pay scale and extra vacation time. She had good reason beyond her qualifications to do this when I showed her certain variances in compensation between positions.

Men are making more because they ask for it. That is a very big part of the reason these days.

 

[BlueLaser]

Actualy BL the one factor you haven't mentioned is salary negotiation. From what I've read in more than one acticle on this men are much more aggressive and better at it when seeking a position and at yearly reviews.

I know when my SO was seeking a new position and getting offers I had to actively encourage her to demand more(she would have settled) for both the high end of her pay scale and extra vacation time. She had good reason beyond her qualifications to do this when I showed her certain variances in compensation between positions.

Men are making more because they ask for it. That is a very big part of the reason these days.

That's the same as saying they're making a "choice" to work in fields that have lower incomes. Is the argument that it's ok to pay them less because they ask for less? That also doesn't change the fact that women, with equal qualifications, will make less. And it doesn't explain everything else. The most eye-opening, as I mentioned before, is the post-MBA study that not only has male grads making more, but in higher ranking positions.

You can't call men the underclass when they make more money, have an easier time finding work and get promoted over women regularly. That's the entire point I'm making. The people that bemoan programs to support the advancement of women or minority groups and call white males or straight males or straight white males the new minority or claim it's reverse discrimination or say everything is against them don't leave in reality and are obviously selfish and want a world where their dominance over others can be maintained. They want all the opportunities and advantages possible, and want to keep the roadblocks in place that hinder others. If the playing field really was level, straight white males would have to work just as hard as everyone else.

The funny thing is the people that see these programs for non-white males as holding them back are finally getting a glimpse into what the world is like for disadvantaged people. Seeing all these opportunities that aren't available to them pisses them off. So while they retain the advantage, they are starting to feel slighted and edged out. This is a tiny fraction of what it feels like to be a woman, or gay, or native in our society. And white males already can't handle this sliver of the experience. Instead of realizing how horrible these other groups must feel and having empathy for them, they lash out.

I'd like to see a day when the playing field truly is level. I work hard, and I'm not impressed with some of the white males at my level (which is predominantly white males) that are some of the laziest I've ever met. I'd like to see some of the hard working women, Hispanics, natives, blacks and gays in my company advance more, because the more hard-workers at my level means the less the burden falls on the rest of us. For purely selfish reasons that benefits me. But I also would like to see them advance because they deserve it. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happening.

 

[Butler1000]

BL. Its business. If I was an owner and I can get someone for less I would. That's good business. Many ads come with a salary range. And there is nothing wrong with asking for more. Men seem to be better at it. Ask any human resourses director. They will tell you.

Stating its not "fair" is really naïve when it comes to this. Since when do businesses have to pay top dollar every time?

As for things like paterity leave I've seen ladies take jobs for a year, go on mat leave, come back for 6 months, get pregnant, go on again, and quit. Happens a bit more often than you think. Again ask any human resourses director.

On the other end I've seen some very successful women out there who do ask for top dollar. And get it. And that's why they are successful. They are percieved as worthwhile.

 

[BlueLaser]

BL. Its business. If I was an owner and I can get someone for less I would. That's good business. Many ads come with a salary range. And there is nothing wrong with asking for more. Men seem to be better at it. Ask any human resourses director. They will tell you.

Stating its not "fair" is really naïve when it comes to this. Since when do businesses have to pay top dollar every time?

As for things like paterity leave I've seen ladies take jobs for a year, go on mat leave, come back for 6 months, get pregnant, go on again, and quit. Happens a bit more often than you think. Again ask any human resourses director.

On the other end I've seen some very successful women out there who do ask for top dollar. And get it. And that's why they are successful. They are percieved as worthwhile.

I never said people should be forced to pay more... You're not listening.

If we're talking about the difference in rate of pay between women in men in our society, you can't remove society from the equation. If women consistently undervalue themselves, we can't just shrug and say "oh well, that's what they asked for." If women come in and take mat leave, then return and take mat leave and quit, we should ask ourselves why men come in, transfer pat leave to their wives and keep working. We obviously have societal pressures or have created a society where child rearing falls largely on the women. You can say they chose to do it, but if it's an institutional thing, you need to examine if it's society's pressure that makes them choose. Like I said before, shortly after emancipation, a lot of former slaves wanted to return to servitude. That doesn't make slavery moral. You can also look at large numbers of women that come from middle eastern culture that want to remain covered all the time and subservient to males. They make that choice, but is it a choice or is it cultural? As a society, these are the questions we need to ask. When women practically shun entire fields of study, like engineering and technology, it's hard to argue they're simply wired differently and not consider that we're failing to recognize and nurture them in those areas when they do show interest.

Besides, you failed to address the issue of things like the post-MBA study which found women are given lower-ranking jobs and less pay. You can argue they aren't negotiating well, but you can't argue mat leave, unless your argument is that HR shouldn't hire them because they MIGHT get pregnant, take mat and leave, which I can't imagine is your argument because that's ridiculous.

There are SOME very successful women out there. Absolutely. But that doesn't balance the scale. The reality remains that a woman can expect to make up to 20% less than a man for equal work, even if she shuns family, and she can expect to be passed over for promotions. The women that are successful aren't working as hard as men to get there, they're working MUCH harder and have a little bit of luck along the way. That shouldn't be the way. They should be able to succeed equally for working the same amount and without the luck. That's why men whining about being an underclass or bemoaning the lack of programs designed to help them succeed is a complete joke. They already succeed without help.